COVID gratuitous dumpster fire thread

[Lyons212]

Hang in there. One of employees (late 50s) got it and only felt worn down for 2 weeks and her husband didn't even know he had it!). Still don't understand how my son didn't get it living with two frat guys who did have it. Don't even think that he was taking precautions...

A few possibilities:

1. The frat guys had false positives (see Elon Musk)
2. The PCR test is too sensitive, positives can be the result of having dead virus fragments, recovered from covid (someone who was asymptomatic) or has a different corona virus (this is buried in CDC documentation).
2. Your son has cross immunity from exposure to a different corona virus

 

[1032004]

There have been quite a few stories of even spouses not getting it when the other one did. It does often seem to spread among family members/people living together, but not always.

 

[82bordeaux]

There have been quite a few stories of even spouses not getting it when the other one did. It does often seem to spread among family members/people living together, but not always.

We'll let you know what Mrs. Bordeaux's test results are. She was with me until Sunday night when she fled to the cottage. But I was feeling off Saturday, and definitely had enough symptoms that she moved to the cottage Sunday night. So far she has no symptoms...

 

[aalion]

Well calling it “safe when appropriate protections are in place” and saying “it doesn’t spread” in schools are two entirely different things IMO.

I do think schools should remain open, but it’s definitely spreading there. In fact I was surprised when you claimed it didn’t when earlier you commented about “the demographics of those being infected now,” which would seemingly be an admission that some of them are getting it from school.

All of the schools in the US don’t have the same protections. Some don’t require masks, they have different spacing, different ventilation, different rules for lunches and casual gathering. Yet according to even lockdown centric mostly Democratic Govs, the data shows schools are safe across the country and the world. You can parse those words any way you want if it makes you feel better.

As to the point about demographics in cases being lower in age group including students, again the evidence is overwhelming that kids get it from adults (parents) not the other way around (nor from each other) Studies from Germany, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark .... the case count is mow increased (in addition to legit cases due to flu season) because kids, who never knew they had it in the first place, have to get tested and find out. In summer, if Dad has it or suspected he did, the kid would never get tested without symptoms. In Fall he would. I consider my son our COVID canary - he gets tested every 2 weeks and if he is negative I probably am too.

 

[a_mshaffer]

A few possibilities:

1. The frat guys had false positives (see Elon Musk)
2. The PCR test is too sensitive, positives can be the result of having dead virus fragments, recovered from covid (someone who was asymptomatic) or has a different corona virus (this is buried in CDC documentation).
2. Your son has cross immunity from exposure to a different corona virus

yea, the frat guys did get it based on the symptoms they had. One does have to acknowledge the fact of false negatives and positives. I live in the world of chronic lyme and the CDC / Insurance sponsored tests are NOT credible. With this onslaught, I should have opened up a test center in my garage

 

[matter7172]

I don’t know the specifics of “all parts of the country,” but I’m not sure this is true. I think I’ve mostly just seen it happening in the Midwest so far.

Okay, "many" parts. Sill not a good thing. Because look at case rates. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#compare-trends_newcases

 

[aalion]

Read her quotes from June 9th. She explains herself. Perhaps the article you saw from "September" left a few facts out. Trusting an article summary that gets posted 3 months after the fact....and believing that version.....while speculating that she was "Slapped down" with absolutely no proof seems more in the arena of preposterous.

LOL. Did you read why they backtracked? After receiving “strong pushback from outside public health experts”. Which means politicians like our own Rachel Levine who just mandated masks while playing basketball. Part of the criticism of the “very rare” statement was in comparison to some who say that 40% of spread is asymptomatic. Except ... wait for it ... those are from freakin MODELS! Not science.

Let’s try this one... asymptomatic spread in the household is 75% less likely than symptomatic spread. Which means that outside the household is what .... 95% less likely? 99%?

Household Transmission of SARS-COV-2: Insights from a Population-based Serological Survey

Importance Knowing the transmissibility of asymptomatic infections and risk of infection from household and community exposures is critical to SARS-CoV-2 control. Limited previous evidence is based primarily on virologic testing, which disproportionately misses mild and asymptomatic infections...

www.medrxiv.org

 

[Sportfan2017]

LOL. Did you read why they backtracked? After receiving “strong pushback from outside public health experts”. Which means politicians like our own Rachel Levine who just mandated masks while playing basketball. Part of the criticism of the “very rare” statement was in comparison to some who say that 40% of spread is asymptomatic. Except ... wait for it ... those are from freakin MODELS! Not science.

LOL Indeed. Lets review the FACTS
1. You referenced a post listed on your "News" source that was not new but rather 3 months old
2. Your "News" source failed to mention that the "news" was refuted and retracted the very next day.
3 You blamed the reversal on being "Slapped Down" with absolutely no evidence supporting your claim
4. You now claim that the "pushback from health experts in the WHO as well as other "Health Experts" are not really health experts but rather Politicians. Of course...once again....providing no evidence of your claim that “strong pushback from outside public health experts”. Which means politicians" YOUR words........Health experts=Politicians..... Completely unsubstantiated that the pushback was from Politicians.
5. Going back to a "News" site that deliberately posted old news and deliberately left out updates and changes in said news........can't possibly be a "Trusted News Source"

 

[aalion]

What the hell “news” site are you talking about? I was reading articles about the WHO statements, what they were, and why they were retracted. Why is your “news site” somehow more credible than my “news site”. Fact is, she said it (I thought September, turns out June). She said it for a reason (she looked at 3 or 4 studies on the subject), she got criticized for it by public health experts outside the WHO, and softened it as a result to “we aren’t really sure”.

