There was or has been very little variability until you needed it to help your ChinaVirus death tally.
|
|
|
|
|
There was or has been very little variability until you needed it to help your ChinaVirus death tally.
The CDC death statistics prove that deaths are not up in 2020. We worked through this a couple of weeks ago.
But they were below average on a weekly basis even before COVID - assuming we are working off that chart I linked. What is your data source?Originally Posted by PawDawg
Once you include data from a significant number of COVID deaths (rather than weekly deaths falling with the historical variability), the picture looks a bit different.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
And a nice Tableau chart illustrating in the context of historical variability.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm
And BTW, the CDC is using this data to understand how COVID 19 deaths are being UNDERreported.
I think we can put your latest conspiracy theory to bed now.Weekly counts of deaths from all causes were examined, including deaths due to COVID-19. As many deaths due to COVID-19 may be assigned to other causes of deaths (for example, if COVID-19 was not mentioned on the death certificate as a suspected cause of death), tracking all-cause mortality can provide information about whether an excess number of deaths is observed, even when COVID-19 mortality may be undercounted. Additionally, deaths from all causes excluding COVID-19 were also estimated. Comparing these two sets of estimates — excess deaths with and without COVID-19 — can provide insight about how many excess deaths are identified as due to COVID-19, and how many excess deaths are reported as due to other causes of death. These deaths could represent misclassified COVID-19 deaths, or potentially could be indirectly related to COVID-19 (e.g., deaths from other causes occurring in the context of health care shortages or overburdened health care systems).
I assume you are referring to my looking at the dates of the articles PRIOR to opening the link. Many of these studies build on what others have done previously, or didn't do. Why read a study from February that has already been analyzed and of which I was already familiar? I was purposely looking for NEW data. One study was dated May 6...that is absolutely brand new information.
Perhaps you tried, and failed, to poo pooh these results because they don't agree with your political agenda. That is sad. But, I am 100% into the scientific method...and am consistent in that. That is why I don't accept the theories AS FACT on man-made global warming and on evolution, to name a couple. The science has destroyed the GW hoax, and there is not enough real scientific evidence to elevate The Theory of Evolution to a scientific law.
As for the issue of HCQ as a treatment there is tons of evidence to support its use and certainly to warrant continued studies on it. As a doctor said on a video I watched, the cost per patient per dose of HCQ is as low as 50 cents (true cost). Seems to me that "big pharma" wants no part of that. No money in it for them and their useful stooges (Fauci).
Counting the number of articles you read that are pro HCQ out of articles about HCQ is just not scientific at all.
Anyone can post anything on the Internet, and number of articles doesn’t tell you anything about the quality of the article (was it scientific, was it even a study, is it just a reference to another study, how was the study performed, etc.).
Plus doing a random Bing article grab introduces two highly non-scientific variables - SEO and your own article selection bias (whatever filter you used in picking articles to open).
For S&G, I ran your search through Bing and cannot even reproduce your non-scientific results.
You are being selective...
Look at the percent of expected deaths column (state by state)
Those close to 100% are not experiencing an increase in deaths even when the China Virus deaths are added in. "2Percent of expected deaths is the number of deaths for all causes for this week in 2020 compared to the average number across the same week in 2017–2019."
Louisiana, which is what I've been focusing on, it at 99%. So are most states other than the NE region of the US. This says that Louisiana's death numbers are not legit. We are claiming more China Virus deaths than both Florida and Texas.
No, nothing to see here.
The point is that + or - 1000 deaths is within the normal variability of expected deaths for Louisiana 5 months into the year. What is the percent of expected for the last full reported week in Louisiana?
So if you focus in on the weeks where Louisiana had more than 250 deaths in the CDC data set (April 4 and April 11) you get percent of expected of 128% and 140%, respectively. Those weeks Louisiana saw significantly more deaths than previously for that week.
I typed in "How effective is hydroxych…" in Bing and before I could finish typing pages of links appeared. I selected those that referenced the drug in relation to C-19. I then, less than 5 mins, later opened a new window, went to Bing and repeated the process "How effective is..." and got a mostly new list of links. Only one, on page one, was the same article.
