[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry Pete I thought I gave that...or to be simpler: about the same risk for delta as previous strains if unvaccinated and about the previous risk of someone over a decade younger if you have been vaccinated (and have caught it, as vaccination also cuts infection risk, even for delta). Maybe around a factor of ten reduction in risk, if vaccinated, so still more serious than flu, so it doesn't make us invincible.

There are some nice clean plots around of calculated Infection Fatality Rate versus age, but I couldn't remember where I found them so the plots in this link will have to do (from data of unvaccinated):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/

If the NHS was running well the current system risks would be OK. However, pressures have never been worse for delays in getting people to hospital for the serious emergencies where time is vital (especially heart emergencies and strokes). Anything that cuts ambulance delays is good... it's one reason why we are vaccinating younger people for flu this year (alongside the individual risk reduction as the combination of flu and covid is greater than the sum of the parts) .

That still isn't what I'm asking. (note I don't expect you, or anyone, to have all the answers!).

I'm simply interested in trying to understand how serious a risk to health is catching covid currently, relative to all the other common risks to health currently around - i.e. risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, flu/pneumonia (for the elderly), COPD, traumatic injury, etc. etc. Knowing the IFR for covid is useful but how does it compare to the fatality rates of other maladies, and what are the likelihoods for those other maladies.   

I'd like to understand this so I can put covid in wider context. And therefore understand any proposed restrictions to liberty, mandates for vaccines etc. in a wider context.

I realise risk could only be calculated for an average person, and the average person doesn't exist. And risks differ for different age groups. I also realise 'a struggling health service' is, in itself, an added risk to health.

I can’t answer that, however, logic would suggest that, as a compounding factor to all the others you mentioned (which haven’t gone away), generally, as a population, our risk of severe illness and death, has risen markedly.
Covid has not replaced any of the above, it has added to them all.

Therefore, I can’t see any reason to not indulge in mitigating actions that significantly reduce it’s impact at very small cost (on a society level and I don’t mean lockdowns, which can now be avoided and cost a metric shit tonne).

If I’m brutally honest, I don’t think replacing some of the “unlucky who respond badly to Covid” with a smaller number “who respond badly to Covid vaccines” is a massive moral dilemma. Bear in mind, prior to the jab, I had no certain clue to my own status in that regard, nor that of my loved ones.

Some people are run over and killed by buses. Buses interfere with my right to walk down the middle of the road or cross without having to waste my precious time looking first. buses contribute to CO2 emissions and are a menace to the environment. But, some people need buses, society needs buses to keep functioning and, as yet, we don’t have a viable alternative and they are less damaging than everyone driving their own car, probably kill fewer pedestrians than everybody driving their own car would and, maybe, buy us a bit of time to come up with a better alternative. So, I don’t burn vehicles, throw rocks at coppers and smash shop windows, about buses. Nor do I get involved with stupid theories about buses being created in labs, that also research alternatives to buses, or buses being used for population control, or any other “Big Bus” paranoia.

Edit:

Damn Auto correct! Not sure why it replaced “Vaccines” with “Buses” there. Probably a Government conspiracy to stop people talking about those secret mind control jabs and distract us all with the murderous Bus situation.

[mrjonathanr]

"What conspiracy stuff?"

"Covid is a very horrible illness for some people no doubt. The evidence seems to suggest that it was manufactured in a lab with funding from the same people who had invested in the vaccine technology"

Hmmm.

I believe it’s reasonable to say that gain of function research on bat Coronavirus’s was being performed at the Wuhan lab in part funded by the NIH and Ecohealth alliance and there is links from those funding the research to the Moderna mRNA vaccine development program.

The central points are summed up nicely in this very creative animation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FunctionGain/status/1459649111712542723

Ps thanks Offwidth appreciate your comments 👍🏻

This is a good example to me of why this thread has become so frustratingly confused.

Firstly, some simple background from the BBC here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57932699

As I understand it, there is no doubt that Zhengli was doing gain of function research. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787

Nor is it in question that the NIH, through NiAID (director A Fauci) provided research funds to the Wuhan lab.

Fine. This is where things go wrong. It is not simply the case that the NIAID funded GOF research in Wuhan. It is more complicated than that. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x

Moreover, the quote above goes on to insinuate, without providing a shred of evidence, that funding which led  directly to the current pandemic came from sources which had an enormous commercial interest in such a pandemic occurring. By implication, having invested in the creation of a vaccine prior to a novel virus causing a global pandemic.

“ The evidence seems to suggest that it was manufactured in a lab with funding from the same people who had invested in the vaccine technology"

This works if you are easily led and can’t stop to interrogate what is actually being said/implied and what supporting evidence is provided. We have had ‘plausible deniablility’ from politicians, here we have ‘plausible assertability’.

This- taking in the credulous with vaguely plausible sounding and unsubstantiated allegations- is the very heart of conspiracy making. It’s scaremongering. Maybe because the author is fearful. Maybe because its author wants the kudos of some ‘special knowledge’ ( cf the occult and all sorts of nonsense down the centuries). Whatever. It is pernicious nonsense and has no place in healthy debate.

[mrjonathanr]

Edit:

Damn Auto correct! Not sure why it replaced “Vaccines” with “Buses” there. Probably a Government conspiracy to stop people talking about those secret mind control jabs and distract us all with the murderous Bus situation.

Apparently Johnson spends his free time painting model buses and used one to announce the £350m post eu uplift to the NHS. On a the side of a bus. I think we should be told.

[mrjonathanr]

The easily led argument works both ways. For example if I was easily led I’d be rolling my sleeve up and supporting social segregation measures.

Defending your position by a false equivalence to avoid having to deal with the argument? Let me remind you that your post has sensationalist and completely unsubstantiated assertion, vs studies and data sets exceeding 7billion.

Conflating issues to avoid having to deal with ... 

It may be that your intentions - which don't seem, on consideration, indisputably benign- are coming from a good place. However, it is such a tortuous muddle; I'm out now.

edit - As I said previously, issues which impact civil liberties that you want to highlight deserve proper debate, but I find your contributions confuse rather than illuminate the issues, so I don't want to continue.

[Oldmanmatt]

Please guys, don’t support the mandates and vaccine passports. They are really bad news and not ok. They create division, hate and fear and perpetuate trauma and isolation. These are not the conditions required for people to heal from any illness.

I swore I wasn’t going to engage you directly, again, but…

No, they don’t, people like you, do.

[Offwidth]

That still isn't what I'm asking. (note I don't expect you, or anyone, to have all the answers!).

I'm simply interested in trying to understand how serious a risk to health is catching covid currently, relative to all the other common risks to health currently around - i.e. risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, flu/pneumonia (for the elderly), COPD, traumatic injury, etc. etc. Knowing the IFR for covid is useful but how does it compare to the fatality rates of other maladies, and what are the likelihoods for those other maladies.   

I'd like to understand this so I can put covid in wider context. And therefore understand any proposed restrictions to liberty, mandates for vaccines etc. in a wider context.

I realise risk could only be calculated for an average person, and the average person doesn't exist. And risks differ for different age groups. I also realise 'a struggling health service' is, in itself, an added risk to health.

Something like this?

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/how-have-covid-19-fatalities-compared-other-causes-death/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-01/covid-19-s-death-toll-compared-to-other-things-that-kill-us

[abarro81]

With the caveat that I know nothing about funding in biological sciences, it strikes me as unremarkable that a funding body that deals with infectious diseases might fund both research on diseases and on vaccines. Or why people involved in those bodies might be involved in other bodies related to companies working on vaccines. It seems a bit like being pissy if EPSRC used to fund oil and gas research and then now decided to fund work on geoengineering to fix the problems they helped make (I don't know if they did fund O&G work but I'd guess so). It could be a big conspiracy, or it could be people doing their best to make sensible decisions... Perhaps you have much more info that implies dodgyness than you've mentioned Dan? I can't be arsed to look.

P.s. BJ talks like Churchill cos he wants to be known as that kind of figure rather than a Knob of a Known. I should point out that he is definitely not an alumni of Kranko's Klowning Academy. For starters he doesn't own enough rubber.

