Article on Covid deaths in U.S.

[sy barite]

I came across this article on Twitter yesterday. Have no idea if it has gained any traction, but it addresses a lot of the points I've been wondering about. I say wondering, because (at least in the circles in which I move), if you were to suggest any of this you'd be branded delusional or worse. The economist Genevieve Briand maintains that deaths have almost entirely been reclassified as Covid when the cause of death was really something else. She points out that the number of deaths in the U.S. is not higher than expected to date-- and most astoundingly, that deaths attributed to Covid correlate closely with a corresponding "drop" in deaths due to other causes. For example, we might see 500 deaths attributed to Covid in a State, but that for the same period we see a "drop" of 500 deaths due to heart failure, cancer, etc in the same State. This suggests that we're simply seeing a reclassification of the cause of death, not "extra" deaths.

I read that this study has not been peer reviewed and conflicts with other studies that use the same source for data (i.e. the CDC). But it is perhaps not so strange in these times that the first act of the Johns Hopkins organization was to attempt to kill the article without being specific about what was wrong with it. Not long ago, this kind of response to a challenged article would have been thought to be outrageous. The first thing you do should not be to remove it from public view, but to invite criticism and discussion. Today, censorship has become the norm.

There's a YT on it too.

 

[mar91]

There is an incentive for hospitals to do this as they receive extra funding for treating covid patients. The other thing is to decide is covid causing the death or is something else causing the death. Many people who are dying have co-morbidities, such as heart issues or lung problems. Now they catch covid which causes the problem to get worse and the person dies. Did they die from covid or did they die from their original problem that was made worse because of covid?

Now there are some absurd examples where one person in Florida got into a motorcycle accident and died. When they tested him he was infected so they wrote down the cause of death was covid. This is a big outlier and I do not believe this is the norm but the situation where the person already has problems which get worse I think are very common.

 

[milfhunter]

The whole pandemic is just a blown out of proportion, fearmongering bullshit excuse to bring in the globalist great reset. Canada is already in full effect of starting to implement it.

 

[sy barite]

I don't think it's true that US hospitals are reporting deaths as Covid in order to profit. Everything I've heard is that with the exception of hot spots, most hospitals are actually losing money. Regardless, it's a strange situation as it is difficult to come by what we used to think of as "reliable and true" facts. Everything is politicized these days.

 

[xtc27]

... another data source says USA has excess deaths: ☠

Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)

Explore data on COVID-19 excess mortality across the world.

ourworldindata.org

...news from local news in USA suggests this COVID thing= real...

Here is Lincoln NB paper:

journalstar.com | Read Lincoln, NE and Nebraska breaking news. Get latest news, events and information on Nebraska sports, weather, entertainment and lifestyles.

Read the latest Lincoln, NE news. Get the latest on events, sports, entertainment, lifestyles, and more.

journalstar.com

...here’sa local story...

'The reality of nursing': Union College grads preparing to join health care workforce in a pandemic

A fall surge of the coronavirus threw Union College's senior nursing students into a crucible, giving them a unique view of a health care system under enormous strain and dedicated

journalstar.com

...conspiracies = real... humans constantly get together 2 trick each other...

Take scientific approach... radar shows rain? Could be lying! Check local cameras... is there rain? Oh... yes. So radar not lying...

... if COVID all bullish!t, who profits? Who loses? All these lil towns closing stores & losing $$ cos deception? Dunno man...

Fact is, ordinary ppl not gonna go out if plague around... those guys in ICU & morgue aren’t faking...

... if COVID or any other big news= fake... ok, hypothesis... make a test 2 prove it... esp one involving $$$ ... predict something... like hospitals in small towns= empty! Brisk sales in stores! COVID free countries should open their borders to tourists, right? They’d get$$$...

 

[imthedude]

> libertarian think tank

lol, pass.

 

[UsefulIdiot]

I wish there was a vaccine for cherry picking, confirmation bias and general stupidity.

 

[t.o.leafs.fan]

At this stage in the game, seeing as this is predominantly a public health issue,, I only care about what the public health people and studies have to say. I understand that many who want to look at this solely as an economic issue don't align with my way of thinking but so be it. Right now, it's about my elderly parents and that's that.

 

[Toucan]

I wish there was a vaccine for cherry picking, confirmation bias and general stupidity.

I was doing some reading on why conspiracy theorists, confirmation bias and lack of facts and intelligence are so rampant, and came across this excellent article:

Why people believe in conspiracy theories – and how to change their minds

Rational arguments and myth busting often won’t help you change the mind of a conspiracy theorist. But there are other ways.

theconversation.com

This is an excellent read for anyone who wonders why these people behave the way they do, and really explains their reason of being.

 

[t.o.leafs.fan]

I was doing some reading on why conspiracy theorists, confirmation bias and lack of facts and intelligence are so rampant, and came across this excellent article:

Why people believe in conspiracy theories – and how to change their minds

Rational arguments and myth busting often won’t help you change the mind of a conspiracy theorist. But there are other ways.

theconversation.com

This is an excellent read for anyone who wonders why these people behave the way they do, and really explains their reason of being.

To save some people some reading and to sum up that article...humans are morons.

 

[Toucan]

To save some people some reading and to sum up that article...humans are morons.

Those who are truly interested will read it. The article covers to many important points to be diluted in a summary.

If someone really wishes to learn more about the flaws of conspiracy theorists, they will read it in full, of their own volition.

 

[henricas]

I saw this BULL SHIT article months ago
in fact The duck Trump was using it during his campaign

If you truly believe this bull shit, you are more dilutional than the Chinese communist party trying to convince the world Covid-19 is USA made.

Doctors DO NOT get extra funding for classifying deaths as Covid-19 budgets are set at the beginning of the fiscal year, in some hospitals they are set in a 5 year plan.

If you think this is NOT REAL just walk into the ICU of to any big city hospital and you will see the difference compared to 2019

in many American cities and some Canadian ones, hospitals have expanded in to parking lots, Cafeterias and recreational facilities since they have run out of regular ICU space.

deaths are not being classified As Covid-19just for the sake of it. In the case of the Florida Motor bike accident death Covid-19 was not listed as a cause of death, it was simply reported he was Covid-19 infected, so that the body can be disposed of with the proper care.

Final note: you can choose to believe what you want. the truth is the truth no matter what you believe, your believes do not change reality

 

[xtc27]

...conspiracies happen. Human beings love deceiving each other.

Hobbyists deceive mpas, spa owners, & family.

And they deceive us.

Media sometimes deceives... or reports selectively... mass hysteria from War of Worlds broadcast? Never happened. Fake news.

In Jonestown, everyone believed drinking Koolaid led them 2 heaven or the rapture or whatever...

@sy barite intro’d this article as conversation ... not fact... & has even downplayed it in subsequent post. It’s ok 2 question accepted fact... my point is, corroborate. If COVID = fake, then small towns should all b reporting, “Not here YET!”... but I find detailled news reports of people visiting local hospitals, personal tragedies...

In Trump country, election stolen= accepted fact.... but if it were true, why would Dems steal presidency & let GOP have Senate ? See, facts not corroborated. And actually getting sick from fake virus didn’t help Trump....

... does Weather radar lie... check traffic cams... if they say it’s raining, it is. 🌧

 

[imthedude]

I was doing some reading on why conspiracy theorists, confirmation bias and lack of facts and intelligence are so rampant, and came across this excellent article:

Why people believe in conspiracy theories – and how to change their minds

Rational arguments and myth busting often won’t help you change the mind of a conspiracy theorist. But there are other ways.

theconversation.com

This is an excellent read for anyone who wonders why these people behave the way they do, and really explains their reason of being.

Haven't read it yet but I have read Michael Shermer's Why do People believe strange things?,which covers the topic at length. Really key to me is that he and Randi and other skeptic thought leaders have shown themselves to not be unsusceptible to the cognitive blind spots they identify. I.E.,humans have a strong capacity for self delusion, and becoming more educated, even in just the rudiments of critical thinking, won't necessarily help. Hence the phenomenon of seemingly smart people amplifying conspiracy theories and other bullshit.

 

[Toucan]

Haven't read it yet but I have read Michael Shermer's Why do People believe strange things?,which covers the topic at length. Really key to me is that he and Randi and other skeptic thought leaders have shown themselves to not be unsusceptible to the cognitive blind spots they identify. I.E.,humans have a strong capacity for self delusion, and becoming more educated, even in just the rudiments of critical thinking, won't necessarily help. Hence the phenomenon of seemingly smart people amplifying conspiracy theories and other bullshit.

Interesting. The article i linked covers a point about education and critical thinking as important in the skepticism of conspiracy theories but it sounds like you're saying that even that won't help. Welp society's fucked

 

[imthedude]

I mean it helps, but you still have to be vigilant and most importantly, humble about acquiring and analyzing facts.

 

[UsefulIdiot]

I mean it helps, but you still have to be vigilant and most importantly, humble about acquiring and analyzing facts.

Humility is the key. It is ironic (and lame) that the internet/computers/cell phones, high tech that only exists because of science, are used to dismiss science. Oil companies knew the truth about climate change decades ago (one result of this was they made oil rigs higher to accommodate anticipated sea level rises) but publicly disavow it because to do so is in their financial interest. Doubt is healthy, but since you cannot be an expert in everything you need to make choices about which authorities to defer to. When there is no certainty you have to go with probability. And this is not comfortable.

Theorems (undisputable truths) only exist in math. Everything else is theory with large variances in evidence/proof. As an individual you either do all the research yourself to make a conclusion about the validity of a theory or you decide which authority to defer to. For example quantum physics has a series of bizarre precepts that no one really understands (for example the Pauli exclusion principle), but it produces results that are accurate to ten decimal places. Your cell phone works because of quantum theory. A better theory or a more refined version of quantum physics may emerge but in the meantime science has made enormous progress with the current theory and this has led to a better model of nature and enormous advances in technology. Just because a theory makes sense does not mean it is true, it is the weight of evidence that results in a perceived probability of the theory correctly modeling reality. Science works because over time theories emerge that survive highly motivated scrutiny/research. If your doctor says you have cancer but you have your doubts would you ignore your doctor, or spend years becoming an expert on that type of cancer and choose your own treatment, or would you learn enough to ask the right questions and get a second or third opinion, or would you defer to a clerk in a health food store and buy herbs and vitamins? Because authorities are human beings, flawed like the rest of us, it is too easy to dismiss them when they say things we do not like. But because they are wrong sometimes or lie is not a reason to dismiss the science, just the individuals, and in general as a survival strategy you are better off trusting them over people with no expertise in a given subject.

 

[Sybarite]

Many people 100% buy into science when it comes to using their computers, cell phones, driving in cars, flying in planes, getting operated on by surgeons, etc. and yet they are completely skeptical of climate scientists, epidemiologists, evolutionary biologists, etc. etc. They are at once both utterly dependent on science but still selectively scornful of science when it doesn't suit their purpose.

 

[sy barite]

I can't say i'm surprised by most of the reaction i see here. As I said in my post, I'd hesitate to even bring this up in real life, but did so here because of our relative anonymity. Some of you, and almost to a man I'm not surprised which of you, have condemned something you clearly haven't even read or listened to. Best is Henricas, who claims to have seen an article released on November 22, "months ago" Dilutional indeed.

Maybe the one reaction I didn't expect came from the one who shares my online handle. Sybarite, are you suggesting that my sharing of this article in any way suggests that i'm challenging science? If I've misunderstood your sentiments, I'm sure you will correct me with class, but I confess it feels like that's what you mean, and i don't see how I or the author of the article can be accused of that.

Not that I expect it to make a difference to those of you who've made up your minds, but I'll point out again that this is not a peer reviewed paper and I do harbour skepticism about some of the claims, but I can't agree with its removal from the JH website. How is bad science to be exposed or good science confirmed if it immediately gets censored? The JH website stated that they took it down because "some of the material was being misused". WTF does that mean? So now that's the yardstick? If Trump cites a paper we will remove it?

 

[Sybarite]

I can't say i'm surprised by most of the reaction i see here. As I said in my post, I'd hesitate to even bring this up in real life, but did so here because of our relative anonymity. Some of you, and almost to a man I'm not surprised which of you, have condemned something you clearly haven't even read or listened to. Best is Henricas, who claims to have seen an article released on November 22, "months ago" Dilutional indeed.

Maybe the one reaction I didn't expect came from the one who shares my online handle. Sybarite, are you suggesting that my sharing of this article in any way suggests that i'm challenging science? If I've misunderstood your sentiments, I'm sure you will correct me with class, but I confess it feels like that's what you mean, and i don't see how I or the author of the article can be accused of that.

Not that I expect it to make a difference to those of you who've made up your minds, but I'll point out again that this is not a peer reviewed paper and I do harbour skepticism about some of the claims, but I can't agree with its removal from the JH website. How is bad science to be exposed or good science confirmed if it immediately gets censored? The JH website stated that they took it down because "some of the material was being misused". WTF does that mean? So now that's the yardstick? If Trump cites a paper we will remove it?

Apologies to my namesake Sy barite. My post above was not in reaction to you at all, but was just a comment only to add to the conversation in supporting some of the really good points usefulidiot made. I've always enjoyed reading your posts Sy Barite and have appreciated your open mindedness, and I'm sorry if I implied to the contrary.

One of the excellent points usefulidiot makes is that none of us can be experts in everything, and thus we have to make decisions about which experts to trust...

For myself, one thing I try to look for in vetting information online is some agreement across a spectrum of media outlets, and when the outlet is one that is lesser known and new to me I must admit that's can be a red flag for myself, and so I like to learn a little bit more about the source first before I read the article itself.

At the time when you originally made your post I did some reading about the American Institute for Economic Research and then got tied up with something else before I had a chance to read the entire article itself, but I must admit what I initially read about the source did alarm me, for example:

"It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit[5] that partners with the Atlas Network and other Koch-funded think tanks.[6][7]"

"Twitter has removed a tweet from White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas that claimed masks don't work to stop the spread of COVID-19. "Masks work? NO," Atlas had tweeted Saturday, followed by misrepresentations of the science behind the effectiveness of masks in battling the coronavirus pandemic. Atlas also shared a link to an article in The American Institute for Economic Research that argues against the effectiveness of masks."

I previously had already done a lot of reading about the idea that Covid deaths are more likely properly attributable to the co-morbidities that are concomitant with Covid rather than Covid itself, and unfortunately like so much scientific information these days this view has become politicized.

But ultimately I do believe it's currently a minority scientific opinion from the other reading that I've done. I did read your article in full and it's very interesting and compelling. A lot of great points I totally agree with... for example:

Lockdowns have resulted in severe damage to our capacity to improve the general health of society. From the catastrophic economic damage that lowers the standard of living for everyone to surgeries being deemed “unessential,” our current policies are not helping in preventing deaths in general; they are likely leading to more. Suicides and substance abuse are up, mental and physical health are down, all due to lockdowns.

But I have to say I am not persuaded by what I think the main point of the article is: that most Covid deaths that are classified as such are not actually deaths due to Covid. Again I personally believe that to be the minority scientific opinion, and I note the writer is not a medical expert: Ethan Yang, so to some degree this seemed to be speculation based on certain statistics rather than a medical argument.

All that said it's certainly possible I'll change my mind if I continue to read about it from a variety of other sources. And Sy Barite I definitely did not mean to imply you were challenging science! I appreciate and respect that you noted the article conflicts with other studies and is not peer reviewed... I would be interested to see the verdict of the peer reviews once they're completed.

In the article discussing the retraction of the original piece from Johns Hopkins Newsletter, they actually do get into some specific detail about why they disagree: e.g.

it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic. We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media...
As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S. 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.

And more... that's all here: A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

They also note the article has not been completely removed - it is still accessible:

However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF.