It's the flu, sheeple! CDC fianally admits they were wrong!

Bad Wigins wrote:

Go back to school. You chose wisely when you registered under the name of an ape.

"Excess deaths" can be from anything. "Disprove" is your correct admission that the burden of proof is yours to show that the supposed "excess deaths" were all caused by coronaviral disease. You have no more means of proving that for the general population than for the disease.

After this nonsense, you gleefully smear your opponent and paint a straw man, as if an educated person would find that compelling.

This is wrong. You have no posted one thing correct about COVID since your infamous 2600 prediction almost 12 months ago! A year of ignorance and shame.

Excess deaths in the USA correlate strongly with official covid deaths in time and place. Are you contending that a majority of COVID deaths are incorrect/faked? Remember, ~91% of death certificates with involving COVID have COVID as the underlying cause!

Here's a scatterplot showing that changes in mobility in the US have no correlation on excess death rates:

I.E. you can't blame lockdowns

Same guy has some older data that shows the very strong correlation between excess deaths and COVID deaths in time and space:

You can see here from the CDC by changing the graph to "excess deaths with and without COVID-19" that excess deaths at a national level are largely explained by COVID deaths.

Given that we see COVID is the predominant underlying cause (i.e. this is not "with" COVID BS), COVID cases/hospitalizations/deaths correlate, and lockdowns aren't correlated with excess deaths... how do you explain them? Did thousands of doctors all around the USA fake deaths for a year and nobody caught them? Stunning!

Waiting for your evidence :)

2600 bro wrote:

It's funny you think that Harambe is comparing his hypothesis to the null hypothesis (i.e. has the burden of proof). Clearly the null hypothesis (nothing has caused excess deaths) is false here - as we see 400k excess deaths in the USA.

There is NO way Wigins knows what "null hypothesis" means.

Harambe wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

It's funny you think that Harambe is comparing his hypothesis to the null hypothesis (i.e. has the burden of proof). Clearly the null hypothesis (nothing has caused excess deaths) is false here - as we see 400k excess deaths in the USA.

There is NO way Wigins knows what "null hypothesis" means.

Thank you for your extraordinary research into this and for gathering facts, doing your fact-checking, and collecting all of the viable peer reviewed studies relating to this. This is really the only thing we can completely trust as it is the only foolproof and incorruptible information there is, and we can trust that our major media information outlets will go through the vetting process to ensure that only trustworthy information is going to be filtered through. You've obviously gone through the complete thought process, gathering the data for exact current and predicted harm done to us, and figured out the exact steps to vanquish this enemy called covid19, while at the same time teaching the uneducated and non-compliant as to where they are wrong, so I want to thank you for your efforts.

Science above all wrote:

Thank you for your extraordinary research into this and for gathering facts, doing your fact-checking, and collecting all of the viable peer reviewed studies relating to this. This is really the only thing we can completely trust as it is the only foolproof and incorruptible information there is, and we can trust that our major media information outlets will go through the vetting process to ensure that only trustworthy information is going to be filtered through. You've obviously gone through the complete thought process, gathering the data for exact current and predicted harm done to us, and figured out the exact steps to vanquish this enemy called covid19, while at the same time teaching the uneducated and non-compliant as to where they are wrong, so I want to thank you for your efforts.

Anytime brother *fist bump*

Harambe wrote:

Science above all wrote:

Thank you for your extraordinary research into this and for gathering facts, doing your fact-checking, and collecting all of the viable peer reviewed studies relating to this. This is really the only thing we can completely trust as it is the only foolproof and incorruptible information there is, and we can trust that our major media information outlets will go through the vetting process to ensure that only trustworthy information is going to be filtered through. You've obviously gone through the complete thought process, gathering the data for exact current and predicted harm done to us, and figured out the exact steps to vanquish this enemy called covid19, while at the same time teaching the uneducated and non-compliant as to where they are wrong, so I want to thank you for your efforts.

Anytime brother *fist bump*

Having a hard time recognizing sarcasm (at least it should be).

I don't think anyone is denying the unfortunate reality and outcome that there are lots of unnecessary deaths because of Covid prioritization, government/health board reactions and dysfunction in the larger medical realm. But I'm curious, can you provide data showing the increase in deaths from denied or delayed procedures for these high risk cases? I'm curious personally, as I had two family members have life-saving procedures in the Spring, when this scenario was a massive talking point. At least here in the US, where there haven't been continuing full lockdowns of any kind, these blanket ramifications on medical procedures doesn't seem to have continued.

But, in reference to your emotional vitriol: Claiming that the blood is on the hands of those promoting science/medical-based approaches for defence against the larger Covid problem is very narrow minded. Harambe's point, that I agree with is: if we had done a better job preempting Covid's spread, the outcome affecting cancer and other non-covid patients wouldn't be as bad. If society cared more about each other then themselves, their own happiness, their perception of their rights, liberties and entitlements as a modern member of society, we could be in a very different place currently.

I'm guessing that mindset angers you, because it's ultimately a what-if for the past and some amount of wishful thinking for the present/future. You yourself say that you're not a covid denier, but your statements appear to have a fatalistic view that we can't and we shouldn't be taking such stringent measures against it because we're paying the consequences in other ways.

I would counter that complacency and denial with specific examples like Sweden's increased deaths, following the juncture of winter and its hands-off covid approach. You can also see clear data correlations from decreased restrictions and societal laziness in the US and Europe being followed by massive case and death spikes.

Harambe is the only who ever posts raw data or primary analysis. All the loonies either post speculative tweets or a post from rationaltruthers.net that uses data from a small town in Arkansas to "prove" a point about why Seattle is bad.

Flanders David wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Anytime brother *fist bump*

Having a hard time recognizing sarcasm (at least it should be).

the gullible, selfish and scared right wrote:

I'm guessing that mindset angers you, because it's ultimately a what-if for the past and some amount of wishful thinking for the present/future. You yourself say that you're not a covid denier, but your statements appear to have a fatalistic view that we can't and we shouldn't be taking such stringent measures against it because we're paying the consequences in other ways.

I would counter that complacency and denial with specific examples like Sweden's increased deaths, following the juncture of winter and its hands-off covid approach. You can also see clear data correlations from decreased restrictions and societal laziness in the US and Europe being followed by massive case and death spikes.

Well put.

It is frustrating now that we have a tool that should get us out of this COVID mess (vaccines), but there is a very clear failure mode (letting immune escape variants arise). There's truly a light at the end of the tunnel despite our poor response over the last year. If this dude wants every to get their in-hospital cancer screens done they should be cheering mitigation measures! Instead they accuse those of us in favor of avoiding 1 million excess deaths as "just wanting to push our agenda."

Basically, if we listen to them, 1 million or more Americans die of COVID and some unstated amount of people get better access to care -- no data ever provided.

If accept mitigation measures, we control deaths, prevent immune escape, and these people still get access to care as we clean up the surges.

To me, the choice is obvious.

1) are you saying 1 million including those who have already died of Covid?if not that seems improbably high.

The exact number we would’ve hit without mitigation measures it’s probably impossible to know. The one most complicated number to know is what percentage of people needed to be infected in an unmitigated disease transmission environment in order to reach herd immunity. I have seen an article doing pretty reasonable modeling with a best guess at 43%. That is certainly lower than what I learned many years ago, and definitely lower than what you would need to achieve under a vaccine regime. Obviously that percentage-dramatically affects total deaths, and there seems to be a pretty wide range of possibilities. Now, places that have done more successful mitigation such as Norway Finland and Denmark have clearly produced a very large reduction in mortality compared to their neighbor Sweden. I have confidence that by the time they are vaccinated to herd immunity, we will find their measures have dramatically cut their deaths due to Covid, almost certainly more than by half. In the United States, I fear that we have managed to achieve the worst of both worlds, we may have slowed down the spread just enough so that we basically would have reached close to our unmitigated death total just about at the time the vaccine starts to have a major effect. My guess is that it won’t be extremely close in truth, but it seems like a hard thing to know

We have ~30% of the US infected and 400k.

I think 1 million total deaths isn't unreasonable at ~70% attack rate.

Not sure I buy a 43% herd immunity threshold, especially with higher Rt variants taking over.

OK, my uncertainty was whether you were arguing for 400 K plus 1M for a total of 1.4 million or you were talking about 400 K +600 K for a total of 1 million. I now understand that you mean the latter. I certainly think that is possible, and I don’t think anyone knows if the number is closer to 43 or 70 (the shapes of the curves make it hard to believe it is much lower than 43), and yes, the new variants do complicate the math further..

trashcan wrote:

OK, my uncertainty was whether you were arguing for 400 K plus 1M for a total of 1.4 million or you were talking about 400 K +600 K for a total of 1 million. I now understand that you mean the latter. I certainly think that is possible, and I don’t think anyone knows if the number is closer to 43 or 70 (the shapes of the curves make it hard to believe it is much lower than 43), and yes, the new variants do complicate the math further..

Agreed. I hope it's closer to 43%.