People Dying From Anti-Covid Policies, the Virus Itself Not So Much

At Center Square is this revealing report Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64.  H/T Andrea Widburg Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.”

The CDC weekly death counts, which reflect the information on death certificates and so have a lag of up to eight weeks or longer, show that for the week ending Nov. 6, there were far fewer deaths from COVID-19 in Indiana compared to a year ago – 195 verses 336 – but more deaths from other causes – 1,350 versus 1,319.

These deaths were for people of all ages, however, while the information referenced by Davison was for working-age people who are employees of businesses with group life insurance policies.

At the same news conference where Davison spoke, Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients “with many different conditions,” saying “unfortunately, the average Hoosiers’ health has declined during the pandemic.”

In a follow-up call, he said he did not have a breakdown showing why so many people in the state are being hospitalized – for what conditions or ailments. But he said the extraordinarily high death rate quoted by Davison matched what hospitals in the state are seeing.

The number of hospitalizations in the state is now higher than before the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced a year ago, and in fact is higher than it’s been in the past five years, Dr. Lindsay Weaver, Indiana’s chief medical officer, said at a news conference with Gov. Eric Holcomb on Wednesday.

Just 8.9% of ICU beds are available at hospitals in the state, a low for the year, and lower than at any time during the pandemic. But the majority of ICU beds are not taken up by COVID-19 patients – just 37% are, while 54% of the ICU beds are being occupied by people with other illnesses or conditions.

The state’s online dashboard shows that the moving average of daily deaths from COVID-19 is less than half of what it was a year ago. At the pandemic’s peak a year ago, 125 people died on one day – on Dec. 29, 2020. In the last three months, the highest number of deaths in one day was 58, on Dec. 13.


The two years of COVID mismanagement may also mean that myriad other health conditions are causing these deaths. Those people whose chronic or fatal conditions (e.g., heart disease, cancer) went untreated with lockdowns may finally have succumbed. We may also be seeing the terrible assault on immune systems, not from jabs, but from depression, economic stress, substance abuse, lack of exercise, lack of sunlight, and lack of human contact.

The one thing that’s clear is that the bean-counters whose businesses depend on getting the numbers right are telling us that Americans’ health under Dr. Fauci in Year One and the Biden administration (and Fauci) in Year Two has been disastrous.  We can expect Year Three to be equally bad because the same management is in place.  The only thing that will change this trajectory is to throw the bums out, first in the November 2022 election and again in the November 2024 election.  Their mismanagement is killing us.


There is a parallel with climate policies doing much greater damage than the supposed threat.  See series of posts on World of Hurt from Climate Policies




  1. mickmar21 · January 4, 2022

    Loved the cartoons.
    I reckon the authorities are dismayed that omicron is so far showing that it may be the way out of the pandemic. It would be very upsetting for those who have had control and power over populations for the past few years to give up.
    The billions of us that have lived through this and done, willingly or unwillingly, the things we have been directed to do should have more tolerance and empathy to those thousands of elites who now face mental health challenges as they are reminded that they are not that special or important. 🙂


  2. jchr12 · January 4, 2022

    Officially there are now 6 million people on UK NHS waiting lists. Erroneous data of course because so many requiring surgery are not listed as they have yet to complete mandatory therapeutic treatments. Two million of these wait >12 months. Deaths due to lack of treatment consequently escalate.


  3. Pingback: People Dying from Anti-Covid Policies, the Virus Itself Not So Much – Climate-
  4. Virtual Reality · January 5, 2022

    Hi Ron
    Did you get this story? Dr. Robert Malone is no longer recognized by Wikipedia as being the creator of the technology used in some COVID-19 vaccines.

    Before June 14, 2021
    Old link: that if you click on it will automatically go to the new link below.

    After June 14, 2021
    NEW link:

    The crazy thing is that it’s done very cleverly, they just left out all the researchers and scientists. No mention of who did what, just what was done. Why would anyone care or ask after all?

    Cheers VR


  5. Pingback: People Dying From Anti-Covid Policies, the Virus Itself Not So Much — Science Matters – Independent Citizens
  6. Virtual Reality · January 6, 2022

    Hi Ron
    I’ve added a new chart to my list for CO2
    – N° 15 Oil consumption in percent by sector

    – The big question is should I put it under the World of CO2 or The World of Climate change?
    – And I also wonder if I should do the three main energy sectors, Oil, Gas and Electric. One chart for each sector.

    I got a little frustrated with people making all kinds of statements that the aviation industry is a massive contributor to CO2 emissions. I’d like to have the charts to point out who is using what and how much and from what energy source.

    We should make Q-cards that people could use to learn about CO2!!!!

    Ok, I’ve put a sticker on the chart „Under Review“!!!!