I linked a second study that shows the exact same thing

you are free to think what you want. Fact is, undeniably, the data shows COVID isn’t spread through schools, which is how we got on this subject. No one outside of teachers unions debates that anymore. Maybe it is because kids eat more peanut butter than the rest of us. At one point the WHO thought that a major factor was asymptomatic spread was very rare. I called it “much less common”. Now the stock answer is “we don’t really know because tracking spreading sources is dubious”. I will go with “people who aren’t coughing and sneezing are much less likely to spread”. Either way, spread isn’t occurring through schools due to lack of asymptomatic spread, peanut butter, perfect use of masks by 7 year olds, the inhibiting properties of paste and crayons, or because kids are just better at social distancing and following rules than the general public.

Looks like Nature magazine is into publishing dangerous disinformation too.



believe what you want. Have a great weekend and a great holiday. Time for happy hour.

 

[Sportfan2017]

What the hell “news” site are you talking about? I was reading articles about the WHO statements, what they were, and why they were retracted. Why is your “news site” somehow more credible than my “news site”. Fact is, she said it (I thought September, turns out June). She said it for a reason (she looked at 3 or 4 studies on the subject), she got criticized for it by public health experts outside the WHO, and softened it as a result to “we aren’t really sure”.

I linked a second study that shows the exact same thing

you are free to think what you want. Fact is, undeniably, the data shows COVID isn’t spread through schools, which is how we got on this subject. No one outside of teachers unions debates that anymore. Maybe it is because kids eat more peanut butter than the rest of us. At one point the WHO thought that a major factor was asymptomatic spread was very rare. I called it “much less common”. Now the stock answer is “we don’t really know because tracking spreading sources is dubious”. I will go with “people who aren’t coughing and sneezing are much less likely to spread”. Either way, spread isn’t occurring through schools due to lack of asymptomatic spread, peanut butter, perfect use of masks by 7 year olds, the inhibiting properties of paste and crayons, or because kids are just better at social distancing and following rules than the general public.

Looks like Nature magazine is into publishing dangerous disinformation too.

View embedded media

believe what you want. Have a great weekend and a great holiday. Time for happy hour.

Thanks. I hope you and yours have a Happy and Healthy Holiday Season. Be Well

 

[Dogwelder]

Thanks. I hope you and yours have a Happy and Healthy Holiday Season. Be Well

Don’t just be well. Be best!

 

[1032004]

What the hell “news” site are you talking about? I was reading articles about the WHO statements, what they were, and why they were retracted. Why is your “news site” somehow more credible than my “news site”. Fact is, she said it (I thought September, turns out June). She said it for a reason (she looked at 3 or 4 studies on the subject), she got criticized for it by public health experts outside the WHO, and softened it as a result to “we aren’t really sure”.

I linked a second study that shows the exact same thing

you are free to think what you want. Fact is, undeniably, the data shows COVID isn’t spread through schools, which is how we got on this subject. No one outside of teachers unions debates that anymore. Maybe it is because kids eat more peanut butter than the rest of us. At one point the WHO thought that a major factor was asymptomatic spread was very rare. I called it “much less common”. Now the stock answer is “we don’t really know because tracking spreading sources is dubious”. I will go with “people who aren’t coughing and sneezing are much less likely to spread”. Either way, spread isn’t occurring through schools due to lack of asymptomatic spread, peanut butter, perfect use of masks by 7 year olds, the inhibiting properties of paste and crayons, or because kids are just better at social distancing and following rules than the general public.

Looks like Nature magazine is into publishing dangerous disinformation too.

View embedded media

believe what you want. Have a great weekend and a great holiday. Time for happy hour.

I’m not gonna keep arguing on the school thing as overall I would agree they are “safe if proper precautions are taken” and there doesn’t seem to be massive spread at schools, but it is still spreading there. That is undeniable based on the reports all across the country of school “outbreaks” - I know some places define an “outbreak” as “2 or more cases,” so if it’s only 2 that’s not a lot but of course many don’t share the number, and most that I saw said they were only counted if they believe the spread happened at school.

In terms of the asymptomatic spread issue, for one there’s a difference between asymptomatic and presymptomatic and presymptomatic definitely seems to be a thing. I am a little skeptical of asymptomatic spread as well and also don’t necessarily think it’s a “major factor,” but I believe last I read over 50% of people with covid had no idea where they got it from (https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-patients-dont-know-how-they-got-infected.html) so it certainly seems like asymptomatic spread is possible.

 

[Ski]

How are those excess death counts that weren’t going to go down looking now?

