An opinion piece published in the British Medical Journal (“BMJ”) suggests high levels of NHS staff absences is likely to generate more avoidable non-Covid deaths.  Looking further into the future, and possibly not entirely unrelated, the UN predicts the working-age population, ages 25-64, will sharply decline in number from 2024/5 onwards and the deleted 2025 Deagel population forecast resurfaces.

What is driving all-cause excess mortality?

Dominic Harrison, professor and director of public health and wellbeing, wrote an opinion article published on 14 January 2022 in the BMJ.  His article explored a reason for the rise in all-cause excess mortality, Harrison wrote:

The current overwhelming of the health and care system, and the further disruption to come, as cases and staff absences rise potentially into late January and early February 2022, is now likely to generate more avoidable deaths from non-Covid causes than from Covid. The risk and reality of this effect is not being clearly communicated in the public domain as part of the UK’s “pandemic related mortality” reporting.

In my own Borough of Blackburn with Darwen in the week ending 10th December—just at the early stage of the Omicron surge—there was just one Covid death and six excess non-Covid deaths from “all-causes” when compared to the average of the previous five years.

The National Covid Actuaries Group reported at the end of 2021 that “Latest ONS deaths data (to week ending 17 December) showed that for England and Wales, 1,650 more deaths were recorded in-week compared to the 2015-19-year average. That’s 15% higher.”

Latest ONS deaths data (to week ending 17 December) has been released.

1,650 more deaths were recorded in-week compared to the 2015-19 year average. That’s 15% higher.

Year-to-date there have been 564,409 deaths recorded, which is 10% higher than the 2015-19 average. pic.twitter.com/Fmit9kXi2i

— stuart mcdonald (@ActuaryByDay) December 30, 2021

The number of non-Covid deaths arising from “excess mortality” will undoubtedly rise dramatically over the next three months as a result of the health and care system being overwhelmed.

We have seen this scenario before and ignored its lessons.

One of the largest spikes in “all-cause excess mortality” since the Second World War was in January 2015. Research on the likely causes of that event generally found that high staff vacancies in the NHS, high staff absences, a lack of beds, inadequate out of hospital care capacity in social care and a simultaneous surge in demand generated catastrophic declines in all the metrics of safe effective care.

In the winter of 2015, but most notably January 2015, performance plummeted to the point that those who were in immediate need of urgent and emergency care received significantly delayed or sub-optimal access to life saving treatment. The subsequent very high excess mortality was a consequence of the inability of the health and care system to match the surge in demand with an appropriate surge response.

The report also highlighted the exacerbation to this risk from an increased vulnerability in the population arising from welfare benefit cuts and sustained underfunding of adult social care.

In the first week of January 2022, one in ten NHS staff were off sick or self-isolating – but some hospitals had higher rates. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said “the most pressing element of all” is the number of staff who are absent due to the virus, rather than the number of Covid patients needing treatment.

Self-isolation rules do not only apply to those who are ill.  It also applies to those who test positive or were awaiting a test, regardless if they are ill or not.  Towards the end of last year, the number of staff self-isolating was made worse because PCR tests were scarce or unavailable, and NHS staff said they are stuck at home, having come into close contact with Covid cases, but unable to get enough lateral flow tests.  Of course, this is based on the false narrative that only with a “negative” test staff can return to work.

We mentioned earlier Harrison’s comment: “we have seen this scenario before and ignored its lessons”; however, we would argue “we have seen this scenario before and now it is being used purposely.”

The use of PCR tests and lateral flow tests to diagnose infection is fraudulent so the problem arising from staff not being able to work because of them, whether tested or not, is a political rather than a health measure.  Likewise with injection coercion: making it as difficult as possible for people to choose to be vaccine-free – freely, without fear of recrimination or discrimination.

As reported by the Daily Mail, all frontline staff are required to have both doses of the Covid injection by 1 April, meaning that by 3 February the first dose must have been administered.  Those who have not received at least one dose of the dangerous experimental injection will be called into formal meetings from 4 February and given a warning that they face dismissal.

