Possibly. But it is also possible that the exact opposite is true.
Alaskan health care worker suffers anaphylactic shock after vaccination
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
Possibly. But it is also possible that the exact opposite is true.
Possible, but not likely.
This thread is proof that people that buy into the hysteria, want shut downs that are totally medically innefective and think that masks make any difference at all don't give a damn about science or any other kind of sound reason. They are leftist control freaks. If they all died of corona virus it would raise the collective IQ of the whole country. But since corona virus kills very few who get it... no such luck.
Get ready folks! They aren't ever going to let go of it until those of us who are rational force them to do so. There is nothing anyone can say, there is nothing anyone can do, no medicine will help, herd immunity will never come and if it did they would deny it. They will not ever stop voluntarily - ever!
Get ready folks! They aren't ever going to let go of it until those of us who are rational force them to do so. There is nothing anyone can say, there is nothing anyone can do, no medicine will help, herd immunity will never come and if it did they would deny it. They will not ever stop voluntarily - ever!
Yup. But only if you have hope that your flat earth theory is correct.
A couple of things to point out before I get to the CDC report. I'm comfortable with changing my mind on a topic even when I realize how stupid I look when I have to do it. Knowing how to lose is an important skill that I've gotten pretty good at. And I've had my mind changed on TOL which is why I like it here and seek out the people who's ideas are the best opposition to my own and wouldn't bother being here otherwise. Secondly, I think you are smart and could be great opposition to the truth (or, a great ally of the truth), but you disengage too quickly. My above argument has a weak spot if you'd only look into it a little harder - it would be a good exercise for a person like you even if it takes some time and discomfort to find it.wait and see. It is pointless trying to convince most people on this site of anything at all, largely because most here have alternate facts.
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.www.cdc.gov
Now, on to the CDC report that says there are 300k excess deaths in 2020 in the US. I read the report long before you brought it up here. Did you read it? If you did, then could you tell us what these 300k excess deaths are in excess of? Or in other words, as any economist would ask, 300k compared to what?
Honestly- I think you are one of the few who actually think here. I disengage largely because it is basically impossible to have a rational discussion on this site, let alone convince someone. I'm considering simply bailing out of here, as some have already done.
I have enough to keep me intellectually occupied in life, without these pointless arguments. TOL has become a bad habit for me.
If you want some interesting reading- read The Journey to the West. I recommend Anthony C. Yu's translation. It's only 2,000 pages long. I'm reading it for a second time now.
Chair
I haven't read it and don't care to and have no idea whether its accurate and I'm making no argument about any of that one way or the other but just to answer the question you've asked...
The 300k "excess deaths" is referring to deaths in excess of what would otherwise have been expected across the same span of time given a normal death rate in the U.S.
That is almost true, from a certain point of view. I guess the ivory towner point of view? From the layman point of view, the obvious common sense point of view you just listed, it is a little less than 200k. That's because an amount of growth in the number of deaths is *expected*. And that would be from the growth of population, and the growth of the aging population. The Boomer bubble is almost now at 60-80 years old and they are dying at an increased rate. And the country will just have more deaths because there are more people year over year. This increase is *expected*, but it is counted in the excess deaths. It's not a new thing for 2020, but they sure didn't make it clear how they count excess deaths. This year the growth is a little over 100k, which should be subtracted from the 300k.
But the real devil in the details is the other almost 200k excess deaths were among the young. You know, the set of people that weren't dying of COVID even if they tried. And they died of a lot of things that could loosely (for the most part) be attributed to lockdowns and mask mandates. If there were any excess *COVID* deaths, at all, since they were concentrated in a small age range we should have seen an absolute spike. Granted, it did go up, but not enough to get out of the noise. And also granted, NY seems to have had a spike that tends in the direction we should have seen in the rest of the country if you listen to the CDC, but it's such an anomaly that a curious scientist would wonder what was REALLY going on.
So excess deaths should be a non-story due to lack of excess deaths. If there was anything to investigate it should be about the effects of the lockdowns and mask mandates. But scientists are bought and paid for, and people like chair have no curiosity.
Excess deaths has been a commonly used metric in statistical analysis of all kinds of morbidities for probably hundreds of years or for many decades at the very least. The expected increase in death would be totally irrelevant to the excess death number because they are just that, expected deaths. Expected deaths is sort of the opposite of excess deaths.
When you are talking about excess deaths, the term only has meaning in reference to a particular cause of death because there are all kinds of different things that effect the death rate. Some cause it to go up and other's cause it to go down and you can talk about anything you want causing excess deaths, even if the number is negative. So smoking causes so many excess deaths and so do cancer treatments. One number might be positive and the other negative but that doesn't matter. It's just a statistic that references the number of deaths (or lack thereof) that are related to a particular cause.
If you want to shoot down someone's use of such a term, it's a terrible tactic to try to discredit it's use altogether because it's been used, in one form or another, by virtually everyone in every civilization that has understood how statistics work. The better tactic is to use the same concept against the person who brought it up. Talk, for example, about the excess deaths caused by the medically unnecessary government lock downs. For example, how many people have died of a heart attack or stroke or other treatable condition who might not have had they not been scared to go to the doctor? Does the CDC's excess death number for COVID-19 included those folks? Probably not, right! In fact, when those numbers are looked at, it's pretty easy to tell that the lock downs will have killed far more people than the virus.
Clete