    Cheers VR


    • Ron Clutz · January 6, 2022

      Hi VR, it’s a good start, but with some inconsistencies. As your last paragraph suggests, the issue is criticism of human activities powered by fossil fuels. Your WCO2 graphic #3 breaks out CO2 emissions by sectors, with 64.5% from providing Energy consumed by electrical supply, transportation, manufacturing, etc. It would be desirable to break down the energy CO2 emissions by the same sectors. In that case, Electricity would not be a source, but a product of burning fossil fuels including coal, gas and oil and excluding non-carbon electrical production. Manufacturing would be similarly a mix of the 3 FFs. Transportation is IC vehicles mostly running directly on oil, a little on gas, plus EVs that run on coal and gas power. I don’t know what else in included in the 64.5%
      The challenge is to communicate the fraction of fractions of CO2 emissions from aviation activities. Somewhere it would be good to see how many quads are the total primary energy consumed, and how many of those by aviation.


      • Virtual Reality · January 7, 2022

        Yep, I think that would be the more appropriate approach.

        That means making a chart „N° 3b or 4“ that breaks down the 64.5% Energy value into individual percentages for all the energy uses regardless of source. So to speak, Aviation would end up being less than 1%, whereas land transport would need to add up Electric, oil, gas and coal together and then find the precent of that from the total mix. Is this corrrect?

        If this is the case, I might need to get someone to pull the data from IEA and lump them all together to figure out the right percentages. Do you know someone who’s good at this, I’m no math specialist. I most likely get it all wrong or be off and end up looking like a jerk!



      • Ron Clutz · January 7, 2022

        It may not be that hard. You show the breakdown for oil. Does that source show the same for coal and gas?


  7. Virtual Reality · January 7, 2022
    This is the source (from your suggestions) and they do break it down into coal, oil and natural gas.
    I guess I have to go back to school and learn how to total everthing together to get the right percentage total. 😉

    Ok, I have some homework … VR


    • Ron Clutz · January 7, 2022

      I think the method is to get a FF total for Transportation and then for Aviation.
      VR, let me see what kind of table I can build from that source. Back to you later.


  8. Virtual Reality · January 7, 2022

    Hi Ron
    I think I got it, I took all the different categories (combined the overlapping categories) and came to a total that I could then define the percentage from the total to each category. I’d send you the excel file but I cant attach it to this chat.

    Combined Coal, Oil and Gas
    Total 6656.8834 Mtoe (Tonne of oil equivalent)

    Category Mtoe Percent

    Road 2480.534 37.26%
    Non-energy use 916.761 13.77%
    Industry 890.799 13.38%
    Residential 410.349 6.16%
    Aviation 337.0174 5.06%
    Iron & Steel 323.35 4.86%
    Navigation 277.098 4.16%
    Other 236.346 3.55%
    Non-metallic minerals 210.854 3.17%
    Commercial and public services 207.178 3.11%
    Chemical and petrochemical 96.684 1.45%
    Non-specified 96.154 1.44%
    Other industry 95.157 1.43%
    Services agriculture and fishing 45.868 0.69%
    Rail 32.734 0.49%

    Total 6656.8834 100%

    I’ll have to check it again to make sure I copied everything correctly out of “Download data as .csv” from the charts.
    Cheers VR


  9. Virtual Reality · January 7, 2022

    I uploaded the excel file under the following link
    at the bottom you will find a download button for the excel file.


    • Ron Clutz · January 7, 2022

      VR, this looks like what you need

      Their data is at
      The %s are different from IEA because they use CO2 equivalents for other GHGs. But their method looks rigorous and that source is well regarded.


      • Virtual Reality · January 7, 2022

        Holly Sh*t!!! Now that’s a breakdown in every detail!
        I wonder, if we stick to Coal, oil and gas which are natural resources being used, that might be a little easier for a Chart to follow up on Chart N° 3.
        It doesn’t give the whole picture but one focused on those energy sources being accused of a good portion of the CO2 output. What do you think?

        The chart link you just suggest is amazing, and I would think maybe that would fit in to the Charts under The World of Climate Change? VR


      • Ron Clutz · January 7, 2022

        VR, I think what they did makes it simple: the infographic is about what human activities result in GHG emissions and avoids the complexity of fuel mixes (though apparently these were analyzed in building the dataset).


      • Ron Clutz · January 7, 2022

        I would still put it in WCO2 because it is a breakdown of the human 3.4% contribution to atmospheric CO2.
        Don’t try to combine the Our World picture with #3 from IEA data. It’s a different and more detailed analysis so the difference in %s is understandable.


      • Ron Clutz · January 7, 2022

        IMO the WCC series is about the changing climate itself: temperatures, sea levels, ice coverage, storms, etc.


      • Virtual Reality · January 7, 2022

        I think I would take the Excel file from the second link and work on that basis. It’s not as detailed, but still provides a good foundation. It’s a great continuation of chart #3, don’t you think? I also think it’s a little more in line with the other charts that aren’t as cluttered.
        I’m heading into the weekend now, so have a great Friday afternoon and weekend. Thanks Ron!


      • Ron Clutz · January 7, 2022

        Since you are working with %s, that should be OK. IOW, you would be breaking down IEA energy into 3 parts (transportation being one) and then the next layer where Aviation shows up.
        BTW, also have a look at this page

        Thanks again for your efforts on this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s