The biased media swings from both sides.  CNN skews it one way, Fox News another.  I don't count OAN or Newsmaxx as credible attempts at news; they basically are network versions Info Wars.

Social media is even worse.  Like the claim the Johns Hopkins study states there isn't any excess death in the United States this year.  This is completely false:

https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/09/01/comorbidi...eaths-cdc/

"Looking at 2020 since March, the raw number of excess deaths is 200,000 more people than a normal year. When we try to understand that, COVID-19 is the most rational and likely explanation. If you don't believe it's COVID-19, try to pinpoint why this year has been so different than any other. Why would a new disease that kills people not be the cause?"

This article is directly from Johns Hopkins and dated Sept. 1.  It is much worse now, and will be WAY worse a month from now.  Its not just news sources, but people in general (see Copycat and P_Rushing on this thread), that get shepherded to believe what they want to believe, or what their political affiliation tells them to believe, rather than apply the simplest of critical thinking skills or basic research.  Strong opinions with weak minds is not a good combination.  Again, it is the difference between evidence-based opinions and opinion-based evidence.  Even flat-earthers can find "evidence" to support their opinions; just like Trump's lunatic legal team can find "evidence" of voter fraud.  But its not credible when you evaluate the entire landscape.

And your assertion that this virus is no more deadly than the common flu is comical.   Basic research shows epidemiologists state it is anywhere from 10-20 times more deadly.  Recent articles have said improved therapeutics in the future could get it under 10x the flu's mortality rate, but still significantly greater.

I don't think we are evaluating the entire landscape, though. I think we have a bunch of research that is hyper focused on whatever their particular study is with regards to Covid. We have tons and tons of conflicting data, because everyone is specializing right now, and the ones that are supposed to be aggregating the data and unpacking it for us are politicizing it instead. 

I agree that basic research would show that Covid deaths are higher, but I would argue that is because Covid is tested and measured more thoroughly than the flu. Iirc, he flu and covid are comparable for people under the age of 65. This means most of the difference between Covid and Influenza exists primarily in the elderly. Since Covid is tested for regularly and the flu isn't, basic research is going to correctly associate more of these diseases with Covid. However, they don't look for the flu the same way. I read a paper earlier this year that was from 2 years ago that said as many as 40% of pneumonia patients biopsied had the flu, but there was no mention of that on their death certificate. The paper was making the case that influenza exacerbates pneumonia, but isn't considered the culprit in many of the deaths. I think Covid does the same thing, only we are looking for it. Adding 40% of pneumonia deaths to the flu puts it slightly less deadly than Covid to people over the age of 65. So, yeah, still not quite as bad as Covid for the elderly, but in the same ballpark, especially now that we are able to treat it better. Keep in mind, that is with a flu vaccine. 

The most useful part that came out of the John Hopkins study was that heart disease deaths decreased at a similar rate to Covid increases. Being that Covid is a blood disease, it makes sense that the virus would act as the final straw to break hearts that were already compromised. Covid has the same average death rate as the national average, so again, that suggests that Covid is acting as the final straw of sorts. Just like the flu, this doesn't mean that's true for every individual, but it is true statistically. Unlike the flu, it seems that Vitamin D may play the biggest role in preventing death. Should be common knowledge, but big pharma is greedy and big tech is stupid.

---

What is wrong with the study they did? John Hopkins retracted the study because it didn't meet the results they wanted, not because it was wrong. The CDC's own data shows only 6% die with just covid. How do you propose we measure the rest other than comparing total deaths? You can't measure any other way because the data is not trustable or standardized in how people are classified.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

This is an incorrect talking point. There should be 0% deaths from Covid, and the people who listed it on a death certificate are either uninformed, lazy, or greedy. Covid can't kill you by itself. It creates complications in your body that kill you. You will die from pneumonia, or a heart attack, or a stroke. All certificates should have the actual cause of death, with Covid listed as a complicating factor. Maybe this is a bad analogy, but it's like saying a person died of suicide. No, mental illness caused them to want to kill themselves, but they died from a gunshot wound or poison or whatever.

"I agree that basic research would show that Covid deaths are higher, but I would argue that is because Covid is tested and measured more thoroughly than the flu."

So you think you know more than the epidemiologists who do this for a living and clearly understand this point?

