Thanks for posting a link to the paper.

No problem. I always think that a little bit of science goes a long way.

in healthy individuals the Omicron strain does not leave the upper respiratory tract to infect deep in the lungs or other organs

I'm not sure that's true. Certainly Omicron (and to a lesser extent Delta) coincided with a spike in child deaths, whereas earlier strains did not:

https://insidemedicine.bulletin.com/delta-and-omicron-killed-far-more-children-than-flu-ever-does/

What's your source for Omicron not progressing to pneumonia or organs other than lungs?

It is horrendously confounded with the mortality effects of lockdowns, job losses, etc.

The usual way to deal with confounders if you can't do a randomized trial is to use a control group. This study effectively does that by comparing between people infected with Covid and people not infected. Because both groups would be similarly affected by lockdowns, job losses, etc these are not counfounders.

Not to mention confounded with the effects of vaccination mortality in 2021.

Vaccination would be anti-correlated to COVID infection though. Or are you suggesting that the vaccine prolongs life in ways that are unrelated to COVID?

Some of those graphs have huge confidence intervals (pink regions), which demonstrates that we should not believe that those graphs are especially accurate

Point of language: The graphs are accurate. Some don't show significance.

The statistics I quoted are significant though. People infected with SARS-COV-2 had more than three times the risk of dying over the following year compared with those who remained uninfected (aHR 3·1, 95%CI 2·9-3·3). (aHR 3·1, 95%CI 2·9-3·3) means that the central estimate of the risk of dying is 3.1 times for those that have not had covid, and the 95% confidence interval is that the risk is between 2.9 times and 3.3 times.

Very importantly, we see that for the medium (36-84 days) and long term (days 85-365), the slopes of the graphs (bottom middle and right, Figure 2) are virtually identical.

You correctly note that the difference is not significant for the mid and long term periods in isolation (only for the under 60 group). However, it is significant for the whole period. Excluding those that died in the 0-35 days period biases the covid group to healthier people, so for those periods the groups are not directly comparable.

For the over 60 years old cohort, the slope does not come back to normal, but then this is only to be expected for any serious infection. If you did a similar graph for most any other disease on the over 60s you would likely see a similar effect.

Do you have an example?

But importantly, none of this is relevant to Arne Espeel. He is young and fit. To the degree that the Estonia data shown in that Lancet paper is at all relevant, it shows that for the young, the only excess mortality is during the first 30-40 days following infection with long-extinct strains of Covid

You are assuming that because you don't know if he ever had covid, then he didn't have in in the last couple of months. (Or even several months, until you show that there is no increased risk for mortality in the under 60s several months after a positive covid test when corrected for those that died in the first 35 days.)

That is a fallacious inference.

Given the risk of death is tripled if he had been infected, the conditional probability that we had been infected given that he died, is not going to be as negligible as you would like people to believe.

We cannot know for sure that Espeel was killed by vaccine-induced heart failure, but that's where the smart money is.

The data you haven't provided is:

1) How long after a vaccination do you get an increase in heart failure.
2) How much that increase is.
3) When and whether Espeel was last vaccinated.

Until then this is an extremely speculative wild assumption.

I also note that the vaccines vary a bit but generally decrease all cause mortality, not increase it.

So the claim that "Espeel was killed by vaccine-induced heart failure", is not only wildly speculative, but is seems fair to also point out that it's patently ridiculous.