More than 80,000 staff, 6% of the NHS’s entire workforce, remain vaccine-free, the Daily Mail reported. However, according to an impact assessment done by the Department of Health and Social Care in November 2021 it could be as many as 123,000 staff.  Unions have warned that if the “no jab, no job” policy goes ahead it will have a catastrophic impact on the health service.

In recent days, Boris Johnson is said to be considering kicking the Covid injection deadline ‘down the road’ following nationwide protests over the requirement and demands by Tory backbenchers to drop the rule entirely.  Kicking the deadline down the road, most likely until after the winter season when the NHS is at its busiest, is still medical tyranny.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

The question the public should be asking themselves, for their own good, is: why are doctors, nurses and many others – not only in the UK but worldwide – choosing not to have the experimental Covid injections despite being subjected to increasing coercion to do so?

Further reading:

• Fully Covid-19 Vaccinated Healthcare Workers Carry 251 Times Viral Load, Pose Threat to Unvaccinated Patients and Colleagues
• 91 Scientific Studies prove Naturally Acquired Immunity provides better protection than the Covid-19 Vaccines
• Three studies published by the CDC, UK Government & Oxford University find the Covid-19 Vaccines do not work
• The Covid-19 Vaccines have killed at least 150,000 people in the USA including 574 children according to new Scientific Study (Sept 21)
• Over 1,000 Scientific Studies Prove the Experimental Covid Injections Are Dangerous

Mortality In 2021 For Under-65s Is Higher Than 2020

The rise in death rates during 2020-21 is the worst since World War II, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (“IFoA”) wrote quoting the Continuous Mortality Investigation (“CMI”). 

CMI carries out research into mortality and morbidity, providing mortality and sickness rate tables for UK life insurers and pension funds.  It is supported by the IFoA and publishes frequent UK mortality analysis through its mortality monitor.

One of the key points noted in the IFoA’s update for week 52 of 2021 was: “there is a striking difference in how mortality rates compare to 2020 at different ages – while mortality for ages 65+ has been 7.1% lower than in 2020, mortality for under-65s is around 3.1% higher than in 2020.”

In other words, during the “year of the vaccine” more people are dying in the less vulnerable age groups than during the “year of the pandemic.”

Around the same time IFoA published their update the CEO of a USA life assurance company, OneAmerica, noted similar: that the death rate is a stunning 40% higher 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 CEO said, “the data is consistent across every player in that business.”  Adding that the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that it is not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64.”

United Nations (“UN”) Population Prospects

UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Dynamics has an online resource of ‘World Population Prospects 2019’ where anyone can view graphic representations of the UN’s demographic profiles and probabilistic projections data.

You can either view the data for an individual country or for prescribed groups or regions.

Using the “UN development groups” designation and selecting the “more developed” and the “less developed” regions in the location drop down list, there is one very notable difference in the change in population beginning c.2024/5, and that is in the working-age group, ages 25-64.

There is a sharp decrease in the “more developed regions” but a steady increase in the “less developed regions.”  It begs the question what future events or factors the UN is predicting that would reduce the 25-64 age group in the more developed regions.

Breaking the “more developed regions” group into its designated sub-regions: Europe, Northern America, Australia/New Zealand and Japan, shows an interesting picture.  The sharp decrease in the working-age population is only predicted in Europe and Japan, Japan showing the most dramatic decrease possibly due to the scaling of the Y-axis..

Note: There is no grouping for Australia/New Zealand combined, so we have used Australia on its own in the graphs below to demonstrate.

A regional comparison of the UN’s population prospects for the crude birth rate and the crude death rate is also notable.  For more developed regions the UN “prospects” are that in c.2024/5 the death rate will exceed the birth rate.  And in less developed regions the birth rate steadily declines while the death rates steadily increases until, possibly shortly after 2100, they converge.

