Bullet, your conclusion was correct. The authorities don't like having their voices muted by being able to view the truth. So they censor and try to deep six the offending study.

John Hopkins University Assistant Program Director censored for her analysis of CDC data.

https://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/11/28/...-pandemic/

Quote:According to the legacy media, there have been more than 250,000 deaths from COVID-19 since the so-called pandemic began. That means to the average American that there are 250,000 plus Americans who are dead today who would otherwise still be with us. Those people were killed by the virus.

That seems a matter of common sense. Is it true?

Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins University, recently critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.” Her conclusion? COVID-19 is having no significant impact on deaths in the United States.

Briand explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States. Briand conducted a detailed review of the available data, relying upon the exact same numbers CDC uses in its calculations. Specifically, she delved deeply into the causes of death listed. What she found, not surprisingly, was that there was a sudden spike in 2020 for deaths linked to COVID-19. That makes sense, since COVID-19 only emerged as a major threat this year.

What she found next, though, was more surprising. While deaths attributed to COVID-19 dramatically increased, deaths attributed to all other causes suddenly plummeted. Most notable perhaps was the decrease in deaths attributed to heart disease. Somehow, suddenly, according to the data, in the midst of worldwide pandemic, Americans were much less likely to have heart attacks or strokes.

The same held true for deaths from diabetes, respiratory ailments, Alzheimer’s and every other disease that had plagued the United States for a generation. COVID-19 might be killing us but it was somehow magically curing us of a wide range of other diseases. And, miraculously, the decrease in deaths from all other causes seemed to match almost exactly the number of deaths reported to be attributable to COVID-19.

Except there are no miracles. What Briand had determined was not that diabetes was suddenly vanishing but that deaths of all kinds, which would have occurred anyway and been classified as being attributable to another cause, were being labeled as COVID-19 deaths. A man who had died a year earlier would have been found to have had a heart attack but was now a victim of the pandemic. A woman who in 2019 would have died of Alzheimer’s was now another casualty of the pandemic.

“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.

If you have COVID-19 and you die you are counted as having died of the virus. Keep in mind you can be classified as having COVID-19 even without a positive test. If your symptoms suggest you could have COVID-19 – you have it.

Briand delivered her important findings during a webinar. Her remarks were then available on the Johns Hopkins University website. Predictably enough, since she challenged the approved orthodoxy, her comments were then removed.

Fortunately, information from the full webinar was reported here, however the original link to the information was removed by John Hopkins University. The original report was found on the “Wayback Machine” and is available at the link below. Take the time. Listen. Decide for yourself whether you still think we are experiencing a dire public health emergency, or we are victims of a colossal fraud.

https://web.archive.org/web/202011262231...o-covid-19

The author's conclusions don't make sense to me.

But the effort that the MSM and institutions of alleged "science" go through to silence any dissenting voices, like Stanford did with one of their scientists, tells me there are substantial questions about their data and conclusions. In some cases, as with Stanford, they are clearly wrong. In this case, why not let people see the analysis? Why not challenge it with numbers instead of censorship?

Methinks he doth protest too much.

(11-27-2020 07:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:32 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 06:52 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 04:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ma...n-n1178930

Interesting conclusion from John Hopkins study-no significant change in deaths, only in the causes. The since deleted study is linked in the article.

"...On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”



They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative."

Weekly deaths from all causes is fairly predictable. There have been 300k+ excess deaths this year.



In 2020 from the beginning of the year until the end of Oct there have been 2.73M deaths from all causes. Over the same time period in 2019 there were 2.34M deaths from all causes. Deaths are way up this year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid...deaths.htm

I can’t find why the threshold for what is considered excess deaths is lower for 2020 than actual deaths in previous years. Did you see an explanation?

They are using a data model based on historical deaths and seasonality to define the expected deaths for a time period.