[webbo]

I wonder who you are trying to convince Dan. Because it doesn’t seem you have many converts on here.
Is it yourself by any chance.

[abarro81]

History sounds like my PIP joints 

[petejh]

Something like this?

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/how-have-covid-19-fatalities-compared-other-causes-death/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-01/covid-19-s-death-toll-compared-to-other-things-that-kill-us

Those are both very useful yes, thanks.

But (you knew there was one coming!)... Those are still backward-looking stats though (I know, what other sort are there), and are comparing the relative risk of death of covid in 2020 compared to risks from other causes of death. As we all know, 2020 was the worst of it for covid (hopefully!), so using the 2020 covid fatality stats is creating quite an unrealistic base effect which shouldn't apply to how we live and make decisions *today*. A bit like some of the inflation figures currently. (that doesn't imply I think inflation isn't shaping up as a potential problem btw, but that's a totally different topic).

I'm interested in what the relative risk of covid is *today*, compared to other risks. Because it isn't 2020 anymore, and we're going into the future where we aren't in a pandemic state, not going back to 2020 where we were in a pandemic state.

But I also realise it's virtually impossible to have comprehensive stats of that sort up-to-date. A 12-momth lag is probably the best we can do.

[petejh]

With the caveat that I know nothing about funding in biological sciences, it strikes me as unremarkable that a funding body that deals with infectious diseases might fund both research on diseases and on vaccines. Or why people involved in those bodies might be involved in other bodies related to companies working on vaccines. It seems a bit like being pissy if EPSRC used to fund oil and gas research and then now decided to fund work on geoengineering to fix the problems they helped make (I don't know if they did fund O&G work but I'd guess so). It could be a big conspiracy, or it could be people doing their best to make sensible decisions... Perhaps you have much more info that implies dodgyness than you've mentioned Dan? I can't be arsed to look.

P.s. BJ talks like Churchill cos he wants to be known as that kind of figure rather than a Knob of a Known. I should point out that he is definitely not an alumni of Kranko's Klowning Academy. For starters he doesn't own enough rubber.

I was going to make a similar point along lines of correlation not being causation.

Dan,  if you're going to suggest the lab in Wuhan is responsible for the pandemic then the first thing you should do is research how many countries in the world also have such labs. Not easy to research but the info could be found out through a lot of leg work. From this information you then have a rough prior likelihood of there being a bio research lab in the same region as an outbreak. From that info, you can begin to calculate how likely or unlikely other correlations are, such as companies involed in research and vaccines. Continue doing that sort of calculation for every subsequent link, and you get a better idea of the probabilities involved.

One example. The UK has more than one bio weapons research labs (for defence, not attack). So if a respiratory virus had originated here, you could say it came from the same geographical region as a bio weapons lab. I think Hubei province (where Whuhan is located) is a pretty large region, comparable roughly in size to the UK? Do we know for sure covid originated in Wuhan city? Or could it have been just *somewhere* in Hubei province? If in the province, then it's highly probable it would have made its way to Wuhan, it being central China's most populous city (according to wikipedia) and a central hub.

That isn't meant to be any sort of convincing rebuttal btw - I'm open minded to the origin and wouldn't completely discount any theory just because it was difficult to deal with. But look at the probabilities of it properly, not in some suggestive winky winky anecdotal way.

[Oldmanmatt]

Something like this?

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/how-have-covid-19-fatalities-compared-other-causes-death/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-01/covid-19-s-death-toll-compared-to-other-things-that-kill-us

Those are both very useful yes, thanks.

But (you knew there was one coming!)... Those are still backward-looking stats though, and are comparing the relative risk to health from covid in 2020 compared to the risks from other causes of illness or death. As we all know, 2020 was the worst of it for covid (hopefully!), so using the 2020 covid fatality stats is creating quite an unrealistic base effect that doesn't, shouldn't at least, apply today. A bit like some of the inflation figures currently. (that doesn't imply I think inflation isn't shaping up as a potential problem btw, but totally different topic).

