Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry but lockdowns kept covid deaths down and allowed more people with the disease to live. Granted it didn't fully work and we saw a good number of deaths due to non-Covid causes but there is no proof more died that way. Car accident deaths for example should have really gone down since many states were closed for a month+ and face another close down again now.
The latest studies show that Covid lockdowns don't work to prevent death.
Lockdowns DON'T work, study claims: Researchers say stay-at-home orders made no difference to coronavirus deaths around the world - but prior health levels DID
Dozens of countries have been forced into lockdown to curb the virus spread
But now a study has claimed the drastic measures don't even work
Instead the health of each nation before the pandemic largely played a role
Obesity raised death rates by 12%, which may explain Britain's high death toll
So far there is no proof that lockdowns prevent death from covid. There is speculation that it prevented death, but no evidence for it so far. Also, since Covid has not run its course, it is possible that lockdowns will only delay deaths or stretch out the deaths over time, rather than "preventing" them.
If lockdowns prevented death, many European nations would not be spiking with 2nd wave Covid deaths right now. It delayed those deaths till know, but didn't eliminate them.
Where I live the newspaper headlines are all about the dramatic rise in cases. Think of a 45 degree angle is what the graph looks like. Look closer and you will see the death rate has stayed exactly the same and has not increased. Gosh, could all those new cases simply be because far more people are getting tested now?
Deaths are one measure of this pandemic, albeit a lagging indicator. While always undesirable, what does not overwhelm the hospital system often drives specific governmental responses.
Projecting future medical demand is not always easy. For example, U.K. models apparently underestimated the number of hospitalizations leading it to enact various restrictions over the last few weeks.
Deaths are one measure of this pandemic, albeit a lagging indicator. While always undesirable, what does not overwhelm the hospital system often drives specific governmental responses.
Projecting future medical demand is not always easy. For example, U.K. models apparently underestimated the number of hospitalizations leading it to enact various restrictions over the last few weeks.
Please explain how masks and social distancing has worked? If your information is correct then masks and social distancing have done more harm than good, correct? In the past month, at least, we have more of the population wearing masks and keeping their social distance than ever before.
Please explain how masks and social distancing has worked? If your information is correct then masks and social distancing have done more harm than good, correct? In the past month, at least, we have more of the population wearing masks and keeping their social distance than ever before.
Not sure I understand in the context of these data. The topics of masks and to a certain extent social distancing have been beaten to death in multiple threads. Multiple epidemiologists point to spread within households or among private friendship groups who do not mask or social distance. This includes geographical areas where the pandemic had not previously spread in large numbers. Like Idaho.
What masks and social distancing do is to give those in public a chance albeit not 100% to avoid the virus. What they do in private is on them.
Grandma can go to the grocery store or she can be made to stay home. Some argued to keep Grandma at home. That however is impracticable particularly when those at risk of severe disease are not necessarily that elderly. The elderly specifically those with comorbidies may be more likely to die. But the median ages of those needing hospitalization is much lower.
Death rates were higher (in the spring). Then they were lower (today). Some officials worry that rates - not absolute numbers but rates - will again rise if 'hospitals fall over the cliff' to where patients receive less than optimal care. Having an FDA approved antibody cocktail does no good if there's not enough to go around, which there is not today much less two weeks from now. Or if there absolutely is no ICU bed close by for a heart attack victim.
It's odd that Briand, an economist, chose to look at a narrow indicator like deaths. She on focused a tree but in the process missed the entire forest. But then you know I think that was deliberate.
That the great majority of excess deaths occurred among the very elderly who also had co-morbid conditions with reduced longevity is undeniable. Her conclusions, however, go far beyond that statement.
In another thread I also noted the percentage analysis was meaningless. My Comment: Why would the relative percentages of deaths change among age groups? Roughly the same age distribution of individuals die of covid that die of all causes. For example, there are few fatalities among children and young adults who have low overall death rates. Disproportionally more elderly adults die of covid and from all causes. The age distribution would have changed for the Spanish Flu that disproportionally impacted young adults. Not for covid.