Meanwhile

View embedded media

Apparently. It’s also worth remembering the vast majority of the covid deaths were people in their 70s (end of their life expectancy) or in nursing homes/long term car facilities/hospices. Nothing to see here.

Those numbers are misleading. Look at total all cause deaths in 2020 and compare those numbers to all cause deaths from 2019, 2018, and 2017. This will sift through the noise of all the allocation games that are being played with the covid death numbers. There is nowhere close to 230K extra deaths in 2020 unless you think an extra 230K people suddenly stopped dying from cancer, heart disease, etc. in 2020 and covid19 deaths filled in the gap.

TOTAL U.S. DEATHS [ALL CAUSES]:
2017 Total Deaths US: 2,813,503 (234,000/month)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db328.htm

2018 Total Deaths US: 2,839,205 (237,000/month)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm

2019 Total Deaths US: 2,855,000 (238,000/month)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-tables.htm

2020 Total Deaths US (jan - week 9/26): 2,130,000 (236,000/month)

Weekly Counts of Deaths by State and Select Causes, 2019-2020 | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

data.cdc.gov

2,130,000 + (236,000/month x 3) [Oct, Nov, Dec] = 2,838,000 [assumption based on monthly avg]

2020: 2,838,000 [3-month assumption insert]
2019: 2,855,000
2018: 2,839,000
2017: 2,814,000

Why did select [D] govs push C19 infected patients into nursing homes?
% of total C19 deaths attributed to nursing home(s)?
Who is most susceptible?
Same [D] govs who pushed C19 infected patients into nursing homes attempting to keep State(s) closed?
Why?

As an update to the 2020 numbers listed above at the end of Nov the cdc is showing all cause deaths at 2.58 million. We may even end up with less overall deaths in 2020 than previous years. Where are all the excess covid deaths??

Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

 

[Dogwelder]

How are those excess death counts that weren’t going to go down looking now?

So Zain hardly wrestles for about a year, and suddenly people aren’t dying left and right? Sounds about right.

(Cue Panteleo mug.)

 

[Ski]

So Zain hardly wrestles for about a year, and suddenly people aren’t dying left and right? Sounds about right.

(Cue Panteleo mug.)

So, the number of total deaths in 2020 will be less than or equal to those in 2017, 2018, and 2019, but somehow excess deaths have gone up? Is that science? Cue the pained look as Zain tightens the bow and arrow on his helpless opponent.

 

[The Japanese Whizzer]

So, the number of total deaths in 2020 will be less than or equal to those in 2017, 2018, and 2019, but somehow excess deaths have gone up? Is that science? Cue the pained look as Zain tightens the bow and arrow on his helpless opponent.

Are you spiking the football over dead people? Right fighting has a limit, it’s a few steps behind where you are now

 

[Ski]

Are you spiking the football over dead people? Right fighting has a limit, it’s a few steps behind where you are now

There is no spiking. I said months ago that you need to wait for the final numbers for the year to come in before drawing any conclusions and folks here insisted the excess death numbers would not go down as then end of the year approached. Occam’s razor and such.

Are you upset that they were wrong and the total number of deaths for the year will be in line with the previous 3 years? You should be glad that those folks were wrong and not as many people died as they projected. When all is said and done, the Covid deaths are offset ny decreasee in deaths from other causes.

 

[midniteride]

There is no spiking. I said months ago that you need to wait for the final numbers for the year to come in before drawing any conclusions and folks here insisted the excess death numbers would not go down as then end of the year approached. Occam’s razor and such.

Are you upset that they were wrong and the total number of deaths for the year will be in line with the previous 3 years? You should be glad that those folks were wrong and not as many people died as they projected. When all is said and done, the Covid deaths are offset ny decreasee in deaths from other causes.

Obsessed with trying to convince people about your obsession?

 

[Dogwelder]

Who is citing numbers from whom, and are those numbers any good? I’m thankful I don’t have look into it because nobody is putting a gun to my head. #whatever #blamezain

 

[Ski]

There is a reason we use data to make decisions and not feelings and emotions. What people just know is correct because it is obvious isn’t always correct or obvious. Folks rushed to judgement and didn’t mind pointing out what had to be. But now that what had to be didn’t come to pass, it is whatever. Whatever.....

 

[Dogwelder]

There is a reason we use data to make decisions and not feelings and emotions. What people just know is correct because it is obvious isn’t always correct or obvious. Folks rushed to judgement and didn’t mind pointing out what had to be. But now that what had to be didn’t come to pass, it is whatever. Whatever.....

We should use good data that is what we say it is. If your alleged data turns out to be correct (including complete) and correctly described, then you’ll have something important and worthwhile. I hope your alleged data turns out to be correct and correctly described by you.

 

[midniteride]

VERIFY: Comparing the number of total deaths in the US across years

Social media claims show that the number of total deaths in the U.S. have not increased in 2020, meaning COVID-19 has limited impact.

www.cbs19.tv

 

[Ski]

We should use good data that is what we say it is. If your alleged data turns out to be correct (including complete) and correctly described, then you’ll have something important and worthwhile. I hope your alleged data turns out to be correct and correctly described by you.