I'm interested in what the relative risk of covid is *today*, compared to other risks. Because it isn't 2020 anymore, and we're going into the future where we aren't in pandemic state, not going back to 2020 where we were in a pandemic state.

But I also realise it's virtually impossible to have comprehensive stats of that sort up-to-date. A 12-momth lag is probably the best we can do.

Surely all you need to know, is that we currently (and for many weeks now) have no statistically significant excess deaths? So, given current mitigation (mainly vaccines) it *isn’t* a statistically significant risk.

 You could also just run some numbers for yourself, maybe? Take the total number of infections (known, so under estimated) from two weeks ago and compare it to deaths four weeks later and admissions two weeks later? Do that on a few days over the period since the latest outbreak began to peak and you could drum up a fair picture?

For instance, last Wednesday, 10th, there were 128 deaths.
Two weeks prior, Wednesday, 27th, there were 1147 admissions.
Four weeks prior Wednesday, 13th, there were 46978 positive tests.

Not worth running such a small sample and I’m roasting dinner. You can pull the data off :
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
As a CSV and bung it into a spreadsheet and you’ll have a moderately accurate picture of your risk, with the asymptomatic /unreported caveat giving it an inflated value. Plenty of errors, but a broadly useful guide.

[Oldmanmatt]

With the caveat that I know nothing about funding in biological sciences, it strikes me as unremarkable that a funding body that deals with infectious diseases might fund both research on diseases and on vaccines. Or why people involved in those bodies might be involved in other bodies related to companies working on vaccines. It seems a bit like being pissy if EPSRC used to fund oil and gas research and then now decided to fund work on geoengineering to fix the problems they helped make (I don't know if they did fund O&G work but I'd guess so). It could be a big conspiracy, or it could be people doing their best to make sensible decisions... Perhaps you have much more info that implies dodgyness than you've mentioned Dan? I can't be arsed to look.

P.s. BJ talks like Churchill cos he wants to be known as that kind of figure rather than a Knob of a Known. I should point out that he is definitely not an alumni of Kranko's Klowning Academy. For starters he doesn't own enough rubber.

I was going to make similar point along lines of correlation not being causation.

Dan,  if you're going to suggest the lab in Wuhan is responsible for the pandemic then the first thing you should do is research how many countries in the world also have such labs. Not easy to research but the info coul be found out through a lot of leg work. From this information you then have a rough prior likelihood of there being a bio research lab in the same region as an outbreak. From that info, you can begin to calculate how likely or unlikely other correlations are, such as companies involed in research and vaccines. Continue doing that sort of calculation for every subsequent link, and you get a better idea of the probabilities involved.

One example. The UK has more than one bio weapons research labs (for defence, not attack). So if a respiratory virus had originated here, you could say it came from the same geographical region as a bio weapons labs.

That isn't meant to be any sort of convincing rebuttal btw - I'm open minded to the origin, but look at the probability of it properly, not in some suggestive winky winky anecdotal bullshit way.

There’s also that minor thing about labs studying animal populations at risk of transmitting disease to humans, being located close to that animal population…

[Johnny Brown]

Surely all you need to know, is that we currently (and for many weeks now) have no statistically significant excess deaths? So, given current mitigation (mainly vaccines) it *isn’t* a statistically significant risk.

The obvious question that that raises is whether we are still in period where death rates would be expected to be anomalously low due to the premature removal of so many from the at-risk group in the preceding 18 months? So no excess deaths on a long baseline might still mean excess deaths in the current context.

[Oldmanmatt]

Surely all you need to know, is that we currently (and for many weeks now) have no statistically significant excess deaths? So, given current mitigation (mainly vaccines) it *isn’t* a statistically significant risk.

The obvious question that that raises is whether we are still in period where death rates would be expected to be anomalously low due to the premature removal of so many from the at-risk group in the preceding 18 months? So no excess deaths on a long baseline might still mean excess deaths in the current context.

Yeah, I was multitasking and I don’t do that well anyway, plus I was on my second glass of wine, and…

I thought of numerous holes, after posting.
It’s just another error though and in some ways, removing the most vulnerable, improves the perspective on the risks to the bulk of the population. As stated in some of those articles above, many of the deaths occurred in people who would very likely have died within the same period, anyway. A harsh statement, that sticks in my throat somewhat, but I can’t dispute it’s validity.

