Spain/France COVID Cases are Up, Deaths are Wayyyyyy Down

Allen53 wrote:

Here you can go to Macrotrends to get a good look at how US death totals are trending which is really the best way to understand this as you are alluding to. As anyone can see this year is little different than the trend lines of recent years.

...

Absolutely nothing to do with any virii despite the screechings of the Covid fanatics who observe with a narrow lens.

Note that this year's increase in death rate will be less of an increase than 5 out of the 6 preceding years.

The very first thing I saw in your link:

"NOTE: All 2020 and later data are UN projections and DO NOT include any impacts of the COVID-19 virus."

Absolutely nothing to do with any virii despite the screechings of the Covid deniers who observe with a narrow lens.

David Wowie wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What is the truth then, with specificity?

Can you demonstrate your chart reading comprehension then, by providing us with the numbers you can easily read from the charts?

What are the values you found for Spain and France two months ago?

What are the values you found for Spain and France today?

What is the result of dividing the values today over the values two months ago, for Spain and France?

Let everyone look at the chart.

By all means. I'm not stopping anyone.

You could prove you looked at it by reporting the values from the chart, as I did earlier.

If I am lying, as was alleged, the truth from the charts is easily substantiated.

Allen53 wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

What you're asking for is what they are providing. They estimate against the typical deaths seasonally over a number of years. You can see the graph of them doing it. This year is definitely higher in deaths even if you don't want to buy their predicted excess deaths and just go off of raw data.

Higher in deaths than what?

Previous years.

rekrunner wrote:

David Wowie wrote:

Not true.

What is not true?

It is TRUE that I don't need to see this data.

Are saying that YOU lack the capacity to find the weekly data at the CDC website?

Show me.

A simple list of monthly deaths for say 2018, 2019, and 2020 to date.

Show me

rekrunner wrote:

David Wowie wrote:

Let everyone look at the chart.

By all means. I'm not stopping anyone.

You could prove you looked at it by reporting the values from the chart, as I did earlier.

If I am lying, as was alleged, the truth from the charts is easily substantiated.

Nobody needs you to interpret the chart. We can all see for ourselves.

David Wowie wrote:

Show me.

A simple list of monthly deaths for say 2018, 2019, and 2020 to date.

Show me

I didn't say monthly, but weekly.

And since you need to see the data, and I don't, you need to do your own research.

I will say it took me about 2 minutes to search the CDC website, view all of the data in a table, and even the option to download it.

David Wowie wrote:

Nobody needs you to interpret the chart. We can all see for ourselves.

I asked you to share your interpretation, in order to "prove" you can see for yourself.

rekrunner wrote:

David Wowie wrote:

Show me.

A simple list of monthly deaths for say 2018, 2019, and 2020 to date.

Show me

I didn't say monthly, but weekly.

And since you need to see the data, and I don't, you need to do your own research.

I will say it took me about 2 minutes to search the CDC website, view all of the data in a table, and even the option to download it.

Your choice on how to proceed but it seems David Wowie's insistence on monthly data is specifically because the data isn't available not because it is somehow more useful than the weekly data which has been shown.

Similarly Allen53 hasn't provided a link to the data behind his assertion that 2017 and 2020 deaths are similar because there isn't any such data. The assertion is nonsense, apparently made up to support his narrative. The monthly data he posted later in the thread is also apparently bogus.

At some point you're left with the inescapable conclusion that this forum is an alt-right sh1thole and there's very little you can do about it as long as the moderation policies continue to enable it.

rekrunner wrote:

David Wowie wrote:

Show me.

A simple list of monthly deaths for say 2018, 2019, and 2020 to date.

Show me

I didn't say monthly, but weekly.

And since you need to see the data, and I don't, you need to do your own research.

I will say it took me about 2 minutes to search the CDC website, view all of the data in a table, and even the option to download it.

Classic Letsrun response; "I proved a point by telling you there is data you can go find for yourself, but I won't point out the actual data I am talking about because it is very easy if you are not stupid to find it yourself....therefore I have proven myself correct and you are wrong despite the fact that I am too lazy to actually do anything at all other than declare victory because I am a genius and you are stupid..." end quote.

Currently excess deaths can only be an estimate and it must take into account the steady increase in death per year in the US over the last decade and not a lessened estimate justified for any reason. Models are not data, estimates are not data, assumptions are not data; hard numbers are data, provide that with analysis to prove your point rather than suggest people google it themselves. Otherwise you are FOS.

The WHO has been caught many times fabricating studies and statistics, so anything posted from them is totally lacking any credibility.

Nice story, but wrong.

I did not make any point about monthly or weekly deaths, and did not use the CDC website to support any point.

When I responded to a point about excessive deaths, I provided multiple links that corroborated that point.

"Whodunit" and "David Wowie" said *WE* needed to see monthly data. I don't need to see this data, and it is not my burden to find it for them. I think I've gone way beyond any duty by referring them to the CDC website.

dunes runner wrote:

The WHO has been caught many times fabricating studies and statistics, so anything posted from them is totally lacking any credibility.

WHO was talking about the WHO?

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Classic Letsrun response; "I proved a point by telling you there is data you can go find for yourself, but I won't point out the actual data I am talking about because it is very easy if you are not stupid to find it yourself....therefore I have proven myself correct and you are wrong despite the fact that I am too lazy to actually do anything at all other than declare victory because I am a genius and you are stupid..." end quote.

Here again is the U.S weekly all causes death count through 9/5. Note the big spike after the normal 2020 flu season (Northeast), the sustained high level into summer, and the secondary spike starting late summer (Arizona, Florida, Texas, California mostly).

Then you have no argument.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Classic Letsrun response; "I proved a point by telling you there is data you can go find for yourself, but I won't point out the actual data I am talking about because it is very easy if you are not stupid to find it yourself....therefore I have proven myself correct and you are wrong despite the fact that I am too lazy to actually do anything at all other than declare victory because I am a genius and you are stupid..." end quote.

Here again is the U.S weekly all causes death count through 9/5. Note the big spike after the normal 2020 flu season (Northeast), the sustained high level into summer, and the secondary spike starting late summer (Arizona, Florida, Texas, California mostly).

https://monkeystyping.neocities.org/WeeklyAllCauseDeathThrough0905.PNG

Nice cartoon

David Wowie wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

[quote]Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Classic Letsrun response; "I proved a point by telling you there is data you can go find for yourself, but I won't point out the actual data I am talking about because it is very easy if you are not stupid to find it yourself....therefore I have proven myself correct and you are wrong despite the fact that I am too lazy to actually do anything at all other than declare victory because I am a genius and you are stupid..." end quote.

Here again is the U.S weekly all causes death count through 9/5. Note the big spike after the normal 2020 flu season (Northeast), the sustained high level into summer, and the secondary spike starting late summer (Arizona, Florida, Texas, California mostly).

https://monkeystyping.neocities.org/WeeklyAllCauseDeathThrough0905.PNG

Let's analyze this chart.

At some point the deaths spiked to @ 8,000 per week from the usual 6,000 or so. But just for a short period. In fact, looks like for one week or so. So seven months since the virus = 30 weeks, with an increase in deaths of less than 2,000 per week = at most 60,000 extra deaths. IN fact, clearly less than 2,000 per week increase per the chart save for that one spike. We are told there are 200,000 covid deaths and 200,000 excess deaths. But the chart supports a number that is less than 60,000.

David Wowie wrote:

Then you have no argument.

Nor do you.

In my case, I have no argument because I made no argument.

I took data from links you provided, and directly applied mathematics to describe the change in death rates in the last two months in Spain and France.

Then I told you where you could find data you said you wanted to see, albeit weekly and not monthly.

The Unkle wrote:

Let's analyze this chart.

At some point the deaths spiked to @ 8,000 per week from the usual 6,000 or so.

You've dropped a digit.

The data is available as a CSV here if you want to do a more than eyeball the graph:

The Unkle wrote:

Let's analyze this chart.

At some point the deaths spiked to @ 8,000 per week from the usual 6,000 or so. But just for a short period. In fact, looks like for one week or so. So seven months since the virus = 30 weeks, with an increase in deaths of less than 2,000 per week = at most 60,000 extra deaths. IN fact, clearly less than 2,000 per week increase per the chart save for that one spike. We are told there are 200,000 covid deaths and 200,000 excess deaths. But the chart supports a number that is less than 60,000.

Looking at the left axis, don't you mean 80,000 and 60,000? Looks like you are off by a factor of 10.