I apologize if I came off as touchy on the subject. The report was from Johns Hopkins University based on CDC data. Interestingly, relatively a short time after the report was released it was then deleted. But, the total death numbers are still available on the CDC web site and they support what was initially reported. We are being gaslighted.

https://notthebee.com/article/a-few...-then-deleted-it-read-it-here-in-its-entirety

 

[1032004]

I apologize if I came off as touchy on the subject. The report was from Johns Hopkins University based on CDC data. Interestingly, relatively a short time after the report was released it was then deleted. But, the total death numbers are still available on the CDC web site and they support what was initially reported. We are being gaslighted.

https://notthebee.com/article/a-few...-then-deleted-it-read-it-here-in-its-entirety

The article was by a student, and the data came from an economics professor. In their retraction (which they are not hiding and even providing a PDF of the original article), they admit that there have been almost 300k excess deaths this year according to the CDC.

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

www.jhunewsletter.com

 

[Ski]

The article was by a student, and the data came from an economics professor. In their retraction (which they are not hiding and even providing a PDF of the original article), they admit that there have been almost 300k excess deaths this year according to the CDC.

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

www.jhunewsletter.com

The economics professor from the article is a PhD that also teaches multiple statistics courses at JHU, so I trust her to understand and interpret numbers.

I will revisit this around March 1, when the final death numbers for 2020 should be reported by the CDC. Until then, I will leave the below comment for your consideration from one of the people commenting on the News-Letter article that you posted. How do we have almost 300,000 excess deaths if the total death counts are not at least almost 300,000 higher than the previous years?

Here is that comment:

Consider the following figures- US Total deaths by year per CDC:

2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,626,418
2015: 2,712,630
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,813,503
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,855,000
2020: as of 11/14 total deaths= 2,512,880

At present the US is experiencing a 1.12% increase in overall mortality rates for 2020- not good- pandemicky numbers to be sure.
However, last year, 2019, there was also a 1.12% increase. Did we miss a pandemic in 2019?

But wait it’s even "scarier"- 2018 saw a 1.22% increase in mortality rates, 2017 saw a 1.24% increase, 2016 1.27% increase, 2015 1.27% increase, 2014 1.29% increase- all exceeding 2020’s increase in mortality rate- so does this mean we have had pandemics for the last 7 years?

Does this indicate non-stop pandemics every year for the last 7 years and we just weren’t paying attention and didn’t have an 'honest" media to keep us pinned to our beds in a proper state of fear?

And BTW 2013 all the way back to 2009 all showed .09% increases in mortality rates- don’t know where the cutoff is but certainly even these years were “pandemic like” if you feel this year was truly a pandemic.

It isn’t until we go back to the year 2008 that we see a decrease in overall mortality rates in the US. For 20 straight years there were decreases in mortality rates and then in 2009 this changed- since then we have had an increase in mortality rates. Why is that? Could this point to the 2008 economic recession as being the leading indicator rather than some supernatural viral entity?

In reality this year at present seems to be no different in overall mortality ratescompared to last year and less of an increase than 5 of the 6 the preceding years. How is this possible during a “pandemic of biblical proportions?”

It's always important to look at the rates (populations are increasing and rates vary) and overall trends to get a clear picture.

It's also been obvious since April that how death certificates are filed have been dramatically altered (first time in history) to give liberal interpretations to "Covid" as being cause of death- and let's not forget that PCR tests at greater than 35 cycles (as is the case in virtually every lab in the US/Europe) produce massive false positives. This article illustrates indeed that past deaths caused by heart disease are now obviously getting lumped into the catch-all "Covid" category.

Oh and BTW the WHO changed it's definition of what IS a Pandemic in 2009- might want to look into how and why that was done.

 

[midniteride]

The economics professor from the article is a PhD that also teaches multiple statistics courses at JHU, so I trust her to understand and interpret numbers.

I will revisit this around March 1, when the final death numbers for 2020 should be reported by the CDC. Until then, I will leave the below comment for your consideration from one of the people commenting on the News-Letter article that you posted. How do we have almost 300,000 excess deaths if the total death counts are not at least almost 300,000 higher than the previous years?

Here is that comment:

Consider the following figures- US Total deaths by year per CDC:

2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,626,418
2015: 2,712,630
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,813,503
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,855,000
2020: as of 11/14 total deaths= 2,512,880

At present the US is experiencing a 1.12% increase in overall mortality rates for 2020- not good- pandemicky numbers to be sure.
However, last year, 2019, there was also a 1.12% increase. Did we miss a pandemic in 2019?

But wait it’s even "scarier"- 2018 saw a 1.22% increase in mortality rates, 2017 saw a 1.24% increase, 2016 1.27% increase, 2015 1.27% increase, 2014 1.29% increase- all exceeding 2020’s increase in mortality rate- so does this mean we have had pandemics for the last 7 years?

Does this indicate non-stop pandemics every year for the last 7 years and we just weren’t paying attention and didn’t have an 'honest" media to keep us pinned to our beds in a proper state of fear?

