Our Failed Covid Policies now a Women’s Health Crisis
Based on the CDC data
This is a shorter take on a recent post. There’s a Women’s Health Crisis – or, at least one for biological females – that American public health officials and the MSM have been strangely silent on. Easier perhaps to show than tell. My findings below based directly on CDC data: Provisional Death Counts for COVID-19. (Accessed for this note on 19 January 2022).
We will take 2020 as our baseline year. We will compare the results from 2021. This is using American CDC data [source]. Below, expressed as a percentages, all biological female deaths in 2021, and in 2020. According again to CDC data, and divided into two categories of death (also based on CDC data): With Covid; Non-Covid (no Covid involved; so no Covid as a contributing factor).
So what should stand out right away: most of the red bars are bigger for 2021. In fact, the red bars have more than doubled for the Age Ranges 0-17, 18-29, 30-39, and 40-49.
We will quantify what that means shortly – according to a standard comparison metric, Relative Risk. But let’s agree right now: this is NOT good news. This is not progress.
Keep in mind, in 2020: no vaccines. In 2021, vaccine rollouts and mandates. Also in 2021, more Covid-based (we were told) restrictions, lockdowns, mandates, et cetera. So we had every reason to believe than 2021 would be better than 2020. Only the CDC’s own data says otherwise.
Let’s use a standard measurement for comparison, Relative Risk. We are considering your risk of Dying with Covid for 2021 / Dying with Covid for 2021.
So let’s say just for reference, your age and sex group had a low risk for 2021: say, 0.05. And your age and sex group had a low risk for 2020. Say, also 0.05. Your relative risk for 2021 compared to 2020 is 0.05 / 0.05. In this case, RR = 1. No difference!
What if your risk for 2021 was 0.025? Then, your RR is 0.025 / 0.05 or ½! 50% You cut your RR in half. Great news!
What if your risk for 2021 was 0.1? Well, an increase like that could never happen with all the vaccines and mandates and so on. Right? Just suppose. Now your RR is 0.1 / 0.05 or 2! What? You doubled your relative risk? How is that even possible?
Let’s see the results.
Bad news, particularly for the Age Ranges 0-17, 18-29, and 30-39. Biological females in these age ranges had a 2.5 times (or greater) higher relative risk to die with Covid.
Age Ranges 40-49 and 50-64, relative risk doubled. Let’s call Age Range 65-74 a near-push.
As for Age Ranges 75-84, and 85 and older, we should be careful about celebrating these two seeming exceptions. One possible explanation is an extremely unpleasant one. Our first year of Covid, 2020, with the various nursing home fiascos might well have culled the most vulnerable members of the 85 years and older population.
So far, no criminal charges against Andrew Cuomo, former governor of New York; nor against Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan.
But please consider contacting your elected official anyway, and ask what is being done about this (thus far) silent Women’s Health Crisis. Thank you.
You want some hard numbers?
The data behind this graphs, please. No problem! In fact, you can have my code as well: at Github repo Covid2021vs2020. You can even explore the data tables and images interactively at a dashboard I made: Covid in the USA: 2021 vs. 2020. And you can always download the original CDC data source.
But let’s walk through the process, okay? Feel free to skip this part if you’re not a number-cruncher, or if you already understand well relative risk, or if you want to confirm everything on your own (which I strongly encourage).
We start with 2021, which we will compare against our baseline year 2020, the year without vaccine mandates and so much more.
2021 Key Stats
So again, the probability risk for 2021 is Deaths with Covid / Deaths All Causes. So for Age Range 18-29, for example, that’s 1472 / 17780 or 0.0828.
Let’s move on to our baseline year.
2020 Key Stats
So the probability risk for 2020 is Deaths with Covid / Deaths All Causes. Again, for Age Range 18-29, in this case it is 548 / 16962 or 0.0323.
Let’s keep our example of Age Range 18-29. Our Relative Risk calculation is year_2021 / year 2020. Which is (1472 / 17780) / (548 / 16962). Which simplifies as 0.0828 / 0.0323. Which gives us the value we saw in graph: 2.5626.
For Dying with Covid, the relative risk for biological females in the Age Range of 18-29 increased to 2.5626 in 2021 compared with 2020. I ask again: is that progress to you? I sincerely hope not.
Relative Risk for Biological Females: 2021 vs. 2020
But so far, the MSM and the American public health establishment have ignored the Dying with Covid gap as it pertains to biological sex. This may please the Tik-Tok influencers who deny the reality of biological sex differences, but is it in our national best interest?
Biological Sex Differences
One last bit of house-keeping. Although we have progressive activists who deny the reality of biological sex differences, differences in biological sex matter for the purposes of medical research and clinical treatment. Dr. Carolyn M. Mazure, the Norma Weinberg Spungen and Joan Lebson Bildner Professor in Women's Health Research and Professor of Psychiatry and of Psychology at the Yale School of Medicine, offers a nuanced discussion of the same in “What Do We Mean By Sex and Gender?”
I fully endorse Dr. Mazure’s claim that we should no longer understand the terms sex and gender as simply interchangeable. But I also fully endorse Dr. Mazure’s qualification that we have “more than sufficient evidence” proving that “major differences in the biology of women and men” exist, and these differences must not be ignored when developing ways to promote health and treat sickness. Please do read “What Do We Mean By Sex and Gender?” Thank you.
If you made this far, please share! Also, more data at our Dashboard; and source code available at Github Repo. If you find these resources useful, a cup of coffee would be appreciated.
Data Humanist for American Exile
27 January 2022