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.

That is not what they are saying. Excess deaths is looking at a month by month or week by week. Look that the total death numbers, the current estimates are less than last year. You keep trying to make a point based on bad data. Yes there was a spike in March, but most of those people would have died later in the year based on the total number of deaths this year.

---

"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.

That is not what they are saying. Excess deaths is looking at a month by month or week by week. Look that the total death numbers, the current estimates are less than last year. You keep trying to make a point based on bad data. Yes there was a spike in March, but most of those people would have died later in the year based on the total number of deaths this year.

False.  And who are "they"?  Provide your source, like a grown up.  I cited Johns Hopkins, who you originally said was "they".  But THEY said the exact opposite of you.

You sound like Trump.  "Massive election fraud!  Everyone is saying it!  They say I won, by millions!"

 
Run along now, you little rascal 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.

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

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

I have a good friend who is degreed in Hospitality Management, it's a fine field. However, I don't think you're serious. Are you unwilling to share or just being your normal self?

---

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

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

I have a good friend who is degreed in Hospitality Management, it's a fine field. However, I don't think you're serious. Are you unwilling to share or just being your normal self?

Yes.  To both.

---

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 have a good friend who is degreed in Hospitality Management, it's a fine field. However, I don't think you're serious. Are you unwilling to share or just being your normal self?

Yes.  To both.

Ah, ok then.

---

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

That is not what they are saying. Excess deaths is looking at a month by month or week by week. Look that the total death numbers, the current estimates are less than last year. You keep trying to make a point based on bad data. Yes there was a spike in March, but most of those people would have died later in the year based on the total number of deaths this year.

False.  And who are "they"?  Provide your source, like a grown up.  I cited Johns Hopkins, who you originally said was "they".  But THEY said the exact opposite of you.

You sound like Trump.  "Massive election fraud!  Everyone is saying it!  They say I won, by millions!"

 
Run along now, you little rascal you!

They is your very own source, but you don't understand the source you cited. Goodbye.

"Can you explain the "200,000 excess deaths" you referenced in your recent tweet?

We can observe trends from the number of deaths reported each year, on a weekly basis. When we see large deviations in the numbers for a time period, we call that excess deaths. 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?"

All time periods on a week by week basis, not for the year on hole where John Hopkins showed the numbers were lower than last year. Excess deaths is a made up metric with no real use outside of other influences.

---

False.  And who are "they"?  Provide your source, like a grown up.  I cited Johns Hopkins, who you originally said was "they".  But THEY said the exact opposite of you.

You sound like Trump.  "Massive election fraud!  Everyone is saying it!  They say I won, by millions!"

 
Run along now, you little rascal you!

They is your very own source, but you don't understand the source you cited. Goodbye.

"Can you explain the "200,000 excess deaths" you referenced in your recent tweet?

We can observe trends from the number of deaths reported each year, on a weekly basis. When we see large deviations in the numbers for a time period, we call that excess deaths. 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?"

All time periods on a week by week basis, not for the year on hole where John Hopkins showed the numbers were lower than last year. Excess deaths is a made up metric with no real use outside of other influences.

You are obviously not intellectually capable of reading or understanding this very basic concept. The quote you cited works AGAINST your argument... not for it. Attempting to explain this simple fact to you is like trying to teach Japanese Algebra to a 5-year old.  So you go run along now, you little rascal you!  Try not to eat any dirt while you're playing outside.

---

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.

More personal insults, shocker

---

More personal insults, shocker

More sensitivity, shocker.

---

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.

More personal insults, shocker

More sensitivity, shocker.

There is nothing sensitive about pointing out the obvious.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

More personal insults, shocker

Just because you think he's rude doesn't mean he's not right.

---

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

It was always my belief that COVID infection rates were tracked strictly by hospital admissions and tracing data. Apparently authorities are using mass data dumps to keep track of virus infection rates. Let no opportunity go to waste.

Testing of wastewater shows dramatic increase in COVID-19 cases in Missouri


(KMOV.com) - Missouri epidemiologists have been testing wastewater while test results show a state flushed with coronavirus cases.

“We’re learning new things about it every month,” says Jeff Wenzel.

News 4 found the state has been detecting coronavirus volumes in wastewater since May. The samples are provided by MSD from their seven wastewater treatment plants across St. Louis City and St. Louis County.

“We don’t have any plans of stopping anytime soon,” Wenzel said.

The state says they can detect coronavirus in human feces before symptoms appear.

“The spike in the wastewater actually precedes the spike in clinically reported cases sometimes between 4 to 10 days,” said Jennings Heussner.

---

Covid is a real problem for people over 70. The excess deaths should show that a lot of people were affected by it. A lot of people is relative, though. For a brand new virus that hasn't had a chance to burn through the population, 200k is nothing. Lockdowns probably helped a bit, but not by much, otherwise the WHO wouldn't have changed it's course. I think they are doing more harm in the long run, unless this vaccine works. I'm not going to be the first in line, though, I can promise you that. Once we achieve herd immunity, I suspect we'll see the number drop by a significant degree, and it will be in line with the flu. Which, of course, will still increase excess deaths, but not significantly.

---

It was always my belief that COVID infection rates were tracked strictly by hospital admissions and tracing data. Apparently authorities are using mass data dumps to keep track of virus infection rates. Let no opportunity go to waste.

Testing of wastewater shows dramatic increase in COVID-19 cases in Missouri


(KMOV.com) - Missouri epidemiologists have been testing wastewater while test results show a state flushed with coronavirus cases.

“We’re learning new things about it every month,” says Jeff Wenzel.

News 4 found the state has been detecting coronavirus volumes in wastewater since May. The samples are provided by MSD from their seven wastewater treatment plants across St. Louis City and St. Louis County.

“We don’t have any plans of stopping anytime soon,” Wenzel said.

The state says they can detect coronavirus in human feces before symptoms appear.

“The spike in the wastewater actually precedes the spike in clinically reported cases sometimes between 4 to 10 days,” said Jennings Heussner.

Just think, every shart is a contagion event.

---

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

It was always my belief that COVID infection rates were tracked strictly by hospital admissions and tracing data. Apparently authorities are using mass data dumps to keep track of virus infection rates. Let no opportunity go to waste.

Testing of wastewater shows dramatic increase in COVID-19 cases in Missouri


(KMOV.com) - Missouri epidemiologists have been testing wastewater while test results show a state flushed with coronavirus cases.

“We’re learning new things about it every month,” says Jeff Wenzel.

News 4 found the state has been detecting coronavirus volumes in wastewater since May. The samples are provided by MSD from their seven wastewater treatment plants across St. Louis City and St. Louis County.

“We don’t have any plans of stopping anytime soon,” Wenzel said.

The state says they can detect coronavirus in human feces before symptoms appear.

“The spike in the wastewater actually precedes the spike in clinically reported cases sometimes between 4 to 10 days,” said Jennings Heussner.

Excellent post (and puns).  This demonstrates that epidemiologists are looking at creative and unique ways to pinpoint the true infection rate in communities that most people have never even imagined (or would want to).  

Lucky2Last acts like epidemiologists just turn on CNN everyday and divide the reported deaths by the reported cases on the tv screen to get mortality rate, and then take the rest of the day off.  "I wonder if they know 40% of biopsied pneumonia deaths had unreported flu infections?!?!?!".  Uhm.... yeah.  They know.  Thanks for participating though.

---

Covid is a real problem for people over 70. The excess deaths should show that a lot of people were affected by it. A lot of people is relative, though. For a brand new virus that hasn't had a chance to burn through the population, 200k is nothing. Lockdowns probably helped a bit, but not by much, otherwise the WHO wouldn't have changed it's course. I think they are doing more harm in the long run, unless this vaccine works. I'm not going to be the first in line, though, I can promise you that. Once we achieve herd immunity, I suspect we'll see the number drop by a significant degree, and it will be in line with the flu. Which, of course, will still increase excess deaths, but not significantly.