And BTW 2013 all the way back to 2009 all showed .09% increases in mortality rates- don’t know where the cutoff is but certainly even these years were “pandemic like” if you feel this year was truly a pandemic.

It isn’t until we go back to the year 2008 that we see a decrease in overall mortality rates in the US. For 20 straight years there were decreases in mortality rates and then in 2009 this changed- since then we have had an increase in mortality rates. Why is that? Could this point to the 2008 economic recession as being the leading indicator rather than some supernatural viral entity?

In reality this year at present seems to be no different in overall mortality ratescompared to last year and less of an increase than 5 of the 6 the preceding years. How is this possible during a “pandemic of biblical proportions?”

It's always important to look at the rates (populations are increasing and rates vary) and overall trends to get a clear picture.

It's also been obvious since April that how death certificates are filed have been dramatically altered (first time in history) to give liberal interpretations to "Covid" as being cause of death- and let's not forget that PCR tests at greater than 35 cycles (as is the case in virtually every lab in the US/Europe) produce massive false positives. This article illustrates indeed that past deaths caused by heart disease are now obviously getting lumped into the catch-all "Covid" category.

Oh and BTW the WHO changed it's definition of what IS a Pandemic in 2009- might want to look into how and why that was done.

Would you please explain the object of this conspiracy you relentlessly allege, by whom & for what purpose?

 

[1032004]

The economics professor from the article is a PhD that also teaches multiple statistics courses at JHU, so I trust her to understand and interpret numbers.

I will revisit this around March 1, when the final death numbers for 2020 should be reported by the CDC. Until then, I will leave the below comment for your consideration from one of the people commenting on the News-Letter article that you posted. How do we have almost 300,000 excess deaths if the total death counts are not at least almost 300,000 higher than the previous years?

Here is that comment:

Consider the following figures- US Total deaths by year per CDC:

2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,626,418
2015: 2,712,630
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,813,503
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,855,000
2020: as of 11/14 total deaths= 2,512,880

At present the US is experiencing a 1.12% increase in overall mortality rates for 2020- not good- pandemicky numbers to be sure.
However, last year, 2019, there was also a 1.12% increase. Did we miss a pandemic in 2019?

But wait it’s even "scarier"- 2018 saw a 1.22% increase in mortality rates, 2017 saw a 1.24% increase, 2016 1.27% increase, 2015 1.27% increase, 2014 1.29% increase- all exceeding 2020’s increase in mortality rate- so does this mean we have had pandemics for the last 7 years?

Does this indicate non-stop pandemics every year for the last 7 years and we just weren’t paying attention and didn’t have an 'honest" media to keep us pinned to our beds in a proper state of fear?

And BTW 2013 all the way back to 2009 all showed .09% increases in mortality rates- don’t know where the cutoff is but certainly even these years were “pandemic like” if you feel this year was truly a pandemic.

It isn’t until we go back to the year 2008 that we see a decrease in overall mortality rates in the US. For 20 straight years there were decreases in mortality rates and then in 2009 this changed- since then we have had an increase in mortality rates. Why is that? Could this point to the 2008 economic recession as being the leading indicator rather than some supernatural viral entity?

In reality this year at present seems to be no different in overall mortality ratescompared to last year and less of an increase than 5 of the 6 the preceding years. How is this possible during a “pandemic of biblical proportions?”

It's always important to look at the rates (populations are increasing and rates vary) and overall trends to get a clear picture.

It's also been obvious since April that how death certificates are filed have been dramatically altered (first time in history) to give liberal interpretations to "Covid" as being cause of death- and let's not forget that PCR tests at greater than 35 cycles (as is the case in virtually every lab in the US/Europe) produce massive false positives. This article illustrates indeed that past deaths caused by heart disease are now obviously getting lumped into the catch-all "Covid" category.

Oh and BTW the WHO changed it's definition of what IS a Pandemic in 2009- might want to look into how and why that was done.

Many of the replies to that comment seem to be claiming that the data source for that person’s 2020 deaths is not accurate. Which I wonder if that may be the issue with the data from the original article, I’m trying to look more into that.

 

[rmg78]

I hope this thread becomes one of the excess deaths very soon.

 

[Lyons212]

The economics professor from the article is a PhD that also teaches multiple statistics courses at JHU, so I trust her to understand and interpret numbers.

I will revisit this around March 1, when the final death numbers for 2020 should be reported by the CDC. Until then, I will leave the below comment for your consideration from one of the people commenting on the News-Letter article that you posted. How do we have almost 300,000 excess deaths if the total death counts are not at least almost 300,000 higher than the previous years?

Here is that comment:

Consider the following figures- US Total deaths by year per CDC:

2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,626,418
2015: 2,712,630
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,813,503
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,855,000
2020: as of 11/14 total deaths= 2,512,880

At present the US is experiencing a 1.12% increase in overall mortality rates for 2020- not good- pandemicky numbers to be sure.
However, last year, 2019, there was also a 1.12% increase. Did we miss a pandemic in 2019?

But wait it’s even "scarier"- 2018 saw a 1.22% increase in mortality rates, 2017 saw a 1.24% increase, 2016 1.27% increase, 2015 1.27% increase, 2014 1.29% increase- all exceeding 2020’s increase in mortality rate- so does this mean we have had pandemics for the last 7 years?

