Johns Hopkins: COVID19 Has Had Almost "no effect on deaths in the United States"

Show the proof of these swabs. You can't because we in medicine, especially critical care, don't do swabs for Influenza. You know that. Or you are another liberal troll lying once again.

Harambe wrote:

Sorry your dumb article was disproven...

You need to up your troll game that was pretty weak! A college student’s poor analysis. I expected more but then again division is hard to understand — isn’t it?

Nitpicking, but this Genevieve Briand character is a lecturer, not a student and allegedly has competence in data analysis which makes this episode even more bizarre.

The article linked in the original post makes (at least) main assertions.

1) Covid deaths don't change the percent of deaths by age group. This appears to be true, at least for age groups above about 40 years old.

2) The number of Covid deaths is balanced by an essentially equivalent decrease in other death categories. This is false. The evidence given appears to be from only two weeks early in the US epidemic. The article suggests also that Covid deaths are balanced by a decrease in heart related deaths, but the data shows a postive anomoly rather than negative and orders of magnitude smaller than the Covid classifications.

3) The total number of deaths in the US isn't abnormally high since the beginning of the epidemic. This is also clearly false.

Someone has gone rogue with the facts here, either Briand or the author of the article. If it's Briand it's hard to see how the analysis has gone so far wrong by any honest mistake or misinterpretation of the data. It's almost like she's trying to get censured by the university.

Thanks for clarification.

2 and 3 are false and 1 is so misinterpreted that you have to assume they are operating in bad faith. Like there’s no reason to compute the data in 1 and write it up unless you were trying to be a denier.

Harambe wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

Found here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201126043553/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

Still just as fundamentally incorrect! Shown to be false several times in this thread.

This is all COVID deniers have left and it’s just sad.

So the woman at Hopkins is wrong and you are right? Why, most of what you spew every day is just moronic nuance intended to sound intelligent but is really just a display of ignorance and arrogant douchebaggery. Stop yourself, you have been wrong about everything you have ever spoken of. No matter how much you claim others are wrong you and your alter egos, Precious and Bro 2600, are just are just piling on lies and lies and heaps of fearmongering. What is wrong with you? Mental illness? How many medications do you take daily? Soemthing seriously wrong man, you need help.

real info wrote:

Holy crap this is idiotic.

The linked publication is put out by JHU students. It's not a journal or something run by adults at all.

And the person being cited is "assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program." She has no medical background. Her PhD is in agricultural economics from Washington State. She's just one more idiot economist who thinks they know everything. She's not tenure-track faculty at Hopkins, she's a lecturer. Nothing wrong with that, but she's ridiculously unqualified to be making these kinds of statements about Covid-19.

She wouldn't have been able to get this article into a journal.

The research doesn't meet the required standards and that says it all.

I can publish anything I want in a student magazine.

A journal will only accept decent research.

I went to jhu undergrad and I can confirm that the news letter is published by the students..

now with that being said.. the undergraduate students at JHU are some of the smartest people in the world.. I trust that publication over ANYTHING that comes out of the washington post or any other MSM outlet.

It doesnt matter anyway.. JHU censored it.. and this is to be expected

So much for scientific inquiry !!??!!

Anyway.. you can look at the mortality statistics yourself here... if you subtract the ventilator malpractice from March and April, you basically are left with a bad flu season.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

Why do you always just act like if you say it is wrong, it is wrong. Prove your case with more than an assumption that you are right; otherwise you are a lying troll intent on spreading fear and death.

2 and 3 are so egregiously wrong that I can't see how this is an honest but mistaken interpretation of the data.

1 is something I'd noticed when first looking at this data a month or so ago. I think a fair interpretation is that Covid fatalities are largely in persons with otherwise fragile health and that's an significant result. The article suggests that's a surprising result, but that claim seems dubious at best. The remainder of the article descends into spin and outright falsehoods.

bilzerianman wrote:

... if you subtract the ventilator malpractice from March and April, you basically are left with a bad flu season.

Yeah, a pretty bad "flu season"--leaving out March and April, more American deaths than from any flu season in a hundred years.

But thanks for trivializing 100k+ deaths, most of which could have been avoided by better leadership at the national level and better personal conduct at the individual level.

This ain't about this very manageable virus.

This is about remaking society with even more money and more power going to the oligarchs

I remember looking at the CFR for Covid-19, broken down by age group, way back in April. Your chances of dying were way, way higher if your were 70 years old than if you were 7 years old. I though to myself "but, people that are 70 years old are more likely to die". So, I checked out the relative risk, i.e. relative to a persons likelihood of dying from some other carp within a given period of time. Turned out that it was actually pretty flat, i.e. the relative risk was basically the same for everybody over the age of 3. Seems to me that is perfectly reflected in the data that the lecturer is citing.

Lead Foil Hat II wrote:

Why do you always just act like if you say it is wrong, it is wrong. Prove your case with more than an assumption that you are right; otherwise you are a lying troll intent on spreading fear and death.

You jumped into the thread to troll me without reading any of the other pages, I’m disappointed in your attempts at debate.

This has been said many times already in this thread. This point that the proportion of deaths hasn’t changed before/after COVID is not surprising given the mortality risk of COVID.

The mortality risk roughly mirrors normal mortality risk, so COVID deaths en masse shouldn’t shift the distribution of deaths. This is exactly what we see in COVID data.

So yes, the central part of the article is complete false — it is not noteworthy that the distribution of deaths hasn’t changed.

There’s also the point that total number of deaths isn’t high since the start of the pandemic — most COVID deniers don’t even dispute excess deaths so this is just laughable.

See here for comparison of COVID and normal mortality:

Monkeys typing wrote:

1 is something I'd noticed when first looking at this data a month or so ago. I think a fair interpretation is that Covid fatalities are largely in persons with otherwise fragile health and that's an significant result. The article suggests that's a surprising result, but that claim seems dubious at best. The remainder of the article descends into spin and outright falsehoods.

I disagree. Like nearly every disease ever the elderly and less-healthy are more at risk. Nothing the article says adds anything to this debate other than attempting to downplay the 100k’s of lives lost as “normal.” Intentions matter and I don’t think you can hide behind “just presenting facts.”

Another Nobody wrote:

So, I checked out the relative risk, i.e. relative to a persons likelihood of dying from some other carp within a given period of time. Turned out that it was actually pretty flat, i.e. the relative risk was basically the same for everybody over the age of 3. Seems to me that is perfectly reflected in the data that the lecturer is citing.

This is not correct. 30 year olds don’t die at the same rate as 80 year olds. See the link I’ve posted like 100000 times in this thread for some data

The Unkle wrote:

This ain't about this very manageable virus.

This is about remaking society with even more money and more power going to the oligarchs

I hear so much about how this whole thing is political. But who is actually benefitting from it? Politicians are not, businesses sure aren't. So if like so many people assert, the whole pandemic is overblown, who is making money off of it?

If it's political, it blew up in Trump's face.

Harambe wrote:

Another Nobody wrote:

So, I checked out the relative risk, i.e. relative to a persons likelihood of dying from some other carp within a given period of time. Turned out that it was actually pretty flat, i.e. the relative risk was basically the same for everybody over the age of 3. Seems to me that is perfectly reflected in the data that the lecturer is citing.

This is not correct. 30 year olds don’t die at the same rate as 80 year olds. See the link I’ve posted like 100000 times in this thread for some data

I read that comment differently.

I think he's saying that if, for example, 80 year olds die at 10x the rate of 50 year olds of all causes then 70 year olds die at 10x the rate of 50 year olds from Covid. That is the proportion of "all cause" and "covid" within an age group is approximately constant.

This seems to be the case, at least for age groups above 40 or so. It doesn't hold for younger age groups, presumably because deaths due to trauma are a more significant portion of all deaths in those age groups.

And now the article is gone, with good reason:

"Briand was quoted in the article as saying, 'All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.' This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19."

Lead Foil Hat II wrote:

So the woman at Hopkins is wrong and you are right? Why, most of what you spew every day is just moronic nuance intended to sound intelligent but is really just a display of ignorance and arrogant douchebaggery. Stop yourself, you have been wrong about everything you have ever spoken of. No matter how much you claim others are wrong you and your alter egos, Precious and Bro 2600, are just are just piling on lies and lies and heaps of fearmongering. What is wrong with you? Mental illness? How many medications do you take daily? Soemthing seriously wrong man, you need help.

Oh hi, Lead Foil. Say, I was wondering, how are you feeling about your confident assertion from last week that daily deaths in the the U.S. would not under any circumstances hit 2500/day again. Are you worried you might end up looking like a disgraced laughingstock on the level of Bad W (2600 x 5,000) and Facts Matter (66,000 x 4)? Would you like to revise your prediction?