200k is actually the EXACT number of COVID deaths in the US at the time that article was published... so there is that small detail.  And current COVID-related deaths in the US are now at about 270k... the equivalent amount of American death as from NINETY 9-11 terrorist attacks.  And you call that degree of excess death "nothing"?!?

Of course with vaccines, herd immunity, and improved therapeutics the COVID deaths will decrease... just like any other novel disease.  The point is what the COVID mortality rate was looking like in the early stages of the pandemic and the rest of 2020; not what it will be in 2021.   You make decisions on what is happening AT THE MOMENT; not what will be happening next year.  This is a simple concept.

---

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.

More personal insults, shocker

Just because you think he's rude doesn't mean he's not right.

One man's "rude"  is another man's "presidential".

---

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.

So do I need masks over my face and my ace now too?

---

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, you improve and refine your knowledge and 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 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 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.

You are not presenting overwhelming evidence of anything. You might have it, but so far, most of what you wrote is ambiguity with a hint of appeal to authority. You reference all of the epidemiologists, who aren't a monolith, without knowing what a majority of them think. Then you reference a majority of data, without knowledge of how or where that data is produced. You make a claim that they all know about the study I read 4 months ago, without any evidence it is common knowledge. Can you show proof of any of that, or are we supposed to take your word at face value? I feel like you're operating on principles that just aren't true. 

There are 7 thousand epidemiologists, according to the department of labor, and they are studying over 320,000 viruses in the world. All information is not commonplace. It's unreasonable to think that any of them know all the things. That's not how knowledge works. MOST people remember the most frequent tasks they use in their job and whatever it is they are researching at the moment. I bet 90% of our data on the flu comes from less than 100 people (just a guess, could be wrong). How much influence do you think they have on the literature used by every other scientist? Why would the researcher even waste time to publish it if it were common knowledge? 

This is not to say that I know more than them; I certainly don't. However, this is a well known phenomenon in science that the front runners of new information are often ignored because people continue to accept the status quo. It happens ALL THE TIME. There are entire books written about it. Human beings know barely anything when it comes to actual knowledge, so we are constantly modifying our views. Unfortunately, the rate at which the general population changes their view is different than the rate at which the scientific community changes its view, which is different than the rate the individual researchers change their view. Good science begs for the accurate knowledge to be pushed to the forefront of society. Politicized science does not. This phenomenon is amplified to the degree the media is not politicized, because scientists do not have the capacity to get that information to the public. Our media is dog [BLEEP], completely in bed with a government that profits at the taxpayer's expense. 

I am fully aware of my biases (well, to the degree that I can be). I know that I have them, and I am generally good about filtering new information through them. I almost always try to understand the opposing point of view, and thinking about the problems they would have with my claims. I even take the time to look up opposing arguments. I do almost all my own research, so I find it odd that you'd recommend that I take that up as a hobby. I also try to understand the systems that produce or information and their biases and limitations. The problem with anything political in our current environment is that almost all new information is processed through a political lens, packaged, and handed to us in a ready-to-consume form. I am inherently mistrusting of institutions that benefit from that system. That's a bias, sure, I get it. I'm not wrong a lot, though, and I could give you probably 50 examples this year of legacy media outright lying to the American public. Do I get duped by alternate news sources from time to time? Sure, but only when I get lazy. That happens, too. It's hard to stay on top of this stuff. I certainly don't think you do. 

Probably shouldn't call people sheep for mistrusting an obviously corrupt system. If you can't see it, you're a part of the problem.

---

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, you improve and refine your knowledge and 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 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 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.

You are not presenting overwhelming evidence of anything. You might have it, but so far, most of what you wrote is ambiguity with a hint of appeal to authority. You reference all of the epidemiologists, who aren't a monolith, without knowing what a majority of them think. Then you reference a majority of data, without knowledge of how or where that data is produced. You make a claim that they all know about the study I read 4 months ago, without any evidence it is common knowledge. Can you show proof of any of that, or are we supposed to take your word at face value? I feel like you're operating on principles that just aren't true. 

