Johns Hopkins: U.S. Death Rate Remains NORMAL Despite COVID-19

a reply to: zosimov

There is no excuse for hospitals/morticians/whoever is responsible for recording data not to have a responsible and effective way of recording information into a national database now that we're 4 months into a new year.

Yes. Data collection sucks. County reports to state, state reports to CDC, CDC validates reports...

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Until they call it BS all I care about is the crude number in OP put on a graph to see that previous years were going up too.

Give me a minute.

originally posted by: stonergeek

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: ScepticScot

Again...
Apart from that more than enough evidence has been presented in these forums showing that the numbers of COVID-19 patients getting infected and dying from it are being exaggerated, mostly by unscrupulous hospital directors and doctors whom were/are more interested in getting more money by exaggerating/lying about the numbers, and it hasn't stopped.

With billions more dollars recently added to the U.S. medical industry's Covid-19 kitty, expect upward-curving hospitalization and death rates to defy all logic, considering the 110 million vaccinations that have been administered.

Money rules....

Why expect that when the current numbers are trending down?

It's what I think he wants, so can then say..see, point fingers, nail the nasty left/Dems..all a game.

a reply to: zosimov

CDC data. Yay! Can we trust it after all? Like lets say the election?

NUTJOB EXPERTS are seeking one more day in the spotlight for themselves...

Big Covid Spike Incoming!!!: www.politico.com...

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

all I care about is the crude number in OP put on a graph to see that previous years were going up too.

Here you go


I had go to the mortality reports for each year. There's probably an easier way but I couldn't find it right away.
I found each report by searching "us mortality xxxx" (year).

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: zosimov

CDC data. Yay! Can we trust it after all? Like lets say the election?

Oh great. You ask, I provide. And you reject it.

What a surprise.

a reply to: Phage

Not yet. We'll have to wait until November right? IF the 2020 number is even close I'll say it's not from Covid, that Cuomo killed lotta grandpas over 85, cancer patients had no chemo, liberals killed a bunch of hoboes, the leading cause of death - heart issues were worse because of the stress and loneliness, then lack of sunlight, lack of food and exercise,... I'll probably mention the vaccine too 😎You will mention it as the thing that saved us. Of course. It's time to move on anyway. The measures were useless. Counterproductive like gun control in Chicago.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Not yet. We'll have to wait until November right?

Why?

Based on death records received and processed as of March 21, 2021, for deaths occurring in the United States among U.S. residents. Data included in this analysis include >99% of deaths that occurred in 2020.

www.cdc.gov...

I'll say it's not from Covid, that Cuomo killed lotta grandpas over 85, cancer patients had no chemo, liberals killed a bunch of hoboes, the leading cause of death - heart issues were worse because of the stress and loneliness

Yes. Deaths due to heart disease increased. Deaths due to stroke increased. Deaths due to diabetes increased. Deaths due to pneumonia increased. It is known that COVID is involved in many such deaths. You can say whatever you like, the numbers are what they are.

jamanetwork.com...

a reply to: Phage

Well, that's convenient. I'll not repeat everything. The covid number is flawed as we already know. And Cuomo and others killed grandma. We've seen nurses reporting medical malpractice killing patients on industrial level for covid money. Everything was covid. The truth-adjusted number may seem like a bad flu season. Take 100k from it and divide it among other causes and it already seems like nothing. Another 80k give or take should be flu.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

We've seen nurses reporting medical malpractice killing patients on industrial level for covid money.

Then they are lying, no money was provided for COVID deaths. Enhanced Medicare payments are made for Medicare recipients who are treated for COVID, whether or not they survive. Those enhanced payments are to help pay for the increased costs of dealing with those patients (isolation, etc.). Why would a hospital get more for a dead patient? It makes no sense and it is not the way Medicare works.

www.medicareadvantage.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

all I care about is the crude number in OP put on a graph to see that previous years were going up too.

Here you go

I had go to the mortality reports for each year. There's probably an easier way but I couldn't find it right away.
I found each report by searching "us mortality xxxx" (year).

What was your source? You know how this goes but keep pulling numbers from your butt.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: Phage

Well, that's convenient. I'll not repeat everything. The covid number is flawed as we already know. And Cuomo and others killed grandma. We've seen nurses reporting medical malpractice killing patients on industrial level for covid money. Everything was covid. The truth-adjusted number may seem like a bad flu season. Take 100k from it and divide it among other causes and it already seems like nothing. Another 80k give or take should be flu.

I agree, best not to repeat anything, especially when numbers are clearly not your strong point. Probably best to stick to the flat earth section of the forum.