Here is their method, but it went to far into the date science side for me:

Counts of deaths in the most recent weeks were compared with historical trends (from 2013 to present) to determine whether the number of deaths in recent weeks was significantly higher than expected, using Farrington surveillance algorithms (1). The ‘surveillance’ package in R (2) was used to implement the Farrington algorithms, which use overdispersed Poisson generalized linear models with spline terms to model trends in counts, accounting for seasonality. For each jurisdiction, a model is used to generate a set of expected counts, and an upper bound threshold based on a one-sided 95% prediction interval of these expected counts is used to determine whether a significant increase in deaths has occurred. Estimates of excess deaths are provided based on the observed number of deaths relative to two different thresholds. The lower end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed counts to the upper bound threshold, and a higher end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed count to the average expected number of deaths. Reported counts were weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks.

I love how you can just arbitrarily overweight death counts in recent weeks. LOL

Since you are so good with stats, explain the near impossible statistical anomalies with Biden winning?

(11-29-2020 02:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:32 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 06:52 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 04:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ma...n-n1178930

Interesting conclusion from John Hopkins study-no significant change in deaths, only in the causes. The since deleted study is linked in the article.

"...On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”



They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative."

Weekly deaths from all causes is fairly predictable. There have been 300k+ excess deaths this year.



In 2020 from the beginning of the year until the end of Oct there have been 2.73M deaths from all causes. Over the same time period in 2019 there were 2.34M deaths from all causes. Deaths are way up this year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid...deaths.htm

I can’t find why the threshold for what is considered excess deaths is lower for 2020 than actual deaths in previous years. Did you see an explanation?

They are using a data model based on historical deaths and seasonality to define the expected deaths for a time period.

Here is their method, but it went to far into the date science side for me:

Counts of deaths in the most recent weeks were compared with historical trends (from 2013 to present) to determine whether the number of deaths in recent weeks was significantly higher than expected, using Farrington surveillance algorithms (1). The ‘surveillance’ package in R (2) was used to implement the Farrington algorithms, which use overdispersed Poisson generalized linear models with spline terms to model trends in counts, accounting for seasonality. For each jurisdiction, a model is used to generate a set of expected counts, and an upper bound threshold based on a one-sided 95% prediction interval of these expected counts is used to determine whether a significant increase in deaths has occurred. Estimates of excess deaths are provided based on the observed number of deaths relative to two different thresholds. The lower end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed counts to the upper bound threshold, and a higher end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed count to the average expected number of deaths. Reported counts were weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks.

I love how you can just arbitrarily overweight death counts in recent weeks. LOL

Since you are so good with stats, explain the near impossible statistical anomalies with Biden winning?

A lot of the people posting the "analysis" like Ramsland are incompetent or intentionally misleading.

Recent weeks are weighted due to the fact that it takes weeks to report to the CDC, so they use the model combined with the deaths coming in to predict the total number of deaths for that week. As more and more death certificates come in the data for a week becomes more accurate.

This image shows the impact of weighting (light blue), you can see that the further you look back in the data the less is there. If we look at the same picture in two months the latest bar that is heavily weighted now (because death certificates are still coming in) will have no or almost no weighted deaths.

I don't use data from their dataset until it is a few weeks old, when I quoted data above I used data from the last week in October. The biggest changes are in the first two weeks.

(11-29-2020 02:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:32 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 06:52 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 04:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ma...n-n1178930

Interesting conclusion from John Hopkins study-no significant change in deaths, only in the causes. The since deleted study is linked in the article.

"...On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”



They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative."

Weekly deaths from all causes is fairly predictable. There have been 300k+ excess deaths this year.



In 2020 from the beginning of the year until the end of Oct there have been 2.73M deaths from all causes. Over the same time period in 2019 there were 2.34M deaths from all causes. Deaths are way up this year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid...deaths.htm

I can’t find why the threshold for what is considered excess deaths is lower for 2020 than actual deaths in previous years. Did you see an explanation?

They are using a data model based on historical deaths and seasonality to define the expected deaths for a time period.