Seriously though, it’s a complex question and I don’t imagine anything beyond a rough guide will be possible until we can look back with some degree of clarity.

[teestub]

I guess it’s made even more complex when one considers the substantial reduction in quality of life a lot of people who have had Covid and recovered have suffered. For someone like Pete trying to weigh up the risks, I would assume that a 50% loss of lung function (or whatever) would have to strongly be taken into consideration.

[petejh]

Hang on, am I the only person here who's periodically trying to objectively* weigh up the risks from covid versus other things? Please tell me I'm not the only one!



*While accepting it's nigh on impossible to be accurate.

[Oldmanmatt]

Hang on, am I the only person here who's periodically trying to objectively* weigh up the risks from covid versus other things? Please tell me I'm not the only one!



*While accepting it's nigh on impossible to be accurate.

No. It’s just that last line is all too true.

[Offwidth]

Something like this?

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/how-have-covid-19-fatalities-compared-other-causes-death/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-01/covid-19-s-death-toll-compared-to-other-things-that-kill-us

Those are both very useful yes, thanks.

But (you knew there was one coming!)... Those are still backward-looking stats though (I know, what other sort are there), and are comparing the relative risk of death of covid in 2020 compared to risks from other causes of death. As we all know, 2020 was the worst of it for covid (hopefully!), so using the 2020 covid fatality stats is creating quite an unrealistic base effect which shouldn't apply to how we live and make decisions *today*. A bit like some of the inflation figures currently. (that doesn't imply I think inflation isn't shaping up as a potential problem btw, but that's a totally different topic).

I'm interested in what the relative risk of covid is *today*, compared to other risks. Because it isn't 2020 anymore, and we're going into the future where we aren't in a pandemic state, not going back to 2020 where we were in a pandemic state.

But I also realise it's virtually impossible to have comprehensive stats of that sort up-to-date. A 12-momth lag is probably the best we can do.

[Fiend]

Further to the original question and M20s bump:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59283128
(Link to brainwashing state authority mainstream media site)

I would say that whilst some restrictions on the voluntarily vaccine-refused, specifically in optional/luxury high transmission risk busy indoor social scenarios, might be okay, a full lockdown for them is absolutely not. Just like previous blanket lockdowns irrespective of transmission risks were not. It's disproportionate and unnecessarily vindictive. Restrictions should be about keeping the overall public safe, not about excessively punishing people for their choice (the punishment can be reserved for conspiracy sheeple who actively push an lie-based agenda that carries a risk of further general lockdowns due to encouraging people to avoid more palatable measures).

Actually in some scenarios mandatory mask wearing (apart from genuine medical exemptions) for the voluntarily vaccine-refused could be a good compromise, pretty sure masks don't cause blood clots or 5G reception or magnetism.

There you go. That can be fed into the UKB Aggregate Opinioniser Algorithm.

[remus]

It's disproportionate and unnecessarily vindictive. Restrictions should be about keeping the overall public safe, not about excessively punishing people for their choice

Is it disproportionate? 35% of their population is unvaccinated and the vaccines are proven to significantly reduce the risk of harm if you catch covid. If your aim is to limit harm to those 35% of people then lowering the chance of them catching it by introducing a lockdown could be a sensible idea. I guess they may also be worried about overwhelming their available healthcare resources in case of a big spike in cases which would be bad for everyone involved.

ed. got the vaccinated/unvaccinated numbers the wrong way round, fixed.

[Fiend]

I would say that whilst some restrictions on the voluntarily vaccine-refused, specifically in optional/luxury high transmission risk busy indoor social scenarios, might be okay

Was highlighting the difference between high-risk-scenario-specific restrictions for the unvaxxed vs full 2020-style Stay At Home lockdown for the unvaxxed. Obviously there's a lot of thrilling potential nit-picking as to the actual difference of course.

Just chucking opinions into the mix since it was asked for.