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Salander

The point is that scientists and physicians who dissent from a predetermined narrative are quickly censored.

Bad science should be rejected. Good science can stand up to criticism. That's how science is supposed to work.

Let's say someone, someday, finds a way to show that General Relativity is wrong. That's way against the "narrative." But people have been trying to do that for a long time. Yes, so far they have been "censored", if you will, because their work is flawed. But if it is ever achieved, why, that person would be the next Einstein.

Science, good science, is hard. It's supposed to be.

So the measure of science, good science is how many people you can convince of your authenticity. Sounds like a popularity contest not at all rooted in understanding our reality around us.

Peer reviews are not popularity contests. They are tests that prove or disprove scientific studies and methods. It's not about convincing large numbers of laymen. It's about other scientists actually testing the veracity of another scientist's work.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: stonergeek

Even if true, this is ridiculous. The pandemic and the negative and unhealthy effects of the lockdowns are damaging people's health now. There is no excuse for hospitals/morticians/whoever is responsible for recording data not to have a responsible and effective way of recording information into a national database now that we're 4 months into a new year.

Even the CDC only claims incomplete data for 6-12 months or so. Which means we should already know all the data up until September and a great deal of the remaining months. The straggler figures will certainly not amount to significantly altered figures.

According to the CDC, the average time to process a COVID death is 7 days. Any outliers are certainly not the norm.

Maybe the real figures will be released in 30 years.

That's assuming all data is accurate and reported in a timely fashion. Huge assumption. We still do not have accurate numbers on the Spanish Flu. Given the cluster# the feds have made of handling this pandemic, I don't see how you can have such high expectations for instant accurate accounting for every single death. Bottom line is, if there is an underlying condition COVID is more likely to cause death. Age group matter less than that. That data is not present. Until those unknown factors are included, people will fill in the blanks with whatever makes them feel right.

originally posted by: stonergeek

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Salander

The point is that scientists and physicians who dissent from a predetermined narrative are quickly censored.

Bad science should be rejected. Good science can stand up to criticism. That's how science is supposed to work.

Let's say someone, someday, finds a way to show that General Relativity is wrong. That's way against the "narrative." But people have been trying to do that for a long time. Yes, so far they have been "censored", if you will, because their work is flawed. But if it is ever achieved, why, that person would be the next Einstein.

Science, good science, is hard. It's supposed to be.

So the measure of science, good science is how many people you can convince of your authenticity. Sounds like a popularity contest not at all rooted in understanding our reality around us.

Peer reviews are not popularity contests. They are tests that prove or disprove scientific studies and methods. It's not about convincing large numbers of laymen. It's about other scientists actually testing the veracity of another scientist's work.

If you say so. So all peer reviewed work is 100% accurate? We both know the answer to that.

It’s an issue of faith, nothing more. Your failure to recognize that is something you’ll have to reconcile.

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: stonergeek

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Salander

The point is that scientists and physicians who dissent from a predetermined narrative are quickly censored.

Bad science should be rejected. Good science can stand up to criticism. That's how science is supposed to work.

Let's say someone, someday, finds a way to show that General Relativity is wrong. That's way against the "narrative." But people have been trying to do that for a long time. Yes, so far they have been "censored", if you will, because their work is flawed. But if it is ever achieved, why, that person would be the next Einstein.

Science, good science, is hard. It's supposed to be.

So the measure of science, good science is how many people you can convince of your authenticity. Sounds like a popularity contest not at all rooted in understanding our reality around us.

Peer reviews are not popularity contests. They are tests that prove or disprove scientific studies and methods. It's not about convincing large numbers of laymen. It's about other scientists actually testing the veracity of another scientist's work.

If you say so. So all peer reviewed work is 100% accurate? We both know the answer to that.

It’s an issue of faith, nothing more. Your failure to recognize that is something you’ll have to reconcile.

Of course it's not 100%. Do you throw out everything that isn't 100%? Do you think random opinions from laymen are more accurate? Faith in what? Faith in someone who knows what they are talking about vs the average man on the street? Where do you put your faith? What do you need to reconcile? I can reconcile putting my faith in a tried and proven process rather than in the opinions of those not educated in a subject. Not sure where my failure lies. Yeah, empirical evidence is far more worthy of faith than mere opinions. Popularity has nothing to do with that process.

originally posted by: stonergeek

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: stonergeek

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Salander

The point is that scientists and physicians who dissent from a predetermined narrative are quickly censored.

Bad science should be rejected. Good science can stand up to criticism. That's how science is supposed to work.

Let's say someone, someday, finds a way to show that General Relativity is wrong. That's way against the "narrative." But people have been trying to do that for a long time. Yes, so far they have been "censored", if you will, because their work is flawed. But if it is ever achieved, why, that person would be the next Einstein.

