We also have plenty of time series data from effectively instituted lockdowns worldwide. Excess deaths rise prior to the lockdown, in line with but greater than reported COVID deaths. They continue rising until median COVID- time-to-death days after the start of lockdown. Then they fall, sharply, dipping below regular excess deaths (and tracking the fall in COVID deaths). That isn't a pattern that fits the "maybe some other factor like the lockdown itself caused the spike" hypothesis, and it is also the pattern that was predicted by the scientists advocating the lockdowns.
Sure, some deaths are caused by lockdown, but the evidence suggests a pattern of the deaths which have been[1] caused by lockdown being [more than] netted out by normal deaths prevented by lockdown.
Some days it's cold, and anthropogenic climate change models are just fancy math, but this doesn't make all climate hypotheses equally plausible
[1]there's a plausible argument lack of medical attention during lockdowns and/or long term economic consequences may have a significant death toll in future, but that doesn't affect the "excess deaths reported during COVID have matched COVID spikes evidence
Nobody is disputing that excess deaths are happening, the question is why they're happening.
Again, not sure why I can’t reply directly to timr, but the data in the graphs on EuroMOMO is not spelled out, it’s just data. That’s no reason to dismiss it?
You can start by asking questions like- why do some neighbouring countries have different profiles? Why do some not have any excess mortality? Why do some have multiple spikes?
It's interesting how you can't suspend your credulity to encompass the idea that there are alternative hypotheses for excess deaths, but you are more than happy to assert the existence of "vast datasets" to defend your own opinions.
Here are a few plausible alternative hypotheses that actually have substantial backing evidence, which can be obtained with trivial googling:
* Excess deaths due to missed treatments (we know this is happening, e.g. for cancer)
* Excess deaths due to untreated acute medical emergencies (e.g. physicians in NYC noticed the curious phenomenon of heart attacks disappearing from ERs during the height of lockdown
* Excess deaths due to drug and alcohol abuse (again, we know it's happening)
I'm sure there are many others worth consideration. My point is not to assert that any of these are automatically true, but that they merit consideration, and anyone who doesn't fairly consider them is probably not engaged in good-faith debate.
Please list them.
We have data about deaths going back many decades. It's very safe to say that if in 2010 you made a prediction about the number of expected deaths in 2011, you would have been very close to the real number. Same if you had predicted the deaths for 2019 in 2018.
Suddenly, after decades and decades of being almost perfect in your predictions, you would have been wildly wrong for the predicted number of deaths in 2020.
After decades of predictability, there was a whopping 20% increase in 2020 [1]. How can you possibly say it wasn't caused by Covid?
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361