After seeing how she appeared to deliberately manipulate data ranges (above post), I no longer think she simply is a bad statistician or herself became mislead. My assessment now is that the analysis presented in the webinar then later in the student newsletter was but deliberate misinformation.
Her graphs and thought processes were so sloppy and *busy* that I think it's unintentional, but it wouldn't be the first time someone with an agenda goosed things.
I've seen people make similar mistakes IRL, she may be young and not have had much real-world experience and guidance. I'm too uninterested to dig further lol.
P.S. I see now from subsequent posts that the retraction basically said the same things I spotted in my post. OK, nice to see somewhat at Johns Hopkins woke up and got that car back on the road.
Her graphs and thought processes were so sloppy and *busy* that I think it's unintentional, but it wouldn't be the first time someone with an agenda goosed things.
I've seen people make similar mistakes IRL, she may be young and not have had much real-world experience and guidance. I'm too uninterested to dig further lol.
P.S. I see now from subsequent posts that the retraction basically said the same things I spotted in my post. OK, nice to see somewhat at Johns Hopkins woke up and got that car back on the road.
Agree, but those with an agenda took what otherwise would have been an unremarkable and unremarked on student news article then splashed it all over the internet billed as a Johns Hopkins University study. Junk news happens all the time. That it involved those dying in a pandemic struck me as a new low. Not nice for sure.
Death rates attributed to COVID-19 are a tiny fraction of total deaths. In addition, COVID-19 deaths overwhelmingly hit people with pre-existing conditions and who would have died anyway. So I am not surprised by this. However, if you look at studies of excess deaths by age, there is a COVID-19 signal among the elderly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
I have often wondered how many of the elderly dying with Covid were months, weeks, or days away from dying anyway. I mean, if an 80 year old lung cancer patient on chemotherapy was 2 months away from dying and died 2 months sooner from Covid, then it is not going to "add" to the number of deaths of people or of octagenarians. It is just a short advancing of death. It is not like a healthy 10 year old suddenly dropping dead from Covid, which for example is exceedingly rare.
I don't want to pretend all quarter million people dying with Covid were days away from death anyway, but I have long wondered just how many days or weeks ro months of living the average victim was shortened by from Covid. I think that a very massive portion of the quarter million who have died were probably less than 6 months or a year from death anyway, many of them suffering from a lot of horrible end-of-life issues from cancer to stroke to dimentia.
Just wondering. Since the government at every level is lying to us about everything having to do with this disease, including count, cause, effect, treatments, need for lockdowns, and a great many other things, so I am sure I will never know.
The assumption that those people with pre-existing conditions would have all died this year is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pgh guy
96% of the people who died had underlying health conditions and average age is 80. Only 4% died of the actual virus itself.
Wrong. All 100% died from COVID-19.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
1) Thank you for posting this link.
2) In another thread I noted that COVID is MOSTLY pushing forward deaths that would have occurred in the next couple of years as many of the victims would have died of other illness. Not ALL, but many. My relative that died of COVID had less than 6 months to live when it took them and their cause of death is listed as COVID. (this is the part of her study that she got right in identifying.)
3) As noted in another thread the number of deaths in the US are approximately 300k higher than through the same number days as the previous 4 years. When you adjust for population growth and random variation, it's clear that there are (as the study you cited noted) about 200k+ *extra* deaths this year.
WHERE HER STUDY WENT WRONG:
Her top graph was *bad*. It's on too granular of a level (weekly) and her choice of graph that normalizes everything to 100% distorts the picture and makes it hard to spot changes in say the orange bands because the others below it are moving.
What this did was mislead her into thinking there was no impact because what she expected (increase in old people deaths AS A PERCENTAGE) wasn't shown by her analysis. What is wrong there is that there are vulnerable people at all ages, disproportionately as you get to older ages. So Covid did kill a lot more old people but still in roughly the same %'s relative to the other groups.
Not seeing a shift in the % distribution is not logical proof for her to conclude there was no real impact. It just proved that COVID was killing in rough proportion to the existing mortality segments. ie) Imagine a basketball player that scores 80% of their points by shots and 20% by free throws. Now they have a breakout year, score twice as much but the percentages stay around 80/20 and the person cites the same 80/20 as proof that they didn't score more. That's a lay example of where she went wrong.
