(Image: cdc.gov)Posted on 11/28/2020 8:25:19 PM PST by SeekAndFind
(Image: cdc.gov)
Conventional wisdom is that COVID-19 has caused thousands of deaths in the United States and nearly 1.5 million worldwide. This perception has been directly challenged by a study published by Johns Hopkins University on November 22.
Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins University, critically analyzed the impact that COVID-19 had on U.S. deaths. According to Briand, the impact of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States can be fully understood by comparing it to the number of total deaths in the country.
According to the study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
Wait, what? Really?
That’s what it says. And, it should come as no surprise that the study was deleted within days.
Luckily, a back-up copy remains on The Wayback Machine, and we can still read the study.
So, how exactly did the study conclude that COVID-19 has had “relatively no effect on deaths”? Here’s how the study made this determination:
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
But,
if it Saves
One Life!
Follow the “SCIENCE!”
Do it for the Children.
In this Together.
We’ll get through This.
Etc,etc,etc.
.
Idiocracy.
#13 tag
Johnathan Swift.
It’s easy to Trick
A Fool,,,
“The article in question was retracted last night, as it was being used to spread misinformation about the pandemic..."
Either the study is based on statistical data, or it is not. You don't spread lies by telling the truth.
“The percentages should be (largely) comparable to previous years for non-covid deaths and should be a percentage of the whole portion of deaths (including covid deaths - whatever that really means) throughout the year regardless of cause so as to not be weighted higher than they should be.”
That’s exactly what I did. I used the 2015 data - surely no one can claim that is tainted with covid deaths and it was not a particularly significant flu year, either - for the baseline, and the covid data from this year (obviously). I provided with- and without-covid calculations. My results show that the base claim, the only one that I was particularly interested in refuting, specifically, that there should be a spike in the deaths of the elderly, that that base claim is false. Covid kills the same people everything else kills and the result is an extra layer of deaths to the tune of about 11% across all age brackets. More deaths, shorter life expectancy (my completely unsubstantiated estimate is around 5 years at this time).
“There is also some confounding of the non-covid death data due to less travel, less other exposures, etc, so the numbers will change (in some cases noticeably).”
Noted, but current and accurate data is not easily available. What ever covid deaths are being offset are not going to significantly affect the distribution all that much, IMO, since they are either front-loaded deaths that would have the same distribution or “accidents” that didn’t happen. Notably, every one of the top causes I listed in my data except accidents is exacerbated by covid.
“Also, we know that there are a lot of deaths that have been mis-classified as covid being the primary cause when it wasn’t.”
This is an unsubstantiated claim. Certainly some are, but some that should be are not. The 6% trope is a deliberate deception. For example, only 3.75% (that’s less than 6%) of people that die from the common flu have no other known cause.
“The data is almost hopelessly confounded because of that simple fact, so the excess deaths number might be people with undelying causes that really would’ve died within 6 months to a year and it was hastened along by covid”
If you died one second sooner than you would have because you had covid, covid killed you. There is no grey area on this, and human lives and every second of them are precious. They are not just clumps of cells. Devaluing people because they would have died in [x] amount of time anyway is easily the most despicable argument put forth by the normalcy-bias-unhinged folks on this site.
“There’s a lot more to the analysis that just simple percentages of a whole here.”
Actually, no, there isn’t. The main claim of the article was that there was no disproportionate spike or redistribution in the deaths, so there must not have been as many deaths. They expected to see more dead people within a certain demographic. My analysis supports my claim that there is no shift because covid kills people in the same proportions as the aggregate of the other causes of death. My table proves that. As far as I am concerned, that may very well have been a designed feature of the bug, but regardless, that’s how it behaves.
“What I am saying is that you have oversimplified the issue just as so many other people have; including a lot of really smart people (or at least apparently smart people). You’re in some good company, but I still believe your table and analysis is severely flawed.”
I refuted a claim made by someone that oversimplified the issue in a flawed manner to make a claim that was not supported by the evidence. I provided sources and methodology and the results support my explanation of why the original claim was incorrect. If you believe my analysis flawed, I invite you to prove it with evidence that contradicts my proof. Another poster on this thread provided evidence of excess deaths. I think that between his evidence and mine, the argument that covid is real is pretty conclusive, and the various unsubstantiated claims that it is a hoax, that it only kills people that were on the way out soon, anyway, and so forth, are defeated. This is evidence. As convincing and valid as the election fraud evidence.
Believing it is false or flawed is one thing - you can believe what ever you like - proving it is something else. I welcome your proof that my analysis is flawed. I would rather learn from my mistakes. But your proof cannot be based on simply wanting it to be so. Find a problem with my sources, or an error in one of my calculations. Or even show that my methodology does not lead to the conclusions I say it does. All of those are valid critiques, but all of those require evidence rather than opinion.
The article asserted that there was no spike in elderly deaths, therefore covid is not the threat it is claimed to be. My statement was that that isn’t the case because covid kills all the same folks everything else kills, so the distribution across age brackets would not have the spike they were looking for.
If you look at the covid data, it compares extremely well with the data from those other causes, to the effect that there is only a fraction of a percent differential in the distribution between stats with and without covid in the mix. This is a positive correlation supporting the claim that covid has the same distribution. And since covid is the third leading cause of death this year, that refutes the idea that it is because the covid deaths are insignificant compared to the whole.
Okay so the very real evidence of suicides and poisonings and murders and heart attacks and other things with no underlying covid infection or only a positive PCR test which we know is flawed heavily being classified as covid deaths isn’t evidence of obviously flawed and confounded data? Got it...
“Okay so the very real evidence of suicides and poisonings and murders and heart attacks and other things with no underlying covid infection or only a positive PCR test which we know is flawed heavily being classified as covid deaths isn’t evidence of obviously flawed and confounded data? Got it...”
So, show that “very real evidence”. Not some anecdotes - I can offer anecdotes as well, but anecdotes are only evidence of anecdotes. Show some real, mathematically supported evidence. If it’s there, show it. We’ve all “heard” all sorts of things. Without proof, it’s just hearsay and conspiracy theories.
Real evidence has been provided that counters your claims. Refute it.
The above is one of thousands of stories that can easily be found.
With all of the incentives for positive test results, treatment, hospitalization and death certs showing covid you know that there is going to be graft, the stories of this are myriad, one need not look far to find them, but of course cognitive dissonance is so much easier.
Don’t reply to me again and expect a further response, it just insults my intelligence to deal with you.
I don’t think I can insult your intelligence, and I reply to any post I wish to, even those from people whose intelligence is uninsultable.
3,700 virus deaths out of 270,000 is 1.4%. That assumes the 3,700 number isn’t overestimated or misrepresented. As a percent of a percent of a percent it is not significant.
The “incentive” for misidentifying COVID cases does not offset the losses endured by the medical community (which all of us will ultimately end up paying for). It also does not offset the loss of future income that results from fraud. Don’t rationalize your ODD or project your own cognitive issues (dissonance and deficit, among others) onto me.
Easy to trick a Fool and
Impossible to Tell him
the Truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.