Or perhaps what that shows is that social distancing works on a lot of diseases, and not just Covid-19.

Maybe it shows the treatments for many chronic diseases are not beneficial and you'd live longer by staying away from doctors.

---

I think we can halve the reported number of COVID deaths and be much closer to the truth.

I'll look at it this way: Yes, deaths can have multiple causes, but death is death.
Leave the 2019 bar alone, and lump everything in the 2020 bar together. The 2020 bar is taller, by 2,500 deaths. This, in spite of the fact that homicides and traffic accidents are certainly down with most people staying home. The only way to explain it is to accept that COVID-19 is a huge threat to kill thousands and thousands of people, even with social distancing. Do you think it easing social distancing would cause more deaths or fewer deaths?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm not against easing social distancing.  I'm against the misuse of statistics.  That's what I'm objecting to.

---

If you voted for your Democrat Governor - and they are bankrupting you with illegal, unconstitutional, indefinite lockdowns and have turned into power-hungry, communist tyrants ... go to your nearest mirror and look at who's to blame.

WAKE UP!

NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT!

---

Yeah, sure. Social distance yourself out of cancer or a stroke. Geez, why didnt we think of that sooner?

Yeah, I knew someone would say that, but there was a whole bunch of stuff lumped together without specifying how much each of those things had declined from one year to the next.   Flu and homicide in the same stat?  What the heck do homicide and accidents have to do with Covid-19?  Did someone get shot and hauled to he hospital where he was pronounced dead from Covid-19?  Couldn't one also safely assume that social distancing would result in a decline in flu deaths?

You realize that you are agreeing with us that COVID has been substantially overstated as a clinical threat, right? And that they are cooking the books to make it look really bad but even in doing so it still doesn't look all that bad. That's what those other causes have to do with it, they are assigning COD of COVID to people who died of other things.

The burden estimate for the Flu this year, still and estimate, is 24,000 to 62,000. That range is basically the Min and Max of the last 10 years, so no, we really can't safely assume that the social distancing farce had any real impact on the flu this year. We can be damn sure that it's wrecked the economy and the lives of millions of our people though.

Total deaths in the USA YTD continue to be lower than normal, but was the point of shutting down the economy to stop traffic accidents and murders or is that merely an inherent side effect? And should that side effect be counted as part of the "War on the Rona"?

Here, USAToady wrote a piece that explains the problem and why everything we think we know about this probably isn't true. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/inve...020778001/

---

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

Another thing that bothers me about this is what about the success stories, the people who had it and recovered? What were they treated with? We know that very few who went on ventilators recovered. We know Remdesivir was somewhat helpful in reducing recovery time. I wonder if there's an effective treatment that isn't being talked about because it would make the President look good? Something is helping these patients recover - is it high-dose Vitamin C? Is it HCQ and Z-pak? Something else?

We know the Big Pharma types like Fauci and Gates will favor the $1000/dose Remdesivir with active patent by Gilead over the $1/dose HCQ with patent expired that anybody can produce.

---

We don't know what that graph represents, because it clumps in a bunch of random categories for death. It shouldn't be that hard to piece it together. My statement invalidated it as a useful piece of information, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

---

We don't know what that graph represents, because it clumps in a bunch of random categories for death. It shouldn't be that hard to piece it together. My statement invalidated it as a useful piece of information, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

The point of the chart is that New York lists only 5,000 non-COVID deaths this year compared to 13,000 for the same period last year. I doubt that 8,000 of the 13,000 are accounted for by things like car accidents that might also be reduced by the lockdown. This means NY state is grossly exaggerating the number of COVID deaths by classifying others (heart attack, stroke, cancer, flu, ...) as being a COVID death.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

We don't know what that graph represents, because it clumps in a bunch of random categories for death. It shouldn't be that hard to piece it together. My statement invalidated it as a useful piece of information, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

The point of the chart is that New York lists only 5,000 non-COVID deaths this year compared to 13,000 for the same period last year. I doubt that 8,000 of the 13,000 are accounted for by things like car accidents that might also be reduced by the lockdown. This means NY state is grossly exaggerating the number of COVID deaths by classifying others (heart attack, stroke, cancer, flu, ...) as being a COVID death.