[Offwidth]

Am I misunderstanding something really obvious here on the discussion of excess deaths?

There ARE significant excess deaths right now (deaths above the average baseline of previous years) :  they have been averaging around 14% since the beginning of August.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/29october2021

Excess mortality (%) is a plot category for Our World in Data, if people want to look at the graph of UK excess deaths and compare with other countries.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer

As Johnny points out we have lost a lot of the old/vulnerable to covid , and along with flu numbers being low so far, this should be a low year for two of the biggest factors, cancer should be higher due to treatment delays from covid.

I'm keeping an eye on the numbers as this escalation in ambulance delays is really serious for heart problems (our biggest killer) and strokes. I'm worried most right now about that but it's hard to see in excess deaths: it's certainly not huge yet (compared to covid deaths) as the covid deaths are close to the excess deaths (and which broadly match the variation).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/14/patients-are-dying-from-being-stuck-in-ambulances-outside-ae-report

On Matt's point about 'people would have died soon anyway':  various analysis indicates covid deaths take about a decade off life expectancy so on average that's not true for the majority.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of

[Oldmanmatt]

It's disproportionate and unnecessarily vindictive. Restrictions should be about keeping the overall public safe, not about excessively punishing people for their choice

Is it disproportionate? 35% of their population is unvaccinated and the vaccines are proven to significantly reduce the risk of harm if you catch covid. If your aim is to limit harm to those 35% of people then lowering the chance of them catching it by introducing a lockdown could be a sensible idea. I guess they may also be worried about overwhelming their available healthcare resources in case of a big spike in cases which would be bad for everyone involved.

ed. got the vaccinated/unvaccinated numbers the wrong way round, fixed.

You’re talking about Austria, with those numbers?
Here, only 12% of the population over 12yrs is unvaccinated and only 20% are short their second dose (and a good number of the second figure are under 18 and not required, offered or expected to need the second dose).

I took one of my brood in for his jab (13) last week (because the school program was over subscribed and they couldn’t get through everyone). The Riviera centre was completely wrapped in the queue for walk ins. Hundreds waiting. We went in at 16:00 and they marshals reckoned it had been like that since they opened and for several days prior.
I think our anti-vax mob here are a very small minority. Loud, but small

[Oldmanmatt]

Am I misunderstanding something really obvious here on the discussion of excess deaths?

There ARE significant excess deaths right now (deaths above the average baseline of previous years) :  they have been averaging around 14% since the beginning of August.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/29october2021

Excess mortality (%) is a plot category for Our World in Data, if people want to look at the graph of UK excess deaths and compare with other countries.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer

As Johnny points out we have lost a lot of the old/vulnerable to covid , and along with flu numbers being low so far, this should be a low year for two of the biggest factors, cancer should be higher due to treatment delays from covid.

I'm keeping an eye on the numbers as this escalation in ambulance delays is really serious for heart problems (our biggest killer) and strokes. I'm worried most right now about that but it's hard to see in excess deaths: it's certainly not huge yet (compared to covid deaths) as the covid deaths are close to the excess deaths (and which broadly match the variation).

On Matt's point about 'people would have died soon anyway':  various analysis indicates covid deaths take about a decade off life expectancy so on average that's not true for the majority.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of

Except, the actual all cause mortality reports, disagree. Pick a few.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/weekly-all-cause-mortality-surveillance-2021-to-2022

I think the point is, that whilst we are sitting above the 5 year median, we are not outside of typical fluctuations around that median. Meaning, Covid, under current conditions, is not increasing the individual’s risk of death by a statistically significant amount, albeit a measurable one.

Fig 1, of those reports give a very strong impression of how different things are to the previous waves, but you can also see, quite clearly, that we are very much within “normal” bounds.

Edit: basically, we are in the fuzzy territory, where many thing combine to alter the world from “normal”. We still have increased social distancing, widespread mask use, increased awareness and reduced activity in many areas, added to a severely whittled vulnerable population and a largely vaccinated population.
So, Covid is probably responsible for more of the total share of deaths, where the overall non-Covid deaths are somewhat reduced by the overall situation. If that makes sense?