A report archived from Johns Hopkins student newspaper: total death statistics aren’t up this year, as increased deaths from the virus are matched with declining deaths from every other cause.
A report archived from Johns Hopkins student newspaper: total death statistics aren’t up this year, as increased deaths from the virus are matched with declining deaths from every other cause.
34 comments:
From the actual CDC: https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/20/cdc-data-excess-deaths-covid-19/
Deaths are up over last year.
If you read the article you posted, you will notice she stays aways from listing actual numbers of total deaths and instead converts to percentages. This is misleading as percentages don't convey the same information. Notice there are no links to the actual data she uses in the article and one of her graphs is presented in a way that cuts off the information in the inset using the dark green and yellow lines which are peaking.
It is odd that an article would say that the numbers aren't higher and then not bother to list the actual reported numbers...something that could be done in one sentence.
-COT
That’s odd indeed. It’s also odd that those CDC numbers say the biggest jump in deaths is for people from 25 to 44 years old; it’s probably not COVID.
Suicide and drug deaths are up among younger people. That's probably not enough to account for the increase, but it's related to the lockdowns and the growing sense of forced isolation.
LittleRed1
Written by a statistician, not an economist.
https://theconversation.com/279-700-extra-deaths-in-the-us-so-far-in-this-pandemic-year-147887
This is a really cool site.
https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
It has charts where you can select countries and view data related to mortality over the last few years. You can select the US and see the increase in percentage of deaths for all age groups. When you do that, you will see that all age groups have increased rates of death which go up and down almost precisely when the US has had spikes in Covid cases during this past year.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-by-age?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&country=USA-0~USA-1~USA-2~USA-3®ion=World
-COT
Some of the confusing elements may come from trying to combine these numbers, which aren’t fully compatible. Those CDC numbers say the biggest increase was in fairly young people. The last source says they’ve had the smallest increase, but uses a different age range (15-64).
Still, the numbers don’t make sense together. Even the smallest figure for excess mortality among the young is way higher — many times higher — than the estimated death rate for COVID in that bracket. So then we’d expect non-COVID causes to explain that increased mortality, as LR1 says. But non-COVID deaths of all kinds are down, not up, as percentages.
The Economist has been estimating Excess Deaths for multiple countries and comparing them with reported Covid-19 deaths. For the US, their estimate off Excess Deaths is at 310576...far *higher* than the reported deaths.
To get the *readable* graphs for the US, you have to go down to the State level, there doesn't seem to be a consolidated US graph.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries?utm_campaign=coronavirus-special-edition&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=2020-07-18&utm_content=cover_text_url_3
"...aren't fully compatible..." is the correct idea. What we see is not necessarily illusion, but it is murky and hard to tell "wha's wha'"
A decrease in all contagious illness, including influenza, we should expect, from less contact. How much? I have no idea. @ Little Red1, I have seen numbers that drug deaths and suicide are not down overall, though they look that way for a few weeks at all points because of lagging data. Maybe it is true for young people, I don't know.
We expected increase in some conditions because of delayed medical care because of resources redirected to C19. That does not seem to have happened, or not very much. I still think that is going to show up eventually, with steady if not dramatic numbers. Like everything else, it is hard to say. As I am one who believes that the overall mortality for chronic conditions isn't much affected by treatment, I don't know what to make of it. I say this as one who plays the percentages by taking treatment for metabolic syndrome (four medicines total) plus Vitamin D. I don't expect magic, just improved odds.
There is one type of clarity to be gained in focusing on deaths prevented or not prevented by lockdowns, and it has a certain emotional satisfaction as well. See? Ya didn't even save that many lives, did ya? Yet I think there is more clarity in focusing on the economic devastation for some, even though many were merely inconvenienced. It is going to take a long time to sort out "How many of those lost jobs were unavoidable, because no restaurant wanted that liability?" "How many of those deaths were people who would have been dead before Christmas anyway?" "Was it going to be a low season for flu deaths anyway, or did everyone staying home cut the numbers 50%?" "Should we look at the suicide rates only for this year, or going forward for another two years, as businesses that were driven to the brink didn't go down until later?"