There are 7 thousand epidemiologists, according to the department of labor, and they are studying over 320,000 viruses in the world. All information is not commonplace. It's unreasonable to think that any of them know all the things. That's not how knowledge works. MOST people remember the most frequent tasks they use in their job and whatever it is they are researching at the moment. I bet 90% of our data on the flu comes from less than 100 people (just a guess, could be wrong). How much influence do you think they have on the literature used by every other scientist? Why would the researcher even waste time to publish it if it were common knowledge? 

This is not to say that I know more than them; I certainly don't. However, this is a well known phenomenon in science that the front runners of new information are often ignored because people continue to accept the status quo. It happens ALL THE TIME. There are entire books written about it. Human beings know barely anything when it comes to actual knowledge, so we are constantly modifying our views. Unfortunately, the rate at which the general population changes their view is different than the rate at which the scientific community changes its view, which is different than the rate the individual researchers change their view. Good science begs for the accurate knowledge to be pushed to the forefront of society. Politicized science does not. This phenomenon is amplified to the degree the media is not politicized, because scientists do not have the capacity to get that information to the public. Our media is dog [BLEEP], completely in bed with a government that profits at the taxpayer's expense. 

I am fully aware of my biases (well, to the degree that I can be). I know that I have them, and I am generally good about filtering new information through them. I almost always try to understand the opposing point of view, and thinking about the problems they would have with my claims. I even take the time to look up opposing arguments. I do almost all my own research, so I find it odd that you'd recommend that I take that up as a hobby. I also try to understand the systems that produce or information and their biases and limitations. The problem with anything political in our current environment is that almost all new information is processed through a political lens, packaged, and handed to us in a ready-to-consume form. I am inherently mistrusting of institutions that benefit from that system. That's a bias, sure, I get it. I'm not wrong a lot, though, and I could give you probably 50 examples this year of legacy media outright lying to the American public. Do I get duped by alternate news sources from time to time? Sure, but only when I get lazy. That happens, too. It's hard to stay on top of this stuff. I certainly don't think you do. 

Probably shouldn't call people sheep for mistrusting an obviously corrupt system. If you can't see it, you're a part of the problem.

I'm not going to unpack all of your mindless drivel here, but I will indulge your first request.  That is easy enough, and it is hysterically entertaining that you think you know even a fraction of what epidemiologists do.  They plug all these factors into their statistical models; but you acting like you found something special, like a child at Christmas, is cute though.  Here you go:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how...imates.htm

"The in-hospital deaths are adjusted for under-detection of influenza using methods similar to those described above for hospitalizations using data on the frequency and sensitivity of influenza testing."

The rest of your post is too boring and intellectually lazy to even respond to.  Go play with P_RUSHING now in the backyard until you get called for dinner.

---

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.

You're awful smug for a person that's still wrong. You made me waste 20 minutes of my life trying to find the study. It was heart disease, not pneumonia. That's what I get from going by memory. Not sorry. 

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1509

In this population-based study of adults hospitalized with influenza, almost 12% of patients had an acute cardiovascular event. Clinicians should ensure high rates of influenza vaccination, especially in those with underlying chronic conditions, to protect against acute cardiovascular events associated with influenza.

Here's another:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE...tured_home

It is important to confirm the association between influenza and acute myocardial infarction because cardiovascular events triggered by influenza are potentially preventable by vaccination. Better evidence that influenza triggers cardiovascular events may lead to a change in practice that would improve the currently suboptimal vaccine coverage among persons who are at high risk for acute myocardial infarction.

Thanks for posting that link, btw. Just proves that these super smart experts a) don't actually know how many flu deaths there are because it's not regularly tested, b) only use pneumonia and influenza estimates, c) don't look for any other complications that might have been related. You know where they do look? Covid. You can respond to the rest of my post now.

---