Does this indicate non-stop pandemics every year for the last 7 years and we just weren’t paying attention and didn’t have an 'honest" media to keep us pinned to our beds in a proper state of fear?

And BTW 2013 all the way back to 2009 all showed .09% increases in mortality rates- don’t know where the cutoff is but certainly even these years were “pandemic like” if you feel this year was truly a pandemic.

It isn’t until we go back to the year 2008 that we see a decrease in overall mortality rates in the US. For 20 straight years there were decreases in mortality rates and then in 2009 this changed- since then we have had an increase in mortality rates. Why is that? Could this point to the 2008 economic recession as being the leading indicator rather than some supernatural viral entity?

In reality this year at present seems to be no different in overall mortality ratescompared to last year and less of an increase than 5 of the 6 the preceding years. How is this possible during a “pandemic of biblical proportions?”

It's always important to look at the rates (populations are increasing and rates vary) and overall trends to get a clear picture.

It's also been obvious since April that how death certificates are filed have been dramatically altered (first time in history) to give liberal interpretations to "Covid" as being cause of death- and let's not forget that PCR tests at greater than 35 cycles (as is the case in virtually every lab in the US/Europe) produce massive false positives. This article illustrates indeed that past deaths caused by heart disease are now obviously getting lumped into the catch-all "Covid" category.

Oh and BTW the WHO changed it's definition of what IS a Pandemic in 2009- might want to look into how and why that was done.

Something else to consider:

The Market Ticker Error: Post Not Available

www.market-ticker.org

It looks like the amount of money the Social Security Administration is paying out for retirees is following the same pattern as the last 5 years. Since several hundred thousand people have died this year from Covid who would be collecting social security benefits, we should see a noticeable decrease in these payments, that has not occurred. Basically, there is nothing out of the ordinary regarding the number of elderly dying this year...seems that they are dying with Covid instead of from Covid and would have died anyway. This aligns with the very high false positive rate for the PCR tests.

 

[ss7]

The economics professor from the article is a PhD that also teaches multiple statistics courses at JHU, so I trust her to understand and interpret numbers.

I will revisit this around March 1, when the final death numbers for 2020 should be reported by the CDC. Until then, I will leave the below comment for your consideration from one of the people commenting on the News-Letter article that you posted. How do we have almost 300,000 excess deaths if the total death counts are not at least almost 300,000 higher than the previous years?

Here is that comment:

Consider the following figures- US Total deaths by year per CDC:

2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,626,418
2015: 2,712,630
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,813,503
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,855,000
2020: as of 11/14 total deaths= 2,512,880

At present the US is experiencing a 1.12% increase in overall mortality rates for 2020- not good- pandemicky numbers to be sure.
However, last year, 2019, there was also a 1.12% increase. Did we miss a pandemic in 2019?

But wait it’s even "scarier"- 2018 saw a 1.22% increase in mortality rates, 2017 saw a 1.24% increase, 2016 1.27% increase, 2015 1.27% increase, 2014 1.29% increase- all exceeding 2020’s increase in mortality rate- so does this mean we have had pandemics for the last 7 years?

Does this indicate non-stop pandemics every year for the last 7 years and we just weren’t paying attention and didn’t have an 'honest" media to keep us pinned to our beds in a proper state of fear?

And BTW 2013 all the way back to 2009 all showed .09% increases in mortality rates- don’t know where the cutoff is but certainly even these years were “pandemic like” if you feel this year was truly a pandemic.

It isn’t until we go back to the year 2008 that we see a decrease in overall mortality rates in the US. For 20 straight years there were decreases in mortality rates and then in 2009 this changed- since then we have had an increase in mortality rates. Why is that? Could this point to the 2008 economic recession as being the leading indicator rather than some supernatural viral entity?

In reality this year at present seems to be no different in overall mortality ratescompared to last year and less of an increase than 5 of the 6 the preceding years. How is this possible during a “pandemic of biblical proportions?”

It's always important to look at the rates (populations are increasing and rates vary) and overall trends to get a clear picture.

It's also been obvious since April that how death certificates are filed have been dramatically altered (first time in history) to give liberal interpretations to "Covid" as being cause of death- and let's not forget that PCR tests at greater than 35 cycles (as is the case in virtually every lab in the US/Europe) produce massive false positives. This article illustrates indeed that past deaths caused by heart disease are now obviously getting lumped into the catch-all "Covid" category.

Oh and BTW the WHO changed it's definition of what IS a Pandemic in 2009- might want to look into how and why that was done.

You're clearly good at math, so maybe you can help me understand something...

The CDC mortality statistics (link) show 2,590,780 deaths so far for 2020. But that link says the data is from the week ending on Feb 1 to the week ending Nov 21. The week ending February 1 began on January 26. January 26 through November 21 is 300 days.

2,590,780 deaths over 300 days equates to 8,635.93 deaths per day. 8,635.93 deaths per day equals 3,152,115 deaths in a year.