Here is their method, but it went to far into the date science side for me:

Counts of deaths in the most recent weeks were compared with historical trends (from 2013 to present) to determine whether the number of deaths in recent weeks was significantly higher than expected, using Farrington surveillance algorithms (1). The ‘surveillance’ package in R (2) was used to implement the Farrington algorithms, which use overdispersed Poisson generalized linear models with spline terms to model trends in counts, accounting for seasonality. For each jurisdiction, a model is used to generate a set of expected counts, and an upper bound threshold based on a one-sided 95% prediction interval of these expected counts is used to determine whether a significant increase in deaths has occurred. Estimates of excess deaths are provided based on the observed number of deaths relative to two different thresholds. The lower end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed counts to the upper bound threshold, and a higher end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed count to the average expected number of deaths. Reported counts were weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks.

I love how you can just arbitrarily overweight death counts in recent weeks. LOL

Since you are so good with stats,

Quote:explain the near impossible statistical anomalies with Biden winning?

Get ready for him to pull a random pdf out of his ass and post it.

(11-29-2020 02:47 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Bullet, your conclusion was correct. The authorities don't like having their voices muted by being able to view the truth. So they censor and try to deep six the offending study.

John Hopkins University Assistant Program Director censored for her analysis of CDC data.

https://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/11/28/...-pandemic/

Quote:“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.

https://web.archive.org/web/202011262231...o-covid-19

The bolded statement above is completely incorrect.

Total death numbers are well above normal death numbers.
2018 from the beginning of the year until 27th of october is 2.40M deaths.
2019 from the beginning of the year until Oct 26th is 2.34M
2020 from beginning of the year until 31st of october is 2.73M deaths

390k more deaths SO FAR in 2020 when compared to the same time period of 2019.

Quote:Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, 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. 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.

In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently.

Briand’s study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

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. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

Because of these inaccuracies and our failure to provide additional information about the effects of COVID-19, The News-Letter decided to retract this article. It is our duty as a publication to combat the spread of misinformation and to enhance our fact-checking process. We apologize to our readers.

(11-29-2020 03:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-29-2020 02:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:32 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 06:52 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Weekly deaths from all causes is fairly predictable. There have been 300k+ excess deaths this year.



In 2020 from the beginning of the year until the end of Oct there have been 2.73M deaths from all causes. Over the same time period in 2019 there were 2.34M deaths from all causes. Deaths are way up this year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid...deaths.htm

I can’t find why the threshold for what is considered excess deaths is lower for 2020 than actual deaths in previous years. Did you see an explanation?

They are using a data model based on historical deaths and seasonality to define the expected deaths for a time period.

Here is their method, but it went to far into the date science side for me:

Counts of deaths in the most recent weeks were compared with historical trends (from 2013 to present) to determine whether the number of deaths in recent weeks was significantly higher than expected, using Farrington surveillance algorithms (1). The ‘surveillance’ package in R (2) was used to implement the Farrington algorithms, which use overdispersed Poisson generalized linear models with spline terms to model trends in counts, accounting for seasonality. For each jurisdiction, a model is used to generate a set of expected counts, and an upper bound threshold based on a one-sided 95% prediction interval of these expected counts is used to determine whether a significant increase in deaths has occurred. Estimates of excess deaths are provided based on the observed number of deaths relative to two different thresholds. The lower end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed counts to the upper bound threshold, and a higher end of the excess death estimate range is generated by comparing the observed count to the average expected number of deaths. Reported counts were weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks.

I love how you can just arbitrarily overweight death counts in recent weeks. LOL

Since you are so good with stats,

Quote:explain the near impossible statistical anomalies with Biden winning?

Get ready for him to pull a random pdf out of his ass and post it.

Don't worry, I'll draw it in crayon for you. I know you "aren't so good with the reading".

How many women have you punched for not wearing a mask Elvis. Man, you're a walking, talking Covidphobe. LOL

Don't be askeeered everyone has to die sometime, why not the Chiflu?