[Action80]

What does "full" refer to?

Great question. And it seems to be the number 1 question about the graph. Best I can discern from all of the comments is that “Full” is the aggregate for fully vaccinated people, (2 does Moderna & Pfizer, 1 dose J&J), regardless of brand.

Whatever you might think "fully vaccinated," fucking means, you can fucking rest assured it will mean something fucking different tomorrow.

Your chart therefore is absolutely fucking useless.

[Action80]

For me this isn't about government mandates. This is a private sector thing.
In my factory, I'm paying for health insurance. I'm responsible for the safety of the people here. I have to breathe in your pathogens.
If you want to work here, you get vaccinated.

I don't give a crap what the government or the Book of Revelations or Vladimir Putin says.

If you have some problem with getting vaccinated, this isn't the job for you. Just like a vegetarian Hindu is not going to work in a slaughterhouse.

It's ironic how many people are anti-vaxx but also hoo-rah pro-Armed Forces despite the fact that being anti-vaxx will earn you a dishonorable discharge now.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/12/17/1065286802/u-s-military-moves-to-discharge-service-members-who-refuse-to-get-vaccinated

Not even just a simple let go but a DISHONOURABLE discharge. Nice. Good.

I am sure you need more people labeled as DISHONORABLE to keep you company,  but the word appears nowhere in the article

[Tom Bishop]

The FDA Approved vaccine is still not available: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/12/18/kentucky-congressman-massie-comirnaty-not-available-in-united-states/

[Rama Set]

The FDA Approved vaccine is still not available: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/12/18/kentucky-congressman-massie-comirnaty-not-available-in-united-states/

So get another vaccine.

[Tom Bishop]

The FDA Approved vaccine is still not available: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/12/18/kentucky-congressman-massie-comirnaty-not-available-in-united-states/

So get another vaccine.

The problem is that there is no approved vaccine available, yet the vaccine is being mandated. The EUA vaccine cannot be mandated.

This article written by a law firm indicates that employers are prohibited from mandating the Emergency Use Authorized vaccines:

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/

EUAs are clear: Getting these vaccines is voluntary

The same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant emergency use authorization also requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

Likewise, the FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”

In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.

The EUAs for both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines require facts sheets to be given to vaccination providers and recipients. These fact sheets make clear that getting the vaccine is optional. For example, the one for recipients states that, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the Covid-19 Vaccine,” and if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”

[Rama Set]

The FDA Approved vaccine is still not available: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/12/18/kentucky-congressman-massie-comirnaty-not-available-in-united-states/

So get another vaccine.

The problem is that there is no approved vaccine is available, yet the vaccine is being mandated. The EUA vaccine cannot be forced on people:

According to this article written by a law firm employers are prohibited from mandating the Emergency Use Authorized vaccines:

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/

EUAs are clear: Getting these vaccines is voluntary

The same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant emergency use authorization also requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

Likewise, the FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”

In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.

The EUAs for both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines require facts sheets to be given to vaccination providers and recipients. These fact sheets make clear that getting the vaccine is optional. For example, the one for recipients states that, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the Covid-19 Vaccine,” and if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”

“But the Pfizer vaccine is the same!” He wrote knowing exactly how Tom would respond.

Why are you lying about a desire to get a vaccine in the first place?

[Tom Bishop]

Actually the FDA indicates that the two Pfizer products are "legally distinct":
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna

Comirnaty has the same formulation as the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.

Furthermore, the argument that they have the same composition is also incorrect. FDA indicates that the BNT162b2 EUA Pfizer vaccine has a different composition than the Comirnaty vaccine -

https://web.archive.org/web/20210913042547/https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download
see page 14: 4. NonclinicalPharmacology/Toxicology

COMIRNATY and BNT162b2 (V8) have identical amino acid sequences of the encoded antigens but COMIRNATY includes the presence of optimized codons to improve antigen expression.

FDA indicates on its definition page that "same formulation" does not mean same composition:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=314.3

Sec. 314.3 Definitions.

Same drug product formulation is the formulation of the drug product submitted for approval and any formulations that have minor differences in composition or method of manufacture from the formulation submitted for approval, but are similar enough to be relevant to the Agency's determination of bioequivalence.

Bioequivalence is also defined on that page:

Bioequivalence is the absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety in pharmaceutical equivalents or pharmaceutical alternatives becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study. Where there is an intentional difference in rate (e.g., in certain extended-release dosage forms), certain pharmaceutical equivalents or alternatives may be considered bioequivalent if there is no significant difference in the extent to which the active ingredient or moiety from each product becomes available at the site of drug action.

The definition includes extended-release dosages and alternatives. The terminology appears to be fairly loose. Same formulation means that it may have a different composition and delivery mechanism but it's bioequivalent if the right active ingredient goes to the right places. According to the above definition it could be a completely different alternative drug and still be a 'same formulation'.

However, the main concern is that the two vaccines are "legally distinct" which indicates that they are legally separate products.

[Rama Set]

Actually the FDA indicates that the two Pfizer products are "legally distinct":
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna

Comirnaty has the same formulation as the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.

Furthermore, the argument that the same composition is also incorrect. FDA indicates that the BNT162b2 EUA Pfizer vaccine has a different composition than the Comirnaty vaccine -

https://web.archive.org/web/20210913042547/https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download
see page 14: 4. NonclinicalPharmacology/Toxicology

COMIRNATY and BNT162b2 (V8) have identical amino acid sequences of the encoded antigens but COMIRNATY includes the presence of optimized codons to improve antigen expression.

FDA indicates on its definition page that "same formulation" does not mean same composition:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=314.3

Sec. 314.3 Definitions.

Same drug product formulation is the formulation of the drug product submitted for approval and any formulations that have minor differences in composition or method of manufacture from the formulation submitted for approval, but are similar enough to be relevant to the Agency's determination of bioequivalence.

Bioequivalence is also defined on that page:

Bioequivalence is the absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety in pharmaceutical equivalents or pharmaceutical alternatives becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study. Where there is an intentional difference in rate (e.g., in certain extended-release dosage forms), certain pharmaceutical equivalents or alternatives may be considered bioequivalent if there is no significant difference in the extent to which the active ingredient or moiety from each product becomes available at the site of drug action.

The definition includes extended-release dosages and alternatives. The terminology appears to be fairly loose. Same formulation means that it may have a different composition and delivery mechanism but it's bioequivalent if the right active ingredient goes to the right places. According to the above definition it could be a completely different alternative drug and still be a 'same formulation'.

However, the main concern is that the two vaccines are "legally distinct" which indicates that they are legally separate products.

“But the Pfizer vaccine is the same!” He wrote knowing exactly how Tom would respond.

Why are you lying about a desire to get a vaccine in the first place?

[stack]

The FDA Approved vaccine is still not available: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/12/18/kentucky-congressman-massie-comirnaty-not-available-in-united-states/

So get another vaccine.

The problem is that there is no approved vaccine available, yet the vaccine is being mandated. The EUA vaccine cannot be mandated:

Your article is from Feb 2021. The issue has been litigated since then and appeals are probably still out there.

Can Employers Mandate a Vaccine Authorized for Emergency Use?

Some employees have filed lawsuits arguing that employers can't mandate a vaccine that is approved only for emergency use. A federal court in Texas, however, dismissed this argument in a recent case against Houston Methodist, which required its 26,000 employees to get vaccinated or be fired...

Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an opinion on July 6 addressing vaccination mandates and the EUA status of the currently approved vaccines.

"As access to the COVID-19 vaccines has become widespread, numerous educational institutions, employers, and other entities across the United States have announced that they will require individuals to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment, enrollment, participation, or some other benefit, service, relationship or access," the DOJ said.

The department concluded that the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act doesn't prohibit public or private entities from mandating vaccines that are authorized under emergency use.

Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and CosmeticAct Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of aVaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization

In light of these developments, you have asked whether the “option to accept or refuse” condition in section 564 prohibits entities from imposing such vaccination requirements while the only available vaccines for COVID-19 remain subject to EUAs. We conclude, consistent with FDA’s interpretation, that it does not. This language in section 564 specifies only that certain information be provided to potential vaccine recipients and does not prohibit entities from imposing vaccination requirements. 3

[Tom Bishop]

Actually it has been litigated further than that DOJ July 6 opinion (made by someone who was not a judge). Last month a federal judge rejected those claims that the vaccine is legally interchangeable with the EUA vaccine:

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/2021/12/01/breaking-federal-judge-rejects-dod-claim-that-pfizer-eua-and-comirnaty-vaccines-are-interchangeable/

BREAKING: Federal Judge Rejects DOD Claim That Pfizer EUA And Comirnaty Vaccines Are ‘Interchangeable’

A federal district court judge has rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, which in August was fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In an order issued Nov. 12 in Doe et al. v. Austin, U.S. Federal District Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a preliminary injunction requested by 16 service members against the U.S. Military’s COVID vaccine mandate. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 14, 2022.

However, the judge’s acknowledgment that “the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA” is significant for two reasons…

[Rama Set]

That’s absolutely not what that judge said in the motion for injunctive relief. In fact the judge acknowledges the argument that the EUA and FDA vaccines are chemically identical.

[stack]

However, the judge’s acknowledgment that “the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA” is significant for two reasons…

Woah, I just read the Justice's order in the case. It's way, way more complicated than just the “the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA” highlight. In short, given all the back and forth between what approved facilities create the EUA version versus the approved version and the labels on each and which labeled vials the servicemembers must receive as part of the mandate, the injunction was denied:

Because the plaintiffs have not shown they are (or will be) required to receive an EUA-labeled, non-BLA compliant vaccine (The Biologics License Application (BLA) is a request for permission to introduce, or deliver for introduction, a biologic product into interstate commerce), the plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success.

It's a lot about "labeling" and "interchangeably". The Justice goes on:

What the plaintiffs overlook is that the FDA used the word “interchangeably”  in a practical sense, not a legal one. The EUA letter explains that the EUA drug and  Comirnaty “can be used interchangeably without presenting any safety or  effectiveness concerns,” but clarifies that they are “legally distinct.” ECF No. 1-6 at  3 n.8. That is most plausibly interpreted as a factual, medical claim rather than a regulatory claim.13
The best evidence of this is that, as noted above, the FDA was not considering whether to grant full approval to the EUA product on the basis that it was “interchangeable” with Comirnaty in the statutory sense. Rather, the FDA was extending an EUA authorization, a completely different regulatory classification,  that expressly requires Pfizer to indicate that EUA vaccines “ha[ve] not been  approved or licensed by the FDA.” ECF No. 1-6 at 13.

In short, the injunction was denied.

[Tom Bishop]

The injunction was asking for and alleging some specific things that the judge did not agree with. However, the judge agreed that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/judge-allen-winsor-pfizer-eua-comirnaty-vaccines-interchangeable/

All of these issues came to the fore in Judge Winsor’s Nov. 12 decision.

As recognized by the judge, “under the EUA statute, recipients of EUA drugs must be ‘informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

The judge further noted that with regard to the administration of an EUA product to members of the armed forces, such a right of refusal may be waived only by the president.

As noted, “[t]he DOD acknowledges that the president has not executed a [waiver], so as things now stand, the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA.”

Judge Winsor also pointed out that “DOD’s guidance documents explicitly say only FDA-licensed COVID-19 vaccines are mandated.”

While this would be applicable to the Comirnaty vaccine, the judge noted “the plaintiffs have shown that the DOD is requiring injections from vials not labeled ‘Comirnaty.’ Indeed, defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all.”

The judge also noted that the DOD “later clarified that it was mandating vaccines from EUA-labeled vials,” adding that “in the DOD’s view, this is fine because the contents of EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to the contents of vials labeled ‘Comirnaty’ (if there are any such vials).”

The judge found this argument “unconvincing,” stating that “FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

He further noted that EUA provisions suggest “drugs mandated for military personnel be actually BLA-approved, not merely chemically similar to a BLA-approved drug,” not just in terms of labeling, but also in terms of being produced at BLA-compliant facilities.

As the judge stated, “there is no indication that all EUA-labeled vials are from BLA-approved facilities,” adding that “the DOD cannot rely on the FDA to find that the two drugs are legally identical.”

[stack]

The injunction was asking for specific things that the judge did not agree with. However, the judge agreed that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated:

The injunction was asking that the vaccine not be mandated. Curiously, the judge denied the injunction.

[stack]

In other covid news:

A new congressional report shows how Donald Trump sabotaged the country’s early response to COVID

But there’s another crucial difference between the two administrations, and it’s outlined in a new report from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Trump’s administration, unlike Biden’s, deliberately sabotaged the nation’s response to the pandemic.

First: On Feb. 25, 2020, Nancy Messonnier, the CDC official in charge of respiratory diseases, warned Americans that a pandemic was coming and that they should prepare for school and workplace closures. Trump responded by threatening to fire her.
...in April 2020, the White House rejected the agency’s request to hold a briefing to present the scientific case for wearing masks. Instead, Trump delivered his own COVID briefing, at which he said of masks: “You don’t have to do it. I’m choosing not to do it.”

Second, the White House altered CDC guidance to religious congregations, deleting recommendations to wear masks and take other precautions.

Third, the administration tried to limit COVID testing in order to hide the extent of the pandemic and keep businesses open.

Fourth, from September 2020 to January 2021, the White House ignored urgent entreaties from its COVID task force coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx.

Fifth: Trump’s political appointees tried to pressure the Food and Drug Administration to authorize hydroxychloroquine and other ineffective therapies.

Finally: But the subcommittee report links to emails, transcripts, and other documents that show how the president’s anti-mask, anti-testing rhetoric was translated into policy and magnified the death toll.
 

[Kangaroony]

Nobody has said masks prevent infections. It has always been said it would slow the spread of infections

Everyone who participates in society is going to catch the corona. The idea behind masks was that not everyone is infected at the same time overwhelming healthcare services. Vaccines vastly reduce the chance you'll need hospital care

It's risk reduction.

I agree with yous assertion that mask wearing slows the spread of the Coronavirus, and decreases
the risk of catching it, but to say that "everyone" is going to catch it is not correct.  In an Australian
population of 20,400,000 aged 15+ years, there have been 265,000 confirmed cases to date, which
is only 1.3% of the population.

Not surprising that concept is beyond the grasp of a republican voter though

"The empirical results of [the] paper provide strong evidence that, after controlling for a variety of other
factors, the practice of mask wearing is significantly less in counties where then-candidate Donald Trump
received strong support in the 2016 presidential election. This result is consistent with the theory that
Trump supporters are looking to the president for guidance on the importance of wearing a mask to battle
COVID-19 and the message they are getting is that masks are not important. This message may prove to
be very costly in terms of economic losses, illnesses, and deaths."

—Politicizing the Mask: Political, Economic and Demographic Factors Affecting Mask Wearing Behavior in the USA, Leo H. Kahane, 5 January 2021.



It's been blatantly obvious for nearly two years that Trump and his supporters have undoubtedly increased
both the spread and the incidence, and the US death rate because of their combined inaction and beliefs in
absurd conspiracy theories.  In a just world, Trump would now be fronting the World Court on charges of
crimes against humanity relating to the unnecessary deaths of an estimated 100,000-plus people, due to
his blatant lies about potential cures, his total scientific ignorance, his delays in introducing border closures
and social isolation, his rejection of senior epidemiologists' advice, and his arrogant, dim-witted attitude in
general.  A truly woeful example of a human being, and an embarrassing disgrace for the American people
to bear, even into the near future.     At least we won't be seeing him ever again after 2024.

[Shifter]

Nobody has said masks prevent infections. It has always been said it would slow the spread of infections

Everyone who participates in society is going to catch the corona. The idea behind masks was that not everyone is infected at the same time overwhelming healthcare services. Vaccines vastly reduce the chance you'll need hospital care

It's risk reduction.

I agree with yous assertion that mask wearing slows the spread of the Coronavirus, and decreases
the risk of catching it, but to say that "everyone" is going to catch it is not correct.  In an Australian
population of 20,400,000 aged 15+ years, there have been 265,000 confirmed cases to date, which
is only 1.3% of the population.

Not all are active participants. Canberra is 99% vaxxed and not very 'big' by city standards and despite my best mitigating efforts and going out sparsely I have been very close to being in contact with it on numerous occasions. Imagine how many would be infected with no vaccine or mitigating efforts to control the spread.... I'll be thankful if I can escape the Christmas gatherings unscathed.

If you go out to work, have kids in school, do shopping, see friends or any other leisure activities, it really is only a matter of time. Hopefully for the unvaxxed sakes, the variant floating around is mild by the time that happens. Countries are going to go back to mostly pre covid life eventually. As sure as shit we get the common cold, we are going to get some form of this SARS menace

I prefer to be vaccinated when that happens. And it's going to happen.

[Action80]

In other covid news:

A new congressional report shows how Donald Trump sabotaged the country’s early response to COVID

But there’s another crucial difference between the two administrations, and it’s outlined in a new report from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Trump’s administration, unlike Biden’s, deliberately sabotaged the nation’s response to the pandemic.

First: On Feb. 25, 2020, Nancy Messonnier, the CDC official in charge of respiratory diseases, warned Americans that a pandemic was coming and that they should prepare for school and workplace closures. Trump responded by threatening to fire her.
...in April 2020, the White House rejected the agency’s request to hold a briefing to present the scientific case for wearing masks. Instead, Trump delivered his own COVID briefing, at which he said of masks: “You don’t have to do it. I’m choosing not to do it.”

Second, the White House altered CDC guidance to religious congregations, deleting recommendations to wear masks and take other precautions.

Third, the administration tried to limit COVID testing in order to hide the extent of the pandemic and keep businesses open.

Fourth, from September 2020 to January 2021, the White House ignored urgent entreaties from its COVID task force coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx.

Fifth: Trump’s political appointees tried to pressure the Food and Drug Administration to authorize hydroxychloroquine and other ineffective therapies.

Finally: But the subcommittee report links to emails, transcripts, and other documents that show how the president’s anti-mask, anti-testing rhetoric was translated into policy and magnified the death toll.

Fauci must have been the point man on the idea of rejecting the mask mandates, right?

[Action80]

Nobody has said masks prevent infections. It has always been said it would slow the spread of infections

Everyone who participates in society is going to catch the corona. The idea behind masks was that not everyone is infected at the same time overwhelming healthcare services. Vaccines vastly reduce the chance you'll need hospital care

It's risk reduction.

I agree with yous assertion that mask wearing slows the spread of the Coronavirus, and decreases
the risk of catching it, but to say that "everyone" is going to catch it is not correct.  In an Australian
population of 20,400,000 aged 15+ years, there have been 265,000 confirmed cases to date, which
is only 1.3% of the population.

Not surprising that concept is beyond the grasp of a republican voter though

"The empirical results of [the] paper provide strong evidence that, after controlling for a variety of other
factors, the practice of mask wearing is significantly less in counties where then-candidate Donald Trump
received strong support in the 2016 presidential election. This result is consistent with the theory that
Trump supporters are looking to the president for guidance on the importance of wearing a mask to battle
COVID-19 and the message they are getting is that masks are not important. This message may prove to
be very costly in terms of economic losses, illnesses, and deaths."

—Politicizing the Mask: Political, Economic and Demographic Factors Affecting Mask Wearing Behavior in the USA, Leo H. Kahane, 5 January 2021.



It's been blatantly obvious for nearly two years that Trump and his supporters have undoubtedly increased
both the spread and the incidence, and the US death rate because of their combined inaction and beliefs in
absurd conspiracy theories.  In a just world, Trump would now be fronting the World Court on charges of
crimes against humanity relating to the unnecessary deaths of an estimated 100,000-plus people, due to
his blatant lies about potential cures, his total scientific ignorance, his delays in introducing border closures
and social isolation, his rejection of senior epidemiologists' advice, and his arrogant, dim-witted attitude in
general.  A truly woeful example of a human being, and an embarrassing disgrace for the American people
to bear, even into the near future.     At least we won't be seeing him ever again after 2024.

As stated elsewhere,  more people born 1945-1960 equals more deaths now.

Has nothing to do with a president or politics.

People achieving the end of natural life expectancy.

[Rama Set]

As stated elsewhere,  more people born 1945-1960 equals more deaths now.

Has nothing to do with a president or politics.

People achieving the end of natural life expectancy.

Your half-assed explanation doesn't support why there would be a sudden and sharp spike in deaths that happens to coincide with COVID case spikes.  You can't hand wave this away with logically consistent arguements that have no evidence to back them up.