"There should be 0% deaths from Covid, and the people who listed it on a death certificate are either uninformed, lazy, or greedy. Covid can't kill you by itself. It creates complications in your body that kill you."

Using that rational, there should be zero reported deaths from the flu, or from cancer, as well.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

What would be the fatality rate for a disease need to be for you to support lockdowns?

All decisions, especially political ones, are trade-offs in some capacity. I don't really don't care to entertain the leftist position that we risk everything to save one life. That's [BLEEP], and we don't operate like that anywhere else. It just rhetoric they used to create a political advantage for themselves. There is an opportunity cost for every political decision. You aren't just looking at fatality rate, you are looking at everything else you'd be losing as well. So, I guess I'm saying I don't think there's a clear cut answer, but I can share my thoughts on where I stand. My position hasn't changed much since early April. 

I've followed this very closely, since mid-late January. I told my wife that I thought we were headed for a lockdown, well before it was even on the radar here in the US, not because of what we knew, but because of what we didn't. The virus appeared to be deadly, and some numbers had the fatality rate at 65% for the elderly and 1-3% for healthy adults. Those are insanely high numbers and would have wiped out millions of people. However, we were getting all of our data from that time from China, and I wasn't sure if the numbers were accurate. This was bad enough, but we also didn't know how it spread, if people developed immunity, or anything else about it. In that scenario, it seemed better to shut things down early. I was even thinking we should cut off all travel in the US by mid-Feb, but a lot of people were still optimistic we could contain the virus. I was hopeful that China would get it under control and we wouldn't have to worry about here, but I certainly thought it was going to be catastrophic if it broke contain.

After the virus showed up in Italy, I knew that it had broken contain and that there was very little chance the virus would die. This is when we started learning there were several people who didn't have any symptoms at all, which meant the fatality rates were overestimated, and it primarily affected the elderly and people with weak immune systems. It also appeared that people developed immunity. By then, I felt comfortable enough saying that only people who were over 55 and with preconditions should go into lockdown, along with their families (in retrospect it probably should have been 65 and older). If we had done that, the US would have likely achieved herd immunity with very few deaths, and, since immunity would be fairly widespread, the elderly and compromised would probably be able to end their lockdowns by now. Keep in mind, that the global goal shifted after Italy because the virus had clearly broken contain, and the only options left were herd immunity or a vaccination. It blows my mind that there are people that still think we can snuff this virus out by social distancing, but whatever. Still, I stocked up on meat and non-perishables early (didn't think about hand-sanitizer and TP, unfortunately). 

Then the virus hit the US, and I didn't mind a 3-4 week shutdown, but it was pretty clear that we were overreacting at that point. Most of our early deaths were due to bad policies by some governors and the mistaken belief that people should be put on ventilators to help them breath. If you eliminate those practices, I speculate that we would have cut our early deaths in half. Since then, we have gotten even more data and the truth is that this thing isn't any more deadly than the flu. If we knew that from the outset, would we even care? I don't think we would.

Anyways, that's a meandering, non-specific answer to your question, but the truth is there is no perfect answer. We should be following the actual science, which is distinct from the party that just uses that saying as a slogan. More people in US has been swayed by their political leanings than by the scientific evidence. Our media is largely to blame for that, because they are just a bunch of fear-mongering, money-hungry mouthpieces for their party.

I agree with your whole answer, specifically the parts in bold.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

As usual, you have no idea what you are looking at or talking about.  Go sit at the intellectual kiddie table and let the grown ups talk.

Once again you try to attack someone and provide no points to backup your thoughts. If you don't know how to discuss and debate your points, you should leave. This isn't liberal safe space group think time.

I also understand your points, but I don't agree with them. You are using a metric for additional deaths that is fraught with bias. Has covid caused people to die that were maintaining their illnesses, yes. There are issues with the data for why people died. The metric is open to manipulation and analysis to get the results you want. Total deaths are not open to bias. It tells you how many people have died regardless of the claimed cause.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

You clearly did not read the link I posted, the quote I took from it, or did not understand any of it.  All of your statements lack logic. I will indulge you with one real response until you do better in the future:

"I also understand your points, but I don't agree with them."

No, you don't understand my points.  That is clear.

"You are using a metric for additional deaths that is fraught with bias."

What metric?  Total mortality in the United States?  How is that bias?

"There are issues with the data for why people died. The metric is open to manipulation and analysis to get the results you want."