Please note, I've pointed out that accelerating these deaths is not a good thing but at the same time people need to understand all of the collateral deaths (drug abuse, suicide etc.) that are most certainly going to result from shutdowns so if you got this far and really wanted to learn something you can see that I'm not on either "bandwagon" here, just laying out logic and reality.
It does not matter if someone has a condition that would have killed him six months from now. If he dies now because of a coronavirus infection that is still the cause of death, just as bacterial pneumonia could be the cause of death. The underlying condition is a contributing factor, not the actual cause of death.
Even just considering old age: in the US the average life expectancy at age at 80 of a male is about 7 years and a female 9 years.
Not sure I understand in the context of these data. The topics of masks and to a certain extent social distancing have been beaten to death in multiple threads. Multiple epidemiologists point to spread within households or among private friendship groups who do not mask or social distance. This includes geographical areas where the pandemic had not previously spread in large numbers. Like Idaho.
What masks and social distancing do is to give those in public a chance albeit not 100% to avoid the virus. What they do in private is on them.
Grandma can go to the grocery store or she can be made to stay home. Some argued to keep Grandma at home. That however is impracticable particularly when those at risk of severe disease are not necessarily that elderly. The elderly specifically those with comorbidies may be more likely to die. But the median ages of those needing hospitalization is much lower.
Death rates were higher (in the spring). Then they were lower (today). Some officials worry that rates - not absolute numbers but rates - will again rise if 'hospitals fall over the cliff' to where patients receive less than optimal care. Having an FDA approved antibody cocktail does no good if there's not enough to go around, which there is not today much less two weeks from now. Or if there absolutely is no ICU bed close by for a heart attack victim.
It's odd that Briand, an economist, chose to look at a narrow indicator like deaths. She on focused a tree but in the process missed the entire forest. But then you know I think that was deliberate.
In your opinion, what should Briand have put her focus on? Is death not the predictor of the seriousness of an illness? And was Briand not trying to show that covid deaths were high but other causes of death had gone down as compared to other years? It showed me that it is very plausible that many deaths labeled as covid deaths were perhaps not due to covid but by other means?
I apologize for not being more clear about masks and distancing. That has been beaten to death of not only one horse. lol I was just interested in your opinion and honestly too lazy to look up your posts on the subject. lol Hey, I'm honest.
In your opinion, what should Briand have put her focus on? Is death not the predictor of the seriousness of an illness? And was Briand not trying to show that covid deaths were high but other causes of death had gone down as compared to other years? It showed me that it is very plausible that many deaths labeled as covid deaths were perhaps not due to covid but by other means?
I apologize for not being more clear about masks and distancing. That has been beaten to death of not only one horse. lol I was just interested in your opinion and honestly too lazy to look up your posts on the subject. lol Hey, I'm honest.
Her choice, of course.
If an economist I might have started with an assessment of the economic impact. Impact of pandemic-avoidance on the economy. (Along with the governmental restrictions, of course.) One component of that is the death rate, along with hospitalization rate, those who want to avoid spreading the disease. What covid - and the response, yes - has done to the economy and to businesses, workers is compelling. Another topic though ... not this thread.
About your bold, I personally have not gotten into the whole death certificate issue. But if she were truly interested in the issue then an intro to it would have been helpful. How the states have been classifying impact from co-morbidities at the time of death. (As an aside, this is potentially complicated since covid is far from just a respiratory virus but appears to cause system-wide illness.). Instead she manipulated some death data - both badly and wrongly - then made an unsupportable accusation.
Agree, but those with an agenda took what otherwise would have been an unremarkable and unremarked on student news article then splashed it all over the internet billed as a Johns Hopkins University study. Junk news happens all the time. That it involved those dying in a pandemic struck me as a new low. Not nice for sure.
I bit hook, line and sinker. But as I stated, it's along the lines as what I believe so I agreed. My thinking also negates me believing in George Bernard Shaw's quote about progress. Do as I say, not as I do. lol
But I still question the severity of Covid-19. Has more to do with my own personal experiences.
my $0.02, keep the change
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a lay example of where she went wrong.