Science, good science, is hard. It's supposed to be.

So the measure of science, good science is how many people you can convince of your authenticity. Sounds like a popularity contest not at all rooted in understanding our reality around us.

Peer reviews are not popularity contests. They are tests that prove or disprove scientific studies and methods. It's not about convincing large numbers of laymen. It's about other scientists actually testing the veracity of another scientist's work.

If you say so. So all peer reviewed work is 100% accurate? We both know the answer to that.

It’s an issue of faith, nothing more. Your failure to recognize that is something you’ll have to reconcile.

Of course it's not 100%. Do you throw out everything that isn't 100%? Do you think random opinions from laymen are more accurate? Faith in what? Faith in someone who knows what they are talking about vs the average man on the street? Where do you put your faith? What do you need to reconcile? I can reconcile putting my faith in a tried and proven process rather than in the opinions of those not educated in a subject. Not sure where my failure lies. Yeah, empirical evidence is far more worthy of faith than mere opinions. Popularity has nothing to do with that process.

Why are you upset? My comment was in response to what distinguishes “good” science from “bad” science. My faith is irrelevant to any of my comments, but interesting that it’s how you choose to defend yours by bringing mine into question. Bad science is only bad until it it’s approved and becomes good science. The earth used to be the center of the universe and quite a few peers in the scientific community thought so until they didn’t. Being peer reviewed isn’t a stamp of correct science, simply that it’s agreed upon.

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: stonergeek

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: stonergeek

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Salander

The point is that scientists and physicians who dissent from a predetermined narrative are quickly censored.

Bad science should be rejected. Good science can stand up to criticism. That's how science is supposed to work.

Let's say someone, someday, finds a way to show that General Relativity is wrong. That's way against the "narrative." But people have been trying to do that for a long time. Yes, so far they have been "censored", if you will, because their work is flawed. But if it is ever achieved, why, that person would be the next Einstein.

Science, good science, is hard. It's supposed to be.

So the measure of science, good science is how many people you can convince of your authenticity. Sounds like a popularity contest not at all rooted in understanding our reality around us.

Peer reviews are not popularity contests. They are tests that prove or disprove scientific studies and methods. It's not about convincing large numbers of laymen. It's about other scientists actually testing the veracity of another scientist's work.

If you say so. So all peer reviewed work is 100% accurate? We both know the answer to that.

It’s an issue of faith, nothing more. Your failure to recognize that is something you’ll have to reconcile.

Of course it's not 100%. Do you throw out everything that isn't 100%? Do you think random opinions from laymen are more accurate? Faith in what? Faith in someone who knows what they are talking about vs the average man on the street? Where do you put your faith? What do you need to reconcile? I can reconcile putting my faith in a tried and proven process rather than in the opinions of those not educated in a subject. Not sure where my failure lies. Yeah, empirical evidence is far more worthy of faith than mere opinions. Popularity has nothing to do with that process.

Why are you upset? My comment was in response to what distinguishes “good” science from “bad” science. My faith is irrelevant to any of my comments, but interesting that it’s how you choose to defend yours by bringing mine into question. Bad science is only bad until it it’s approved and becomes good science. The earth used to be the center of the universe and quite a few peers in the scientific community thought so until they didn’t. Being peer reviewed isn’t a stamp of correct science, simply that it’s agreed upon.

Why do you assume I am upset? You are the one who brought up faith. You literally stated that is all there is to it. Correct, peer reviewed is not 100%, however, you seem to discount it because of that fact. I ask again, what IS 100% in this world, and why must something be 100% for it to be more accurate than mere opinion? Copernicus predates "scientific peer review". Peer review didn't exist prior to the 19th Century. I don't think that term means what you think it means. There is an actual process to test scientific methods and hypotheses. The way you talk, it's just a bunch of folks saying "sounds legit to me."
You do not need to be a peer or even review a subject to agree upon something. Hell, you don't even need to know how to read or speak to nod in agreement.

a reply to: Rob808

True. Good science should not even need to be institutionalized. Showing faith in science or institutions is a religious scientism. There's a lot of fake science. You have to absorb it and pretend to agree at least until you get a degree. Then you can challenge it but you'll soon become the untouchable by the big academia. It's pretty much a cult since the age of catholic universities. Self-elected caste. You dont speak to former cult members if you like your warm job. Cosmology and climatology are FUBAR. Psychiatry is rooted in occultism (Jung), eugenics, traditionally abused by communism,national socialism in Germany. People lobotomized, gays sterilized, many disappeared...it goes on