Considering the graphs for both sets of data together it seems the UN’s “prospects” are revealing a plan to reduce the world’s population, at differing rates, targeting different population groups and in different ways, depending on the region.

The effect on the regions’ total populations is that the curve for more developed regions flattens after 2025 while the curve for less developed regions starts to flatten in 2075.  Once again, dramatic differences can be seen between designated sub-regions within the “more developed regions” group.

2025 Deagel Forecast

According to Metallicman, the Deagel corporation is a minor branch of US military intelligence, one of the many secretive organisations which collects data for high-level decision-making purposes and prepares confidential briefing documents for agencies like the National Security Agency, the United Nations, and the World Bank.

If so, then it must be assumed that its population predictions for 2025, as well as its industrial output predictions on a nation-by-nation basis, are based on strategic assumptions which are shared and well understood by other players in the intelligence community.

Deagel.com’s infamous 2025 population forecast was removed from their website in April 2021 but the content was reproduced by Nobul Art for reference purposes, view HERE.

Last year, James Corbett answered viewers’ questions about Deagel.com in his podcast ‘But What About Deagel?’.  Firstly, there has been confusion between Deagle and Deagel.  Corbett explains the difference.  He then talked through an overview of the Deagel website including their various forecasts over time and showed how Deagel themselves claimed their forecasts were a “guess.”  Corbett is sceptical about Deagel.com’s reliability and sources, “these are predictions not facts.”

Corbett works through Deagel’s disclaimers of 2014 and 2021. To access the link for the 2014 disclaimer use the Wayback Machine.

Below is an interesting highlight from Deagel’s 2014 disclaimer or forecast explanation, which referred to an ebola outbreak:

The collapse of the Western financial system will wipe out the standard of living of its population while ending ponzi schemes such as the stock exchange and the pension funds.

The population will be hit so badly by a full array of bubbles and ponzi schemes that the migration engine will start to work in reverse accelerating itself due to ripple effects thus leading to the demise of the States.

This unseen situation for the States will develop itself in a cascade pattern with unprecedented and devastating effects for the economy. Jobs offshoring will surely end with many American Corporations relocating overseas thus becoming foreign Corporations!!!!

We see a significant part of the American population migrating to Latin America and Asia while migration to Europe – suffering a similar illness – won’t be relevant

And below is an interesting highlight from Deagel’s 2021 updated disclaimer or forecast explanation:

After COVID we can draw two major conclusions:

1. The Western world success model has been built over societies with no resilience that can barely withstand any hardship, even a low intensity one. It was assumed but we got the full confirmation beyond any doubt.

2. The COVID crisis will be used to extend the life of this dying economic system through the so-called Great Reset.

The collapse of the Western financial system – and ultimately the Western civilization – has been the major driver in the forecast along with a confluence of crisis with a devastating outcome.

Deagel.com’s ‘Forecast 2025’ Predicts Dramatic Population Changes for Western Nations

Corbett’s podcast is well worth watching so you are armed with information from both sides of the debate, watch HERE.

In September 2021 Metallicman wrote a lengthy article exploring what the 2025 Deagel Forecast could mean in terms of what is going on today.  About a third of the way through his article, under the section titled ‘The Deagel Scenario’, he wrote more specifically about the 2025 forecast.

And, approximately half-way through, in a section titled ‘What’s the gig?’ he begins: “There are all sorts of people slicing and dicing these figures,” and then goes on to discuss some theories.  While Metallicman does not agree with these theories he conceded: “Never the less, they do point out something interesting. That there is a direct correlation between the nations that are giving mRNA vaccinations, and those that do not.”

He then included two tables: one listing countries that insist on mRNA vaccinations (Table A) and a second listing countries that give “dead host” traditional vaccinations (Table C).  For those who may be interested, we have inserted a copy of these tables below. 

At the end we have inserted a table for vaccine uptake for those countries in Table A to enable comparison to the uptake in countries listed in Table C.

Note: The column on the right “population reduced by percentage” is an approximation of the percentage reduction as per the 2025 Deagel Forecast.