I think we start with the devastating, no-win tradeoff of death versus impoverishment first, then try to suss out the subtleties later. And never, never forget the Chinese in all this. Liberals have done an extremely good job of distracting us from that, and conservatives have stupidly fallen for it.
So far I know one (1) person to die from covid.....101 years old, in failing health.
According to the panic, there should be tumbrels pulled by ox with cloaked and sombre attendants yelling "bring out your dead", hour on the hour.
Ain't seeing it.
Shuffle the numbers anyway you want, I am not seeing it.
What makes me sick, is a lot of people cowering in fear.
Masks, outdoors, in the open air? Really? OK. Sure.
Can you smell a fart in an elevator? In a banquet hall? In a stadium? Outside?! Density matters.
If someone gives me shit about not wearing a mask outside, I will ask them, quite pleasantly, if they are concerned about their health. Because they are going to be quite close to having a serious concern materialize.
Sometimes whole societies go batshit crazy. Now is one of those times. Probably ought to burn a few witches or buy some tulip stocks.
Cdc is fake or an enemy org.
Sometimes paranoia is better for mental health than passive gullibility.
The article was pulled due to inaccuracies.
Here’s the link where they explain why they took it down. It explains the inaccuracies that GraniteDad refers to. They are some of the same inaccuracies I previously mentioned.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
Though making clear the need for further research, the article was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic. We regret that this article may have contributed to the spread of misinformation about COVID-19.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JHUNewsLetter/status/1332100155986882562
That does not sound like a statement that the report was inaccurate, only that they didn't like the way it was being quoted.
Christopher,
Yes, that is what the brief tweet says. You can read the longer response that I listed by the same people that I provided a link to. It isn’t a conspiracy. I, a lay person, read the pulled article and immediately noticed problems in the way the information was being presented and the weirdness of not using numbers instead of percentages.
The article is imprecise and fuzzy. Perhaps because it’s a summary by a student who viewed a webinar. It doesn’t provide a lot of detail or the sources that Briand used to compile her info. There is a lot of room there for problems.
-COT
Update about the raid in Germany.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/new_reports_about_election_manipulation_read_like_a_tom_clancy_novel.html
Any thoughts? Since it involves The Hammer.
The original article makes an important point - the CDC data count people dying from underlying conditions as COVID deaths, so long as the individual was diagnosed with COVID, even if only postmortem. At worst we get things like the case in Florida where the young man died from crashing his motorcycle into a tree and was listed as a COVID death, because the medical examiner said "We can't completely rule out that the death was not COVID related."
If we (national statisticians) are including people already in stage 4 pancreatic cancer, or with malignant melanoma, or dying of long-term cardiac problems and the like as COVID, in some cases only on suspicion that the person might have had the disease, not a positive test AND clinical diagnosis, then the numbers are going to be skewed to the point of uselessness. And keep in mind, Medicare pays more for COVID cases than for "normal" influenza, heart attacks, cancer, and the like.
SARS2-CoVid19 is very bad for people who are overweight, have COPD and other breathing problems, and are diabetic or immune suppressed. That everyone agrees on. But the waters have gotten so muddied by changing methods of statistical analysis and diagnosis that we may never know the actual data.
LittleRed1
When I read excuses like "this admittedly accurate report was being used for bad purposes," I'm gone.
And frankly I'd be a lot more impressed if there were a more universal insistence on pulling published articles detected in inaccuracy or outright falsehood. Until then, this is just political hackery.
“Any thoughts? Since it involves The Hammer”
I definitely do not believe that US Special Forces raided a CIA facility in Germany, defended in a firefight by CIA paramilitaries flown in from Afghanistan. I don’t believe that the military would try to hide their deaths by posthumous reassignment if elite SOF to a Texas National Guard outfit, and yet the dead are identified as such.
I do believe the character spinning this tale is a fabulist still best. This whole story is bull, and you should burn whatever sources are telling you to take it seriously.
“ It isn’t a conspiracy....using numbers instead of percentages....The article is imprecise and fuzzy. Perhaps because it’s a summary by a student who viewed a webinar.“
Maybe. The reason I flagged it wasn’t to suggest a conspiracy, but because none of the COVID stuff makes a lot of sense. Science advances that way, though: “That’s funny” is often a blinking arrow pointing to a truth we’ve been missing.
These numbers still don’t make sense. Fuzziness may be responsible, or the fact that the sets aren’t compatible, or something else. The math on the excessive deaths is out of line with the observed fatality rate, not slightly but by multiples. Rates of other things may still be important even as percentages.
I think it’s worth thinking about. If, of course, it’s accurate.
It's important to encourage a devil's advocate to point out whatever sketchy evidence of the proposed saint's miraculous events are being considered. A permanent decision and declaration about an important claim requires the best possible evidence.
The "fuzziness" in both the "age at death" and "cause of death" data is only resolved over time. But if the claim that the novel "cause of death" is a particular affliction for a target age group, then the percentages based on the fuzzy numbers should still change in a predictable way. When the predictions differ from the measurement -- something is wrong with one or the other. Right now, the Covid-19 "experts" say something is wrong with the data but the cause and age links and models are still valid.
One wonders. But one can't resolve the question by running the devil's advocate out of the room. (One of the few major policy issues where I differ with the great, blessed, venerable and sainted J2P2.)
We are asking the wrong questions.
Why were there videos of healthy looking men in Wuhan, all of a sudden taking two steps and falling over dead in the street, or in a mall.
Why were the Chinese dressed in complete bio-hazard suits when investigating this?
Why were the Chinese locking people into their apartments?
Why were the Chinese running huge trucks three abreast spraying some "antiseptic" on the streets?
Why were the Wuhan crematoriums supposedly running 24/7?
Does any of this reflect what we have seen anywhere else in the world?
Why did all of these "leaked" cell phone videos stop a month of so into the virus?
How did any of these homemade videos get onto the web in the first place, given Chinese control of the web in their country?
supposition #1
Best case. Accident.
The Chinese would not do this for the flu.
Therefore, the Chinese knew something had leaked out of the Wuhan bio weapons lab AKA Wuhan virus research lab. At first, they did not know what, and they crapped their pants, supposing some civilization ending horror had crept out.
supposition #2
Seeing the massive overreaction from the west and the resulting economic damage, they kept running the play.
Supposition #3-
The left wing in this country saw an opportunity to push the virus "bad news" as hard as possible, with full assent from the propaganda core AKA the MSM, with a view to attacking the President.
Supposition #4.
Worst case.
The entire thing was planned from the start with complicity in this country from our home grown communists, as a ploy to weaken the country, damage the economy, and remove Trump, and establish a communist government.
IMO, we are at war.
Grim, the source was second verified by mcinterney, which is partially vouched for by flynn.
Raven, you are not wrong. A good list.
I would write more but... phone
I can answer the falling over thing. Microwave directed energy weapons, causing a 5g oxygen absorption problem. Wuhan, princess, other sites had 5g broadcasting. Think microwave slow cooker.
China has immense smog and dystopia air issues. Does not take much.
I don’t care who vouched for it. It’s definitely not true that the CIA flew Afghan paramilitaries to fight SFOD-D raiders in Germany.
Based on what though? While the public does not know the specifics, there are now 2 or more versions of a friday 13th raid.
While i was assured something good would happen on 13th, the details are not solid.
Currently there is an active coup in progress, not hard to think there is some conflict spilling up from under shadows.
The info, accurate or not, is going around. The timing is peculiar given the dod purge and space force.
If t knew he was gonna have to do martial law and m tribunals vs deep state, getting his own military branch is critical.
So i know where the info is floating from, in general, but i dont see why you are so certain it did not happen as described.
This concerns 2 very well compartamentalized groups. The left hand does not know the right hand.
As for hammer, that is one of sid s cyber security experts saying it exists.
Shh don't tell anyone, but the webinar that the jhunewsletter article was about is viewable online on youtube by anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKJN61aflI
This webinar steps through an analysis really step by step, from navigating through the CDC website to get to the CSV files of interest, to pasting them in (tedious, as the data wanted in aggregate is spread over many reports) to using excel graphing to see whether interesting things are happening.
I also saw somewhere where an actual journalist has spoken to both the Webinar presenter Genevieve Briand and the article author Yanni Gu post-controversy, and I wish I could find that one again.
“Based on what though?”
What answer would satisfy? If I hypothetically knew what Delta was up to, I couldn’t tell you on a blog. If I did, I wouldn’t be trustworthy because I would be breaking my oaths. So you shouldn’t trust anything I said on the subject, because I’m either ignorant or untrustworthy.
The same goes for any other source. Either they’re making it up or they’re violating a confidence, or reporting from someone who is making it up or violating a confidence; in neither case should you believe what they say.
There are 2 ways. Claiming your source as anonymouse.
2. Using open source intel to verify what can be, such as the rate of flights to gitmo or black sites.
Based on what you have hinted, if you knew the op details from germany, you would know the units involved. That is unlikely given opsec. True whether it was black ops, cia, or german forces.
There might be some details you know, but the rest would be unknown to you.
This does not translate into, your absolutely did not happen response. Any confirmation or denial is itself an opsec problem.
God and i have not agreed to any ndss or secret confidences. Just an fyi. Whatever information that comes from divine net that is corroborated by human sources, is getting close to the 3 witness rule of verification.
Everything open source on delta is allowed. Anyone can look those up. Thus comments on that alone, is not breaking confidence.
The usual check against made up stories is to cross reference sources against each other. Flynn s recent public talk is about a coup in progress.
Is there a particular reason why a coup in progress cannot ever deploy cia action teams or socom or space force cyber, given trump s emergency orders and dod putting socom under trump s loyalist in dod?
These are not hypotheticals that can be dismissed without a reason.
I'm telling you based on my personal experience that I don't believe this story. Jim Hanson, himself a former special operator, also doesn't believe a word of this story. We've worked in this world in several ways and it doesn't seem remotely plausible to either of us.
But if you want open source reporting, here's two reports from journalists I think are on the level.
Susan Katz Keating, a journalist I've personally dealt with and who was trusted by a close CIA friend of mine, says you guys are just getting your reports mixed up.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/reports-about-alleged-us-army-raid-german-server-may-stem-separate
Here is an investigative journalist I've had dinner with a couple of times, whose work seems to me to be as honest as any journalist is capable of being these days. He says this whole story tracks to a single source who is a serial liar.
https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/debunking-hammer-and-scorecard-a
So based on previous experience, it does not follow. I can understand that viewpoint, however 2020 is not applicable to those experiences. As it is a civil war in the usa, foreign interferrence in elections, and treason. Any of those factors can break your previous exp .
Getting the reports mixed up is not the same as, did not happen ever. Multiple raids on friday 13th, with disinfo used to hide actionable intel to buy time is feasible.
I will read jordan later.
Susan s article is nov 18th. This is the 30th and sidney plus flynn and his friend old gen mcinterney was last week.
Time gap on intel is critical.
Susan does not have access to flynn s secrets or sid s.
I wrote open source meaning the raws. Not journalists that analyze things from a cia or dod pov. I agree with your point that intel sources often make stuff up or are like watergate leaker.
How do you know? I’ll bet SKK knows Flynn personally. I know she and he had mutual friends at least.
Because the article does not mention anonymous sources or anything related to it. That's the job of a journalist, to protect sources like Flynn if they don't wish to make it public, or to attribute it to some other intel source or analysis procedure.
And knowing someone works both ways, as Flynn + McInterney. Association does not confer guilt or innocence.
But this topic will be obsolete by about January 20th, 2021.
Then you will see what is what, in the Golden Age of 2021, Grim.
Post a Comment