What issues?  What data?  What manipulation and what analysis?  What are you even talking about?  Do you understand what comorbidity even means?

"Total deaths are not open to bias.  It tells you how many people have died regardless of the claimed cause."

That is what I was talking about.  That is what the article from Johns Hopkins I posted talked about.  That was what the quote I cited talked about.  Are you really that clueless? Here it is again:

"Looking at 2020 since March, the raw number of excess deaths is 200,000 more people than a normal year. When we try to understand that, COVID-19 is the most rational and likely explanation. If you don't believe it's COVID-19, try to pinpoint why this year has been so different than any other. Why would a new disease that kills people not be the cause?"

https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/09/01/comorbidi...eaths-cdc/

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

No, cancer is different, but you are correct with the flu. It's a complicating factor. It should never be listed as the primary cause of death. There is a place on the certificate to list the complication. Don't know why you are arguing this with me. My point supports your position and rejects a premise some conservatives use to undermine Covid.

You can find epidemiologists touting a ton of different opinions with regards to Covid. They are not a monolith. I can easily find plenty of them that support what I'm saying. You'd say they are crazy. Appeals to authority have gone out the window in today's climate. Not only do you have to accept the authority, you can only accept the authority that has the right political opinion. I am giving you a plausible explanation as to why flu deaths are underreported and Covid deaths are overreported.

---

No, cancer is different, but you are correct with the flu. It's a complicating factor. It should never be listed as the primary cause of death. There is a place on the certificate to list the complication. Don't know why you are arguing this with me. My point supports your position and rejects a premise some conservatives use to undermine Covid.

You can find epidemiologists touting a ton of different opinions with regards to Covid. They are not a monolith. I can easily find plenty of them that support what I'm saying. You'd say they are crazy. Appeals to authority have gone out the window in today's climate. Not only do you have to accept the authority, you can only accept the authority that has the right political opinion. I am giving you a plausible explanation as to why flu deaths are underreported and Covid deaths are overreported.

No, its not.  Not in the context you are arguing.  COVID leads to organ failure, which leads to death; that is what you are talking about. It is exactly the same as saying cancer leads to organ failure, which leads to death. The flu, COVID, and cancer are not death sentences by themselves; they disrupt other physiological functions, which leads to death. And comorbidities with other diseases makes the outcomes worse for all of them.

No group is truly monolith.  Not Black voters.  Not climate scientists.  Not epidemiologists.  But the overwhelming majority of these groups agree with certain perspectives.  Data science is at the heart of epidemiology, and the data clearly points in the direction of 10-20 times the death rate of COVID over the flu.  You can find some hack epidemiologist who thinks otherwise, just like you can find 5 out of 100 climate scientists that don't believe climate change is real.  Or a single cybersecurity expert who believes (without proof) there was election fraud. But the overwhelming support and evidence is in a different direction.  That is called "science"; it is the difference between looking at all available information to form an evidence-based opinion vs. cherry-picking evidence to support a pre-determined and biased viewpoint.

Your opinions of COVID and election fraud are equivalent to the opinions of Flat-earthers; you have shreds of evidence you cling to for supporting your politically-motivated beliefs, but the over-whelming evidence is against you. That is the exact opposite of science.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

I was wrong about cancer. I thought it could kill you outright, but you are correct. I retract that statement, but it doesn't change how I am correct in my post. It is just the same as the flu and covid. Here's an example death certificate:



The study p_rushing and conservatives like to cite says that 6% of people died directly from Covid. That is impossible. Every direct cause of death should be something specific. Covid is an underlying cause, just like cancer or the flu. The only reason 6% of patients "directly" died from Covid is because the people filling out the form were lazy or ignorant. The correct number is 0%. That doesn't mean Covid isn't responsible for the death. But you also have to look at other, co-morbidities. My argument is that, because we are scrutinizing Covid deaths, we see there is respiratory failure, caused by pneumonia due to Covid. Covid is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. We are not as critical of the flu. Like I said, a study showed that 40% of people biopsied had the flu when dying of pneumonia, but it wasn't listed as an underlying cause on the death certificate. That's a big deal. Are epidemiologists looking at that? Or do you think that maybe only a small amount of people are keying in on that idea. 

Science is ever changing, and the majority is often wrong about a lot. I stand by what I said earlier. In a world where everything is political, you not only need to have an authority opinion, but that opinion needs to conform to the most politically accepted idea or it's cast out as junk science. Even though that's not how science works. Neither the election fraud or what I am siting here is anything like flat earth, and you come across as a sophist when you make stupid claims like that. There is overwhelming evidence the earth is not flat. I am not denying Covid is dangerous. I am simply saying it's only slightly more dangerous than the flu when you consider the following:

• Many deaths were caused by our early mishandling of the virus
  
• Covid is more scrutinized than the flu
  
• Flu numbers are mitigated by a vaccine
  
• As many as  40% pneumonia deaths in years past were not correctly attributed to the flu, which could add anywhere from 50-100k deaths a year to the flu totals
  
• Once covid is established, and herd immunity is achieved, new covid deaths will stabilize 
  

I'm not saying I am undoubtedly, 100% correct. I am making a plausible case that humanity has experienced this same thing many times over, using logic and evidence. The real threat of Covid is being exploited to make money and gain political power, but, when comparing apples to apples, I don't think this will be much different than the flu by next year. What we should see is excesses deaths that come anywhere between 150k-200k, that are somewhat mitigated by lockdowns. 

On a side note: The majority is often incorrect, and I don't yield my intellect to people just because the news media says something. Twice now, you have referenced the OVERWHELMING opinion of groups. You haven't surveyed an group of data scientists with regards to the elections, just like you haven't surveyed a group of epidemiologists with regards to Covid. I imagine the opinions would be all over the place. So why do you get that impression? Because you, like most people, are being influenced by the news you consume. That's it. Nothing special. I just watched an old video of a CNN reporter saying how she fact checked Trump's claim that a vaccine would be ready before the end of the year. It's never been done before and all the experts agree he's just saying that to make himself look good. She even talked to a whole source who confirmed sources agree it was definitely false. Good ole' experts just experting in overwhelming fashion. This happens all... the... time....

---

The 6% is healthy people without other diseases or conditions.

Any metric looking at just covid is biased because there is no standard and each area or person can bias it with their own feelings to increase/decrease.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

The 6% is healthy people without other diseases or conditions.

Any metric looking at just covid is biased because there is no standard and each area or person can bias it with their own feelings to increase/decrease.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

That report cited 6% as a direct cause of death. It can't be the direct cause of death. Even in a healthy person, there should be a direct cause of death like heart or respiratory failure.

---

The 6% is healthy people without other diseases or conditions.

Any metric looking at just covid is biased because there is no standard and each area or person can bias it with their own feelings to increase/decrease.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

That report cited 6% as a direct cause of death. It can't be the direct cause of death. Even in a healthy person, there should be a direct cause of death like heart or respiratory failure.

There is, but the 6% looked at what preexisting conditions they had coming in and what was listed on the death certificate. That number still could be manipulated a little, you could have undiagnosed conditions, but should generally be a good number. Basically if you come in with no other preexisting conditions other than covid then you get counted in the 6%.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

I was wrong about cancer. I thought it could kill you outright, but you are correct. I retract that statement, but it doesn't change how I am correct in my post. It is just the same as the flu and covid. Here's an example death certificate:



The study p_rushing and conservatives like to cite says that 6% of people died directly from Covid. That is impossible. Every direct cause of death should be something specific. Covid is an underlying cause, just like cancer or the flu. The only reason 6% of patients "directly" died from Covid is because the people filling out the form were lazy or ignorant. The correct number is 0%. That doesn't mean Covid isn't responsible for the death. But you also have to look at other, co-morbidities. My argument is that, because we are scrutinizing Covid deaths, we see there is respiratory failure, caused by pneumonia due to Covid. Covid is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. We are not as critical of the flu. Like I said, a study showed that 40% of people biopsied had the flu when dying of pneumonia, but it wasn't listed as an underlying cause on the death certificate. That's a big deal. Are epidemiologists looking at that? Or do you think that maybe only a small amount of people are keying in on that idea. 

Science is ever changing, and the majority is often wrong about a lot. I stand by what I said earlier. In a world where everything is political, you not only need to have an authority opinion, but that opinion needs to conform to the most politically accepted idea or it's cast out as junk science. Even though that's not how science works. Neither the election fraud or what I am siting here is anything like flat earth, and you come across as a sophist when you make stupid claims like that. There is overwhelming evidence the earth is not flat. I am not denying Covid is dangerous. I am simply saying it's only slightly more dangerous than the flu when you consider the following:

• Many deaths were caused by our early mishandling of the virus
  
• Covid is more scrutinized than the flu
  
• Flu numbers are mitigated by a vaccine
  
• As many as  40% pneumonia deaths in years past were not correctly attributed to the flu, which could add anywhere from 50-100k deaths a year to the flu totals
  
• Once covid is established, and herd immunity is achieved, new covid deaths will stabilize 
  

I'm not saying I am undoubtedly, 100% correct. I am making a plausible case that humanity has experienced this same thing many times over, using logic and evidence. The real threat of Covid is being exploited to make money and gain political power, but, when comparing apples to apples, I don't think this will be much different than the flu by next year. What we should see is excesses deaths that come anywhere between 150k-200k, that are somewhat mitigated by lockdowns. 

On a side note: The majority is often incorrect, and I don't yield my intellect to people just because the news media says something. Twice now, you have referenced the OVERWHELMING opinion of groups. You haven't surveyed an group of data scientists with regards to the elections, just like you haven't surveyed a group of epidemiologists with regards to Covid. I imagine the opinions would be all over the place. So why do you get that impression? Because you, like most people, are being influenced by the news you consume. That's it. Nothing special. I just watched an old video of a CNN reporter saying how she fact checked Trump's claim that a vaccine would be ready before the end of the year. It's never been done before and all the experts agree he's just saying that to make himself look good. She even talked to a whole source who confirmed sources agree it was definitely false. Good ole' experts just experting in overwhelming fashion. This happens all... the... time....

I appreciate you recognizing your error with cancer being essentially the same as COVID with respect to causes of death.  But your statement that COVID is "like the straw that breaks the camel's back" is not always accurate.  Like cancer, it can be that; but it can also be the anvil that is dropped from three stories up that crushes someone.  Every individual case is unique.

Of course epidemiologists understand that 40% of people biopsied with pneumonia have the flu.  Do you really think that you know more than epidemiologists?  If a couple of guys on a message board know that, do you really think they don't?  


Of course science is ever changing... that is the nature of science.  Have you ever heard the phrase "update your priors"?  That means, as new knowledge accumulates and gets plugged into statistical algorithms or logical reasoning, you improve and refine your understanding.  Anyone should always be able to change their mind as more knowledge is provided... otherwise, they are an idiot.  The other side of that coin is you should not form a strong opinion UNTIL the accumulation of evidence swings it in a specific direction.  You are guilty of this with both your COVID and election fraud opinions.  Your bias is influenced by inconsequential or easily explained "evidence" despite an overwhelming amount against it.  That makes your claims "stupid"... not mine.  The overwhelming evidence is my favor; you have about as much evidence as Flat-earthers do at this point.

And by majority opinion, I meant majority of the data.  I realize the example I provided was numbers of experts, but that typically correlates with the amount of evidence.  I could have made that point clearer.  But the fact that you form opinions against the majority of the data displays the poor influence of YOUR media sources... not mine.  Mine is an evidence-based opinion; yours is cherry-picked, opinion-based evidence.  You act like there is an equal split between the beliefs of epidemiologists and cyber-security experts regarding COVID mortality rates and election fraud, respectively.  There is not.  That is because you are being shepherded by anti-science, right-wing media sources.  Do some independent research on your own from several different scientific sources and open your eyes.  Can you identify even one epidemiologist that agrees with your perspective?  Good luck finding that.

You stating that well-established science being proven wrong "happens all the time" is also strongly influenced by your media sources.  Sure, it happens... but very infrequently.  And when it does, it gets overplayed in the media.  The OVERWHELMING bulk of the time, when sufficient data has been collected, well-established scientific opinions hold true.  You just hear about the rare occasions when "updating your priors" flips a previous point of view.  If you want to bet on all the long-shots that are statistically improbable, that's your prerogative.    But it is anti-science.  You are smart enough to realize that, but your media sources and bias blind you.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

That report cited 6% as a direct cause of death. It can't be the direct cause of death. Even in a healthy person, there should be a direct cause of death like heart or respiratory failure.

There is, but the 6% looked at what preexisting conditions they had coming in and what was listed on the death certificate. That number still could be manipulated a little, you could have undiagnosed conditions, but should generally be a good number. Basically if you come in with no other preexisting conditions other than covid then you get counted in the 6%.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

You still have no clue what you are talking about.  Go back and read the link I sent you and what Lucky2Last wrote to you.  He is correct about direct causes of death vs. comorbidities contributing to death.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

There is, but the 6% looked at what preexisting conditions they had coming in and what was listed on the death certificate. That number still could be manipulated a little, you could have undiagnosed conditions, but should generally be a good number. Basically if you come in with no other preexisting conditions other than covid then you get counted in the 6%.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

You still have no clue what you are talking about.  Go back and read the link I sent you and what Lucky2Last wrote to you.  He is correct about direct causes of death vs. comorbidities contributing to death.

I fully understand covid doesn't kill you, it is you body failing from the affects of covid. That doesn't have anything to do with the 6% stat though.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

---

You still have no clue what you are talking about.  Go back and read the link I sent you and what Lucky2Last wrote to you.  He is correct about direct causes of death vs. comorbidities contributing to death.

I fully understand covid doesn't kill you, it is you body failing from the affects of covid. That doesn't have anything to do with the 6% stat though.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

You still don't understand. Good luck to you.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

Whats the largest age demographic for excess deaths in the US?

---

I fully understand covid doesn't kill you, it is you body failing from the affects of covid. That doesn't have anything to do with the 6% stat though.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

You still don't understand. Good luck to you.

Just out of curiosity, is your degree is medicine, math, or poly-sci?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You still don't understand. Good luck to you.

Just out of curiosity, is your degree is medicine, math, or poly-sci?

Hotel management.  I regularly stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

Whats the largest age demographic for excess deaths in the US?

Beyond that, how do you measure excess death? You don't know when someone will die.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

---

Whats the largest age demographic for excess deaths in the US?

Beyond that, how do you measure excess death? You don't know when someone will die.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I'm in a good mood after the Caldwell firing, so I'm not going to rip on you today.  Why don't you go read the Johns Hopkins link I left you before and write a 300 word post about what you learned from it.  That will help me decide if you are capable of learning and worth educating more on this issue.  Have a good day!

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

Beyond that, how do you measure excess death? You don't know when someone will die.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I'm in a good mood after the Caldwell firing, so I'm not going to rip on you today.  Why don't you go read the Johns Hopkins link I left you before and write a 300 word post about what you learned from it.  That will help me decide if you are capable of learning and worth educating more on this issue.  Have a good day!

I've already read the link you put, it has no info. Excess death is measured by spikes, how is that a real way to measure deaths? You have a bunch of people die in huge car crash, that counts. In that same wreck, you have a bunch of people with a bunch of conditions that will cause them to die, but that would still count as excess.

Excess deaths is a metric fraught with bias that ignores other related inputs. There is no context to the metric. Yes a spike of people died and 6% of those were healthy. What the full data shows is that there was a spike, but the rest of the year the data corrected and there were less total deaths. You cannot at one metric that is incomplete. Looking at total deaths shows unhealthy people died, probably a few months sooner than they would have, but those deaths really weren't excess.

---

I'm in a good mood after the Caldwell firing, so I'm not going to rip on you today.  Why don't you go read the Johns Hopkins link I left you before and write a 300 word post about what you learned from it.  That will help me decide if you are capable of learning and worth educating more on this issue.  Have a good day!

I've already read the link you put, it has no info. Excess death is measured by spikes, how is that a real way to measure deaths? You have a bunch of people die in huge car crash, that counts. In that same wreck, you have a bunch of people with a bunch of conditions that will cause them to die, but that would still count as excess.

Excess deaths is a metric fraught with bias that ignores other related inputs. There is no context to the metric. Yes a spike of people died and 6% of those were healthy. What the full data shows is that there was a spike, but the rest of the year the data corrected and there were less total deaths. You cannot at one metric that is incomplete. Looking at total deaths shows unhealthy people died, probably a few months sooner than they would have, but those deaths really weren't excess.

"Total deaths are not open to bias.  It tells you how many people have died regardless of the claimed cause."

That is what you wrote to me before.  You are so beyond clueless it is comical.  Excess deaths IS total deaths, compared to previous years.  In EXCESS of previous years' average total death.  My God man, any 12-year old kid understands this better than you do.  Back to the intellectual kiddie table for you.  Maybe Lucky2Last has the patience to explain the basics to you, but I do not.  Run along now.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.