One of the links is a brand new article dated May 7th and is published by the New England Journal of Medicine. It says after "studying" 1,300 patients in the New England region (which I assume means several states) they found no measurable benefit of using HCQ vs. not using it. But, they didn't find it was particularly harmful either. In the article, the writer, introduces a separate survey where doctors who have used HCQ commented on the safety aspect. The writer states "Only 29% of those doctors found it to be super safe." This is an example of either lazy journalism or, more likely, an attempt to distort the truth to guide the readers to a predetermined conclusion. If one reads this article and only it, you are left with: 1) the NEJM found HCQ didn't appear to help, even while admitting it was NOT a true study, and 2) only 29% of doctors say it is super safe.
Well, from that other survey, after the 29% of the doctors said it was super safe, did another group, IDK, 20% say it was "mostly safe" and another 15% say it was "safe"? The writer did not volunteer that information. Why? And only in the very last paragraph of the article do we see that the NEJM reps who were interviewed admit this was a "survey" of 1,300 patients, "but the results are solid enough" to draw a conclusion. It wasn't a "study."
This article, dated May 7, takes the side of the "Orange Man bad!" don't listen to him side of the argument. But it is like so many of the others that they dismiss. Oh, there is a "study" that shows HCQ helped C-19 patients and caused no harm, but pay no attention to it, they say. Oh, why do you say that? They say, because we used a similar methodology and found different results. Oh? well if you are dismissing their positive findings because you say they didn't follow sound scientific medical research, and your "proof" is an equally non-scientific method, why should we believe you over them?
Reason: because we "Orange Man bad!" types stand to make $millions working with big pharma to provide an expensive remedy to the virus.
Oh! okay...
I literally searched exactly what you said:I typed in "How effective is hydroxych…" in Bing and before I could finish typing pages of links appeared. I selected those that referenced the drug in relation to C-19. I then, less than 5 mins, later opened a new window, went to Bing and repeated the process "How effective is..." and got a mostly new list of links. Only one, on page one, was the same article.
One of the links is a brand new article dated May 7th and is published by the New England Journal of Medicine. It says after "studying" 1,300 patients in the New England region (which I assume means several states) they found no measurable benefit of using HCQ vs. not using it. But, they didn't find it was particularly harmful either. In the article, the writer, introduces a separate survey where doctors who have used HCQ commented on the safety aspect. The writer states "Only 29% of those doctors found it to be super safe." This is an example of either lazy journalism or, more likely, an attempt to distort the truth to guide the readers to a predetermined conclusion. If one reads this article and only it, you are left with: 1) the NEJM found HCQ didn't appear to help, even while admitting it was NOT a true study, and 2) only 29% of doctors say it is super safe.
Well, from that other survey, after the 29% of the doctors said it was super safe, did another group, IDK, 20% say it was "mostly safe" and another 15% say it was "safe"? The writer did not volunteer that information. Why? And only in the very last paragraph of the article do we see that the NEJM reps who were interviewed admit this was a "survey" of 1,300 patients, "but the results are solid enough" to draw a conclusion. It wasn't a "study."
This article, dated May 7, takes the side of the "Orange Man bad!" don't listen to him side of the argument. But it is like so many of the others that they dismiss. Oh, there is a "study" that shows HCQ helped C-19 patients and caused no harm, but pay no attention to it, they say. Oh, why do you say that? They say, because we used a similar methodology and found different results. Oh? well if you are dismissing their positive findings because you say they didn't follow sound scientific medical research, and your "proof" is an equally non-scientific method, why should we believe you over them?
Reason: because we "Orange Man bad!" types stand to make $millions working with big pharma to provide an expensive remedy to the virus.
Oh! okay...
"How well does HCQ work in treating Covid-19 patients?"
Your conspiracy theories are tired.
Tin foil hat alert search engines can be manipulated for results and studies can be made to give desired outcomes. Look at success by Mt. Sinai doctor and French doctors and others.
The Virology Journal - the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health - published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading - get ready for this - “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report...that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”
Crawl back into your hole... we got this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote