scratch-mark

Deaths Up 40% In 18-64 Years Old?

For those in the know, you’ve probably see or heard of the news article going around.

Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64

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.”

Davison was one of several business leaders who spoke during the virtual news conference on Dec. 30 that was organized by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insurance-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html

Draw your own speculations as to what might be the cause of that. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

What could possibly be causing a situation where, given 100 deaths in a year on average +/- a handful, and 110 deaths is an outlier that comes along every 200 years, then you get 140.

Still nothing to see here? Well, since this is out there every place I look, let me try to add some perspective I’ve not seen yet.

Insurance Company Data Is The Highest Quality Data

The reason for that is pretty simple. Not only are there no “conflicts of interest” in getting the data accurate, the only interest is in getting the data accurate, and they have a profit incentive to get the data accurate.

Consider the casino business model. There’s a reason all the games are what they are. Every single game is mathematically/statistically guaranteed to give the house an edge over time. They’re also designed to give the house only a small to modest edge. They want you to win some, lose some—just that most of you lose some reasonable amount more than you won in the context of rational play and entertainment.

The proof of this is the Las Vegas Strip skyline. What “happens” in Vegas stays in Vegas means: your money too! But people still flock because for most, losing money at the machines and tables is still kinda fun as part of the overall vacation experience—though in those rare times when you win on net, it’s more fun.

As an aside, professional casino gamblers aim to shift the small edge for the casino to their favor, and their principal target is blackjack since by keeping track of what’s already been played face up, a skilled player can keep track of the changing odds in his favor or against him and hit or stand accordingly; whereas, the house must abide by strict rules to hit or stand. This is why they don’t deal blackjack from a single deck of cards anymore… But, notice that the most common game for professional players is poker…where you’re playing not against rigged-rules in the house’s favor, but other players.

The point of that digression is that everybody involved wants clear data and to do their best in calculating their risk vs. reward play action based solely upon it. Ironically, Lady Luck is anathema to both casinos and skilled players.

Insurance companies run on the same basic fundamental principles as do casinos, but it’s far more difficult. Casinos have the luxury of dealing with mathematical and statistical absolutes that always hold over time. Insurance companies deal with the serendipity of both nature and human behavior. And they’re a mix. That’s why rate tables are a veritable matrix. On the one hand, you could sell a life or health care policy to a guy who’s a total metabolic mess, so both are going to be expensive. On the other hand, you sell the same guy an auto policy and there’s never a claim because he’s a hyper-competent driver.

So to analogize card-counting in blackjack, the insurance company is always “counting cards” and re-working the odds.

…To be a business concern, you have to turn a profit. Insurance companies turn profits by betting that nothing is going to happen. They lose the vast majority of those bets. Something will happen. When it does, what is the payout they’re liable for?

It gets mind-bendingly complex then, which is why you have limits of liability. A limit of liability is the variable needed—combined with their risk or exposure in terms of all the other variables (age, gender, important health markers, etc.)—to arrive at a premium, that which you pay them to cover you.

It gets even more complicated. All those calculations and your premium isn’t really designed to profit off of providing insurance to you, personally. Even that would not work out. Insurance companies pool risk just like casinos do. If a casino only had one customer, it would be very risky. The one customer could pull a lottery on you, bankrupt you.

Same with insurance. With thousands to millions of customers, most will have spread the costs of their accidents and misfortunes over a long space of time. So, you pay $100 per month, over 40 years of business, and you’ve paid them $48,000 total. Over that same space of time, perhaps you had a total of $30,000 in claims. $18,000 advantage, insurance company. But importantly, you were never hit with a short-term bill of $5,000 or $10,000. That’s what you paid for. When you’re really rich, you can simply be self-insured because those hits don’t matter (rich people do often carry umbrella liability policies, in case they’re passing around the bong in the jury deliberation room).

…And then there are those who pay in the same, but have little to no claims. Still others—like me—who once bought a 2nd home and after paying only a few hundred dollars for the homeowners insurance had a major fire 6 weeks later that cost the insurance company about $200,000.

All of those foregoing things must all be accounted for, analyzed, and worked out in order to make a profit and remain a going concern in order to keep marketing to new customers and maintain sound financial stability to pay valid claims to existing customers when they arise.

And what all that means is that your data must be meticulously accurate so that you can break it all down and compartmentalize and section the risk, so you can be a business and make money whilst having mostly happy customers who keep paying premiums month after month for years.

…Contrast that with the quality of data designed to incentivise spin merchants in the grant-whore community and media in the pay…

UPDATE: Chilling Pandemic Data from the Insurance Industry

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

13 Comments

  1. Eddie Osh on January 4, 2022 at 11:41

    I’ve been waiting for the actuarial data to come out. It’s exactly like you said, you price the risk off the real data, and then you see who’s naked when the tide goes out.

  2. Mark Buster on January 4, 2022 at 12:18

    I’m wondering if the numbers of employees that were laid off due to covid lockdowns had any part in the results. Assuming they are using a percentage of their total insured that died and that the total numbers of insured decreased. I would also have to assume that those not laid off and still insured, were at least at the same death risk as they were before and those losing their insurance were at a lower risk anyway.

    I’m sure they are really meticulously calculating the data, and know what categories/subcategories have increased. I would take it if they know what it is not, then they should also have a very good idea exacty what it is. I suspect they have all the data precise, but were building up the presumption of covid with the hope not everyone catches the comment about it not being covid at the end. Why? Money? I’ve been known to believe a conspiracy theory or two before.

  3. Matt Miller on January 4, 2022 at 13:09

    I’m having trouble getting a concrete understanding of what these numbers mean. Where does 40% come from?

    The article says that, according to the CDC’s weekly death count: “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.”

    So that’s a couple percent more deaths each week? I think there are a lot of reasons why death rates would be up; I’m thinking about the negative consequences of the covid policy in general. We know what a lot of those other increases are: suicide, overdose, murder, untreated illness, etc. (And of course: adverse reactions to shots.)

    The numbers as the articles describe them don’t seem that wild. Am I missing something?

    That said, I do worry that this increase could be a trend. And it could really start to ramp up for a variety of reasons, maybe due to another disruptive “emergency.”

    • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2022 at 15:37

      “The numbers as the articles describe them don’t seem that wild.”

      How much does that cost you to think that?

      The quote explains why those whom it is costing thinks it’s a big deal, on the order of 4x what they would expect from a really big oh shit.

      What happens to businesses if their costs (payouts in claims) increase 40% and revenue remains the same? They almost certainly lose money. If that persists, it puts them out of business. Sure, they can raise premiums, but when? How long do their existing contracts run?

      But the bigger question is why would you see such an unexpected increase in all-cause mortality? This just began this year, not in 2020 when apparently, it was the worst year of death ever ever ever and people were dropping dead in the streets and bodies were stacking up and rotting.

      I’m sure it’s multi-factoral, but whatever the answer, the question should be asked and the answer confronted.

  4. Eddie Osh on January 4, 2022 at 17:43

    Hoping this is going to reveal a lot more information as he digs deeper. (The comments are interesting too) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-you-work-at-an-insurance-company

  5. Holly Champaign on January 5, 2022 at 05:40

    Read that article right after listening to Drs. Shawn Baker and Malcolm Kendrick. Each time Dr. Kendrick discusses his latest book he drops a nugget or two. In this talk he mentioned that one of the possible reasons for the Scot’s poor cardiac health, early in his career, had to do with some type of governmental forced relocation, and the stress of the disruption probably had a lot to do with the rise in heart attacks.

    Fast forward, the public health authorities are running interference for the pharmacies regarding heart damage. Wouldn’t it be interesting if a skilled attorney, or two, took this rise in deaths “not due to vaccines” and sued the PH departments directly? They’ve boxed themselves in quite nicely to be taken out by a skilled adversary, I’d say.

  6. Andrew Snalune on January 5, 2022 at 09:25

    Best evidence yet that the remedies (whether vaxx or anti covid measures) were WAY worse than the poison

  7. Richard Nikoley on January 6, 2022 at 08:28
  8. Eddie Osh on January 6, 2022 at 15:43

    Here’s a more detailed analysis by a life-annuity actuary. It’s looking like one of the main causes is drug overdose.
    https://marypatcampbell.substack.com/p/excess-mortality-for-working-age

    • Richard Nikoley on January 6, 2022 at 15:55

      Yea, that looks pretty sound. And sure, it predated Covid, exacerbated by Covid.

      So, are those Covid deaths, since everything is?

    • Eddie Osh on January 7, 2022 at 06:44

      So many seriously important truth bombs in this paper. Here are some headlines:

      “it is not unreasonable to conclude that a dominant cause of death limiting life expectancy, in the USA in the pre-COVID-era, is bacterial infection, the most common fatal such infection being bacterial pneumonia”

      “It is evident also that the type of weakening of the immune system caused by chronic psychological stress would lessen the body’s ability to fight bacterial pneumonia, and that the populations hardest hit during the COVID-era are already disproportionately susceptible to bacterial pneumonia”

      “it is not unreasonable to ask whether the logic has not been inverted: Is COVID-19-assignment an incorrect cause-assignment for what is in fact bacterial pneumonia? From this perspective, it becomes relevant to point out that Ivermectin is probably an effective antibacterial agent against tuberculosis…, which would have been prescribed where the mainstream protocols call for avoiding antibiotics”

      “Finally, our examination of plausible mechanisms for the exceptionally large COVID-era mortality in the USA, given all our empirical observations, leads us to postulate that COVID-19 may largely be misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia (using a faulty PCR test…), that correctly assigned bacterial pneumonia itself largely goes untreated, while antibiotics (and Ivermectin) are withdrawn, in circumstances where large populations of vulnerable and susceptible residents have suppressed immune systems from chronic psychological stress induced by (“COVID response”) large-scale socio-economic disruption, and that the USA has, in the COVID-era, thus recreated the conditions that produced the horrendous bacterial pneumonia epidemic of 1918…”

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780