I'm not sure where your 2019 total deaths come from. The final CDC report on 2019 isn't out yet. But if we're accepting the 2,855,000 deaths as correct total for 2019, then that 2020 estimate (based on the provisional CDC statistics for that 300 day stretch I linked to above) would represent an increase of approximately 297,000, or roughly 10.4%.

 

[midniteride]

Something else to consider:

The Market Ticker Error: Post Not Available

www.market-ticker.org

It looks like the amount of money the Social Security Administration is paying out for retirees is following the same pattern as the last 5 years. Since several hundred thousand people have died this year from Covid who would be collecting social security benefits, we should see a noticeable decrease in these payments, that has not occurred. Basically, there is nothing out of the ordinary regarding the number of elderly dying this year...seems that they are dying with Covid instead of from Covid and would have died anyway. This aligns with the very high false positive rate for the PCR tests.

"The Market Ticker" is your source for this info?
I'm sure that is why they include this disclaimer along with their graphs.
"The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions."

Is there an answer to my question about the purpose and perpetrator of the alleged conspiracy or just more fiction from questionable sources?

 

[Lyons212]

"The Market Ticker" is your source for this info?
I'm sure that is why they include this disclaimer along with their graphs.
"The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions."

Is there an answer to my question about the purpose and perpetrator of the alleged conspiracy or just more fiction from questionable sources?

Data is data. In this case the source of the date is the Social Security Administration and the US Treasury Department. It's their data and it indicates that the amount of money being paid in 2020 via Social Security benefits is following the same pattern as the last four years. If a lot of old people were suddenly dying this year as is the Covid narrative, then we should have saw a decrease in social security benefits being paid or at a minimum a slower increase throughout the year.

Try refuting that data and not the source of the analysis. Karl Denninger who is the author of the site was all over the financial media during the 2008 meltdown. He is also read by political leaders in both parties and much of the media.

Again, try refuting his analysis and not just blowing it off because you are not familiar with him.

Take advice from the 60's, question authority. It is one reason why PSU wrestling is so good, Cael and company do not follow the traditional model for preparing wrestlers/athletes, that is embrace the grind, cut a lot weight, etc. Cael is the master of peaking and recovery.

 

[midniteride]

Data is data. In this case the source of the date is the Social Security Administration and the US Treasury Department. It's their data and it indicates that the amount of money being paid in 2020 via Social Security benefits is following the same pattern as the last four years. If a lot of old people were suddenly dying this year as is the Covid narrative, then we should have saw a decrease in social security benefits being paid or at a minimum a slower increase throughout the year.

Try refuting that data and not the source of the analysis. Karl Denninger who is the author of the site was all over the financial media during the 2008 meltdown. He is also read by political leaders in both parties and much of the media.

Again, try refuting his analysis and not just blowing it off because you are not familiar with him.

Take advice from the 60's, question authority. It is one reason why PSU wrestling is so good, Cael and company do not follow the traditional model for preparing wrestlers/athletes, that is embrace the grind, cut a lot weight, etc. Cael is the master of peaking and recovery.

Evidently you didn't read the disclaimer.
I'm 73, so I spent a lot of time in the 60s doing 60s things.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions and prejudices but alluding to someone's credibility because the are supposedly read by "political leaders" while publishing a report in which you are cautioned that the information "may contain errors and omissions" is comical. Still no answer to my original question?

 

[Lyons212]

Evidently you didn't read the disclaimer.
I'm 73, so I spent a lot of time in the 60s doing 60s things.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions and prejudices but alluding to someone's credibility because the are supposedly read by "political leaders" while publishing a report in which you are cautioned that the information "may contain errors and omissions" is comical. Still no answer to my original question?

Still no analysis from you as to his claim that SSA benefits payments follow the same pattern as the last four years.
Regarding your question, it allows him to acknowledge if he is wrong (he will do so) if other data becomes available. For example, back in the spring he thought that around 2% of positive cases would start to see a decline in the spread. This has not held because it has been learned that the PCR testing is completely unreliable with too many false positives.

It is a good claim to have when you are also doing financial analysis, prevents someone from trying to take you to court because they used your advice for an investment that went south.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

Who is citing numbers from whom, and are those numbers any good? I’m thankful I don’t have look into it because nobody is putting a gun to my head. #whatever #blamezain

Happy reading. Some good stuff.

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the...

web.archive.org

 

[1032004]

I apologize if I came off as touchy on the subject. The report was from Johns Hopkins University based on CDC data. Interestingly, relatively a short time after the report was released it was then deleted. But, the total death numbers are still available on the CDC web site and they support what was initially reported. We are being gaslighted.

https://notthebee.com/article/a-few...-then-deleted-it-read-it-here-in-its-entirety

Here is the webinar the article was based on:


I’ll share some of my own comments but I suggest you watch and draw your own conclusions. FYI most of the presentation is in the first 40 minutes, the rest is Q&A. If you don’t have that long you can probably just take a look at the data she shows (partly since its hard to understand her accent), it’s only maybe 4 charts and a table that are on the screen for several minutes each. I don't have a PhD but part of my job involves data analysis, and here are some of my comments (and for these I am assuming her data is accurate):

At around 20 minutes, she starts showing a chart of total weekly deaths since 2014. This chart clearly shows a spike in total deaths in 2020 that is higher than any of the prior years (and lasts for several weeks, and even the peak of the "second wave" was higher than most of the highest points in other years). At one point she compares the peak in April 2020 to that in the winter of 2017/2018, which is misleading on multiple fronts. For one, she is comparing to the highest peak of any of the prior 5 years, and she also fails to mention that if you follow the trends that the chart shows, in every other year the weekly deaths rose in winter and then fall in spring & summer. However in 2020, they rose when they should have declined if they had followed the same trends as the past 5 years (someone even basically asked this question at about 59 minutes, and her answer was pretty much that she didn't know).

At around 29 minutes she even highlights this peak, and it seems that part of her argument is that she doesn't think covid deaths should be higher than heart disease deaths than for no other reason than "heart disease is the #1 cause of death!" However, looking at the chart, the heart disease trendline does not seem out of whack with what it was in previous years. In fact, there is even a spike in heart disease deaths during the same spike in covid deaths! I believe this is where she is taking the data from the table which was included in the article (around 34 minutes in the video) when she says "heart diseases weekly deaths declined by 1,000+!" However, the table even shows that WE 4/11 heart disease deaths rose by 824. So if they then fell by 1,190 the next week, they're really just coming down from the prior spike, again at a time when historically they decline anyway. (Not to mention making conclusions from 3 weeks of data is not usually a good idea to say the least)

At around 30 minutes, she removes the "all cause" and covid lines from the original chart and zooms in. This magnifies what I just pointed out in terms of the heart disease spike. But again she compares the April 2020 spike to the highest peak of the past 5 years (winter 2017/2018). In the 2020 data, there appears to be a very slight dip in cancer ("malignant neoplasms") deaths, so maybe there were a couple cancer deaths that were either sped up by covid or misclassified. However this chart also shows a dramatic rise in flu/pneumonia deaths in the late summer, again contrary to prior years. In fact the last data point for flu/pneumonia deaths (well it's either that or "unclassified," the color is almost identical for both) of late September appears to be higher than any point of the last 5 years.

Bottom line, I don't think the data that she showed support some of the conclusions that she made, most notably that "covid-19 did not cause any excess deaths”

 

[Creek Side]

I used to smoke pot with Johnny Hopkins. It was me, Johnny Hopkins, and Sloan Kettering. We would blaze that shit up every day.

 

[1032004]

Data is data. In this case the source of the date is the Social Security Administration and the US Treasury Department. It's their data and it indicates that the amount of money being paid in 2020 via Social Security benefits is following the same pattern as the last four years. If a lot of old people were suddenly dying this year as is the Covid narrative, then we should have saw a decrease in social security benefits being paid or at a minimum a slower increase throughout the year.

Try refuting that data and not the source of the analysis. Karl Denninger who is the author of the site was all over the financial media during the 2008 meltdown. He is also read by political leaders in both parties and much of the media.

Again, try refuting his analysis and not just blowing it off because you are not familiar with him.

Take advice from the 60's, question authority. It is one reason why PSU wrestling is so good, Cael and company do not follow the traditional model for preparing wrestlers/athletes, that is embrace the grind, cut a lot weight, etc. Cael is the master of peaking and recovery.

2020-11-28 Calling BS

<p>It's not complicated folks; Social Security does not pay dead people.</p><p><em>Ever.</em></p><p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/7jRqE2kiwNuc/"

market-ticker.org

Here is a video of him admitting that there were excess deaths in March and April, but of course he blames them all on democratic governors (they are partly to blame, but not totally).

He then tries to say that it came back up to normal but I disagree based on this chart. With a couple small exceptions, each month of each year was always higher than the previous. However in 2020 every month after the first couple months has been below 2019 (October shows about equal but based on the website he went to which I checked and recreated his graph, the October # is just an estimate).

 

[psumacw]

Something else to consider:

The Market Ticker Error: Post Not Available

www.market-ticker.org

It looks like the amount of money the Social Security Administration is paying out for retirees is following the same pattern as the last 5 years. Since several hundred thousand people have died this year from Covid who would be collecting social security benefits, we should see a noticeable decrease in these payments, that has not occurred. Basically, there is nothing out of the ordinary regarding the number of elderly dying this year...seems that they are dying with Covid instead of from Covid and would have died anyway. This aligns with the very high false positive rate for the PCR tests.

first, that writer really needs an Excel course. it's really not that hard to put labels on your axis. i know he knows how to change the title of the graph, so choose something better than 'Oopsie'.

second, according to a quick google, about 64 million people are on social security so if we assume 250K covid deaths were people on social security then the decrease would be about 0.4%, which would be very difficult to tease out from noise when your N is only 11. not impossible, but you would need to do a lot more than just plot the total dollars each month and just eyeball the results, which is what it seems like he's doing.

 

[dicemen99]

Happy reading. Some good stuff.

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the...

web.archive.org

Article was retracted a day later. But, hey, I'm sure Newsmax missed the retraction so I totally understand.😀