All contagious diseases are reduced by the lockdown.  Flu, MRSA, many others.
Yet the total number of deaths remains higher than last year. 
How do you explain that?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The point of the chart is that New York lists only 5,000 non-COVID deaths this year compared to 13,000 for the same period last year. I doubt that 8,000 of the 13,000 are accounted for by things like car accidents that might also be reduced by the lockdown. This means NY state is grossly exaggerating the number of COVID deaths by classifying others (heart attack, stroke, cancer, flu, ...) as being a COVID death.

All contagious diseases are reduced by the lockdown.  Flu, MRSA, many others.
Yet the total number of deaths remains higher than last year. 
How do you explain that?

Why did we initiate the lockdown?

---

All contagious diseases are reduced by the lockdown.  Flu, MRSA, many others.
Yet the total number of deaths remains higher than last year. 
How do you explain that?

Why did we initiate the lockdown?

Because Trump told us to?

---

Consider two numbers.
The first is the total number of deaths from all causes in New York City in September of 2001, minus the average number of deaths from all causes for the previous five Septembers.
The second number is total number of deaths from all causes in New York City in April of 2020, minus the average number of deaths from all causes for the previous five Aprils.

Guess which number is higher, then do the math and see which one is actually higher

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Consider two numbers.
The first is the total number of deaths from all causes in New York City in September of 2001, minus the average number of deaths from all causes for the previous five Septembers.
The second number is total number of deaths from all causes in New York City in April of 2020, minus the average number of deaths from all causes for the previous five Aprils.

Guess which number is higher, then do the math and see which one is actually higher

C'mon man, you're better than this.

Deaths all causes last year - 13k
Deaths all causes except C-19 this year - 4,500

That's not legitimate, no matter how bad COVID is or isn't. People didn't quit having heart attacks and stokes and dying of cancer because of C-19, they're just getting recorded differently to forward the narrative.

---

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

Consider two numbers.
The first is the total number of deaths from all causes in New York City in September of 2001, minus the average number of deaths from all causes for the previous five Septembers.
The second number is total number of deaths from all causes in New York City in April of 2020, minus the average number of deaths from all causes for the previous five Aprils.

Guess which number is higher, then do the math and see which one is actually higher

C'mon man, you're better than this.

Deaths all causes last year - 13k
Deaths all causes except C-19 this year - 4,500

That's not legitimate, no matter how bad COVID is or isn't. People didn't quit having heart attacks and stokes and dying of cancer because of C-19, they're just getting recorded differently to forward the narrative.

Nope. 
It's gotta be all causes both years or it's not apples to apples, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The point of the chart is that New York lists only 5,000 non-COVID deaths this year compared to 13,000 for the same period last year. I doubt that 8,000 of the 13,000 are accounted for by things like car accidents that might also be reduced by the lockdown. This means NY state is grossly exaggerating the number of COVID deaths by classifying others (heart attack, stroke, cancer, flu, ...) as being a COVID death.

All contagious diseases are reduced by the lockdown.  Flu, MRSA, many others.
Yet the total number of deaths remains higher than last year. 
How do you explain that?

Obviously the Kung Flu makes up the difference. The point is not that the Wuhan virus isn't making a difference, it's that there's an approximately 8000 death lie in the claim of the number of ChiCom virus deaths when you compare the two years.

Contagious disease deaths besides flu are insignificant compared to heart attack, cancer, and stroke. Flu deaths in general are not insignificant, but the season was pretty much over by mid March, so they are also insignificant in the time period shown in the graph.

---

C'mon man, you're better than this.

Deaths all causes last year - 13k
Deaths all causes except C-19 this year - 4,500

That's not legitimate, no matter how bad COVID is or isn't. People didn't quit having heart attacks and stokes and dying of cancer because of C-19, they're just getting recorded differently to forward the narrative.

Nope. 
It's gotta be all causes both years or it's not apples to apples, right?

Seriously? You aren't even looking at the non-Chinese virus death totals.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

All contagious diseases are reduced by the lockdown.  Flu, MRSA, many others.
Yet the total number of deaths remains higher than last year. 
How do you explain that?

Obviously the Kung Flu makes up the difference. The point is not that the Wuhan virus isn't making a difference, it's that there's an approximately 8000 death lie in the claim of the number of ChiCom virus deaths when you compare the two years.

Contagious disease deaths besides flu are insignificant compared to heart attack, cancer, and stroke. Flu deaths in general are not insignificant, but the season was pretty much over by mid March, so they are also insignificant in the time period shown in the graph.

---

Nope. 
It's gotta be all causes both years or it's not apples to apples, right?

Seriously? You aren't even looking at the non-Chinese virus death totals.

I agree, "deaths by causes other than Covid" in the graph is suspiciously low. Like you, I suspect that number was manipulated. But total deaths was not manipulated. And it's higher. Even though there's a lockdown. The only point I'm making is you cannot look at these numbers and deny that this particular virus is a very unique and serious threat, and that the lockdown was the best of many bad solutions to it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Obviously the Kung Flu makes up the difference. The point is not that the Wuhan virus isn't making a difference, it's that there's an approximately 8000 death lie in the claim of the number of ChiCom virus deaths when you compare the two years.

Contagious disease deaths besides flu are insignificant compared to heart attack, cancer, and stroke. Flu deaths in general are not insignificant, but the season was pretty much over by mid March, so they are also insignificant in the time period shown in the graph.

---

Seriously? You aren't even looking at the non-Chinese virus death totals.

I agree, "deaths by causes other than Covid" in the graph is suspiciously low. Like you, I suspect that number was manipulated. But total deaths was not manipulated. And it's higher. Even though there's a lockdown. The only point I'm making is you cannot look at these numbers and deny that this particular virus is a very unique and serious threat, and that the lockdown was the best of many bad solutions to it.

Why did we initiate the lockdown?

---

C'mon man, you're better than this.

Deaths all causes last year - 13k
Deaths all causes except C-19 this year - 4,500

That's not legitimate, no matter how bad COVID is or isn't. People didn't quit having heart attacks and stokes and dying of cancer because of C-19, they're just getting recorded differently to forward the narrative.

Nope. 
It's gotta be all causes both years or it's not apples to apples, right?

Ok. So you're not better than that.

---

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

Obviously the Kung Flu makes up the difference. The point is not that the Wuhan virus isn't making a difference, it's that there's an approximately 8000 death lie in the claim of the number of ChiCom virus deaths when you compare the two years.

Contagious disease deaths besides flu are insignificant compared to heart attack, cancer, and stroke. Flu deaths in general are not insignificant, but the season was pretty much over by mid March, so they are also insignificant in the time period shown in the graph.

---

Seriously? You aren't even looking at the non-Chinese virus death totals.

I agree, "deaths by causes other than Covid" in the graph is suspiciously low. Like you, I suspect that number was manipulated. But total deaths was not manipulated. And it's higher. Even though there's a lockdown. The only point I'm making is you cannot look at these numbers and deny that this particular virus is a very unique and serious threat, and that the lockdown was the best of many bad solutions to it.

I agree that the virus is more serious than most seasonal flu. But the point of the graph was not disputing that, it was to point out that "other causes" is suspiciously low. I don't think it even falls to the level of "suspicion" but more like "almost certainly" that the numbers have been grossly manipulated.

As far as the "best solution" that's still debatable. As JJ keeps trying to remind you, the lockdown was not intended to keep people from dying. It was only intended to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. That was never close to being the case, even in NYC (and victims can be moved to hospitals in other locations, a fact which seems to be totally ignored). Unless the lockdown lasts long enough to completely destroy the US economy, or some miraculous cure or vaccine is developed before then, the same number of people will end up dead and our economy will have been set back roughly two years.

It may have been the "best solution" given the knowledge at the time, but that's like saying that the Bears made the best choice when they picked Trubisky instead of Mahomes or Watson. Hindsight says a lockdown wasn't the best solution.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Looks like Fauci cooked the books on the Remdesivir study to get a favorable result. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/govern...r-BB13ui2k

Instead of counting how many people taking the drug were kept alive on ventilators or died, among other measures, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said it would judge the drug primarily on a different outcome: how long it took surviving patients to recover.

Death and other negative outcomes were moved to secondary measure status: They would still be tracked, but they would no longer be the key measure of remdesivir’s performance. The switch — which specialists said is unusual in major clinical trials but not unheard of — was publicly disclosed on the government’s clinicaltrials.gov website on April 16 but did not receive much attention at the time.

---