Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Even More COVID-19 Narratives Shift as New Administration Takes Charge

Even More COVID-19 Narratives Shift as New Administration Takes Charge

Study nixes any link to in-person classes & outbreaks, smeared treatment gets OK by NIH, and Wuhan scientist admits to bat bite.

CDC Image https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/images/2019-coronavirus.png

We reported on several COVID-19 narrative-shifting stories that were now being published in the American media, putting an entirely new emphasis on returning to normal.

The post discussed studies showing lockdowns failed to effectively reduce caseloads, created long-term health problems due to unemployment, and may cause 890,000 excess American deaths over the next 15 years because of the health impacts.

There are even more narratives that are beginning to turn, favoring a reopening of schools and the economy. To start, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials say that in-person classes aren’t driving the COVID-19 outbreaks.

The return to in-person classes in nearly two-thirds of the U.S. hasn’t led to a rash of community outbreaks, federal scientists said in a study of 2.87 million cases among those under age 24.

Disease rates in counties where in-person learning is available for school-aged children and adolescents is similar to areas where classes are entirely online, according to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It concludes schools should be the last to close, and the first to re-open.

Meanwhile, young adults ages 18 to 24, who led the country in infections during the summer and fall, may have contributed more to community transmission, the agency said in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“CDC recommends that K-12 schools be the last settings to close after all other mitigation measures have been employed and the first to reopen when they can do so safely,” according to the report.

Interestingly, Ryan Craig, the Forbes’ Senior Contributor for Education, says that LA County health officials “cried wolf” when forcing schools to shut down.

…L.A. was the only county in America that effectively prohibited all K-12 schools from opening. Second, according to the L.A. Times, L.A. became the epicenter of the Covid-19 epidemic. There’s good reason to believe the two are related: L.A. County’s decision to cry wolf on schools has contributed to the current public health disaster.

…L.A. County’s singular decision on school openings left zero public health dry powder for the winter surge everyone knew was coming. Now the surge is here, and there’s little more the County can do to make it clear to Angelenos that it’s officially very dangerous out there.

Instead of doing too little too late, L.A. County did too much too early. If L.A. County had allowed schools to open this fall, it would have preserved the option to close them in an actual crisis, shocking the community into action. But throughout the summer and fall, L.A. County cried wolf. Our kids paid a price over the course of a remote, mostly useless fall semester. This winter thousands of Angelenos are paying the ultimate price.

Additionally, there has been a narrative shift on a potential new treatment, Ivermectin. Before last week, the press warned against this anti-parasite drug as a treatment for Covid-19.

Then, a judge intervened in one case:

A judge ordered Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital last week to give a Covid-19 patient an experimental treatment, and her family and attorneys say they believe that saved 80-year-old Judith Smentkiewicz’s life.

The drug Ivermectin – a pill sometimes used to treat children with head lice or to rid dogs and cats of worms – is not yet approved by the federal government for use against Covid-19. But Smentkiewicz’s son and daughter call it “a miracle drug” in their court papers.

So do her attorneys, Ralph C. Lorigo and Jon F. Minear.

“This lady was on a ventilator, literally on her deathbed, before she was given this drug,” Lorigo told The Buffalo News about Smentkiewicz, a Cheektowaga resident. “As far as we’re concerned, the judge’s order saved this woman’s life.”

Shortly after, the National Institutes of Health revised its guidance on Ivermectin and removed the recommendation against its use for COVID-19. Now the press is abuzz about the treatment’s “encouraging results.”

Finally, the narrative denying a Chinese laboratory connection to the virus’s origins is also shifting. Now, one of the Wuhan scientists is admitting….to being bitten by a bat.

Scientists at the Wuhan lab admitted being bitten while collecting samples in a cave which is home to coronavirus-infected bats.

One researcher said one animal’s fangs went through his rubber gloves ‘like a needle’.

Staff inside the top-secret facility were also shown handling bats without gloves and working on ‘live viruses’ without masks in apparent breach of strict World Health Organisation safety rules on PPE, according to footage captured by a Chinese TV crew and broadcast in 2017.

Open economies. Open schools. Effective treatments. Origin identified. Frankly, it all so astonishing.

In conclusion, at this rate, the narratives are changing and the vaccines distributed, there will be few stories about the dreaded coronavirus by Easter.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Biden did it.
We’re saved!

    Paddy M in reply to Owego. | January 22, 2021 at 9:27 am

    Sadly, a significant portion of the populace will believe that.

    Apeon in reply to Owego. | January 22, 2021 at 3:40 pm

    In ONLY THREE Days!!!! From the White House Basement

    guyjones in reply to Owego. | January 22, 2021 at 4:34 pm

    That’s “Chairman ‘Big Guy’ Xi-den” to you, comrade. Address the senile caudillo by his proper title.

    4fun in reply to Owego. | January 22, 2021 at 9:23 pm

    Since Joe Biden was sworn in, 8,529 people have died from Covid. That’s like if 40 full size passenger planes just suddenly fell out of the sky.

    — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 22, 2021

    To put the amount of deaths from Covid in perspective, under Joe Biden’s presidency, it’s like 8,529 times Abraham Lincoln has been assassinated, all at once.

    — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 22, 2021

    By Biden’s 3rd day in office, more people would have died from COVID than Union soldiers at Antietam.

    Think about that.

    — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 22, 2021

    In Trumps first two days in office he had 0 Covid deaths. Do the math. https://t.co/4FRyL85iux

    — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 22, 2021

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | January 22, 2021 at 7:32 am

A Miracle!!!!

Now, can we start reporting cancer deaths? Biden said he would cure cancer when he became president. Since the left gave Trump less than a month to stop an unknown contagion and held him accountable for every death, I figure we should give Biden one month to stop a known illness

So, let’s see the reporting of every cancer death, have daily cancer briefings, and hold him accountable.

    A month? What on earth are you talking about, he has had a year to get on top of the crisis and he has been pretty rubbish at multiple aspects of the crisis.

      Sanddog in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 3:39 pm

      Rubbish? A mRNA vaccine, the first of it’s kind was developed and delivered in less than a year. Vaccinations started 10 months after the outbreak here. Do you want to know who dropped the ball? DEMOCRAT run states. So-called experts who put the political ideology of scientists before the actual data.

Who would’a thunk it?? /sarc/ Fellow shooters o of mine (the photography kind – LOL) predicted with the coronation of half the country’s new Comrades in CHarge that news of this sort will rapidly be published.

With all of this happening how can anyone come to any other conclusion than this was created by the Left as a method of obtaining their goal?

Increasingly it is appearing as though this virus was used opportunistically by the Left. They blew the potential pandemic into a full blown crisis by inflating deaths that were reported to be with COVID, they demanded a testing protocol that grossly over reported infections, hired Fauci who had a long record of turning everything into a pandemic scare as the US lead in the disease, etc., all to instill panic in the population. (And do not get me started about the hospitalization number lies because I know several who work in a hospital administration who are beyond livid over that dishonesty.) The media led the way in this panic mongering and condemned Trump no matter what he did. If Trump did anything, then he was condemned for doing it and when it turned out to be the correct action, they condemned him for taking so long in doing it.

Worst of all is how they shut down the country and destroyed the economy over this. They knew that blaming Trump for everything would not be enough if the economy was still doing well so they demanded an economic shutdown to destroy it and with it Trump’s certain reelection. They (the Left, the media, etc.) knew exactly what they were doing.

Now I find myself asking if this is all really true and I find the actions taken immediately after the election as confirmation of it all. Now I find myself asking if they were so willing to destroy so much of the country to get Biden elected, then what are they not capable of doing?

    mark311 in reply to Cleetus. | January 22, 2021 at 8:05 am

    Sorry how have you any studies or sources that support your assertion that the death figures are wrong?

      felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 9:22 am

      Are seriously demanding a study to admit that the number of “deaths of coronavirus” is significantly lower than the number of “deaths with coronavirus”?

        mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | January 22, 2021 at 2:13 pm

        You seem to think science just sits there waiting for people to tell them what to do. The actual rate of death for covid is an important measure of how dangerous it is so it makes sense for scientists to check if there is a doubt about the state of the statistics. The assertion was that the public stats are wrong yet there isn’t really a basis for saying that is there if no one has looked at it and said yes there is a problem here. In other words if you are going to claim the stats are wrong you have to provide something back that up, saying something is doesn’t make it true.

          Apeon in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 3:44 pm

          Plenty of Reasonable People who look at the stats say they are skewed to the political agenda of the Left.

          Denying they exist is stoopid.

          felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 4:45 pm

          The claim was not that the numbers were “wrong” but that they were “inflated” and thus created a wrong perception.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 23, 2021 at 2:53 am

          @Apeon

          Skewed in what way? The data set is based on a simple set of facts over all deaths and the attributable causes thus informing the politicians of the day to make whatever decision they make. Saying it’s skewed just isn’t correct.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 23, 2021 at 2:54 am

          @Felixrigidus

          “The claim was not that the numbers were “wrong” but that they were “inflated” and thus created a wrong perception.”

          I’m not sure I see the difference in this context. If the figures were inflated (which they haven’t been) that would make them wrong.

          felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 23, 2021 at 9:46 am

          The numbers need not be wrong* (in the normal sense of the word) but given the small print they measure not what normal people would suspect.
          Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say the lavel on the graph says “Death related to Covid” you would assume that graph shows the number of actual deaths related to Covid. Now, suppose there is a footnote explaining that “Death related to Covid” comprises all cases of death or where a patient treated in hospital (not necessarily for Covid) hasn’t died yet but is expected to die within the next 10 years and has displayed symptoms, tested positive for Covid at least once, or evidence suggests that the patient had any contact with an infected person within a months before being admitted to the hospital” the numbers would not be “wrong” if they correctly reflect the small-print definition. They would be “inflated” because only a very small group of people will understand them to count what they count according to the small-print but to count, surprise, dead bodies, not likely-in-the-next-ten-years-dead-bodies, with a more far closer relation to Covid.
          Of course, the numbers haven’t been that blatantly manipulative. But they suggest, at least to the non-cynical layman, something that they do not actually claim (if you read all of the caveats). And the recently disappeared Covid-Death Counters on MSM certainly didn’t present that small print at all, did they?

          * They are most likely wrong if you look for an exact match, not within a reasonable margin of error.

          felixrigidus: Let’s say the lavel on the graph says “Death related to Covid” you would assume that graph shows the number of actual deaths related to Covid.

          Let’s say the moon is made of green cheese.

          The fact is that medical examiners determine the cause of death based on a variety of criteria, including testing and symptoms.

          In any case, the number of excess deaths provide independent evidence that the COVID death count is, if anything, an undercount. Or you could just look at all the hospitals and morgues being overrun. Or refrigerator trucks used to store all the bodies. This problem isn’t confined to the U.S., so it’s not a product of the peculiar American conspiracy theorization.

          felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 23, 2021 at 2:29 pm

          Regarding death-counters disappearing. “They didn’t disappear, they are just no longer above the centerfold on the front page. They are in small print on p. 13” – let’s put a pin in that and see if someone can present a detailed comparison (when and where is the counter placed, does b roll distract from it, etc.) But you make a valid point, I’ll amend the claim to “death-counters de-emphasized” instead of “disappeared”.

          Your claim that “covid death” is undercounted is breathtakingly brazen. Maybe you are simply experiencing cognitive dissonance and this is the way you deal with it.

          I’ve shown quite a few incentives to overcount, the protocols employed are designed to err on the better ten false positives than one false negative side of things, and these sources of errors all favor over- not undercounting. Without addressing any of these arguments you simply claim the net result of this systemic bias obviously must be an undercount. There is some chutzpah.

          Are you trying to claim that any “excess mortality” (which is not measurable but can only be calculated) in the past 100 years was caused by “COVID-19” as well?

          “Or you could just look at all the hospitals and morgues being overrun.”

          That is an empty set for quite some time, even if we ignore that you try to imply that those overrun hospitals or morgues are overrun because of your preferred pandemic.

          “Or refrigerator trucks used to store all the bodies.”

          You mean to retell the story of Italy? The shortest answer to that is too few furnaces not an excess of dead bodies. The state mandated burning instead of burial, which is what Italians usually do with their dead. This state mandate led to the backlog, not a sudden spike in deaths. That example does not even come close to proving your point.

          “This problem isn’t confined to the U.S., so it’s not a product of the peculiar American conspiracy theorization.”
          Indeed it is not so confined, and a lot of what you call “conspiracy theorization”, whatever that is supposed to mean, can explain a lot of what is going on outside the USA as well. May I suggest an explanation for your expression? You have no arguments and feel that evoking the notion of “conspiracy theory” suffices to make a point? It does not. Instead of even trying to show why the incentive structure actually isn’t as I said you just refuse to deal with the argument. Oh, and since it is an incentive structure there is no need for any conspiracy to get biased results.

          I’d be interested if you can come up with a single rational non-fallacious argument, or if you are really confined to formal and informal fallacies to make your case?

          felixrigidus: Are you trying to claim that any “excess mortality” (which is not measurable but can only be calculated) in the past 100 years was caused by “COVID-19” as well?

          Huh? Don’t even know what that means. Excess deaths is measured *against* the long-term average. It’s a standard procedure to estimate deaths due to epidemics. If you look at the charts, you can see the rise in excess deaths closely tracking waves of the disease. And we see this across various subsets of the data, as well, strengthening the relationship.

          Excess deaths are above the COVID count. That’s because not every COVID death is counted in the statistics, such as people who die at home without having sought care.

          https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/Excess_gap_chart.png

          felixrigidus: That is an empty set for quite some time, even if we ignore that you try to imply that those overrun hospitals or morgues are overrun because of your preferred pandemic.

          Seriously? Doctors are frantic about the overload of coronavirus patients and the large number of deaths. It’s not a secret.

          felixrigidus: You mean to retell the story of Italy?

          You must mean Texas. They ordered refrigerator trucks in advance because, guess what, science.
          https://www.star-telegram.com/news/coronavirus/article248285140.html

          Just a heads up, many Zachs, our spam filter weeds out posts with a lot of links, so use fewer links if you want your posts up immediately. A ton of links are not helpful, anyway, you know no one is going to click them all (and no, it doesn’t make you look more intelligent, it just clogs up my spam folder.).

          Fuzzy Slippers: Just a heads up, many Zachs, our spam filter weeds out posts with a lot of links, so use fewer links if you want your posts up immediately.

          Thanks for the heads-up.

          We usually try to provide independent support for our claims, but we refrain from multiple links.

      Liberty in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 10:24 am

      The CDC issued a report last year indicating the number of people that actually died from the Chinese Flu virus that emanated from Wuhan, China, was responsible for 6% of the total deaths that had been reported due to the virus. The others had significant co-morbidity conditions, 2.6 per death, and the Chinese Flu virus was too much for their bodies to handle along with their other health problems.

      If the truth ever achieves wide scale dissemination, we will see that the seasonal flu of 2018, that killed over 82,000 people, was more lethal to Americans than the Wuhan Virus.

        Liberty: If the truth ever achieves wide scale dissemination, we will see that the seasonal flu of 2018, that killed over 82,000 people, was more lethal to Americans than the Wuhan Virus.

        An independent measure of deaths due to the pandemic is by looking at deaths in excess of what would expected in the absence of the pandemic.

        Here is excess deaths in the U.S:
        https://ourworldindata.org/exports/excess-mortality-raw-death-count_v69_850x600.svg

        If we take subsets of the U.S. data, such as by state, we see much the same result. If we look at other countries that have had coronavirus outbreaks, we also see the result. The quantity of excess deaths is consistent with the direct count of deaths.

        Of course, we could just look at hospitals and morgues being overrun, with bodies being stored in freezer trucks, but whatever.

          Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | January 22, 2021 at 11:58 am

          The flaw in your argument is that there is NO evidence that there is a direct correlation that COVID infection was responsible for the increase in deaths. There could be several other factors, including improper treatment methods for respiratory infections, failure of people to seek treatment for non-respiratory conditions, denial of needed medical care as a result of the imposed restrictions, suicide, homicide, etc. While interesting, the increase in overall deaths means nothing without strict categorization as to actual cause. Was the Corona virus responsible for some increase in the number of deaths? Very likely. The question has always been exactly how much of an increase.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | January 22, 2021 at 12:55 pm

          By the data given by you, though I did not see or go to the actual data table, it appears COVID death numbers are overstated against excess deaths by about 50,000 to 75,000. More so, I would need to calculate and look at means for prior years to the death counts for 2020 to determine if this is a statistically significant departure from the mean at a given confidence level. The initial bulge looks statistically significant, but I would need to run actual numbers.

          I would likely attribute the large initial spike to health care mistakes primarily in NY and NJ which (1) sent the sick and frail elderly back to nursing homes, and (2) over used ventilation which increased mortality rather than saved lives. It appears the health care community has learned during this pandemic, however, the politicization of it likely did not help.

          It seems by now, even with exploding “infections,” which are mainly PCR positives that do not really show if someone is, has been, or will become infected, we are getting a handle on the virus in terms of mortality outcomes. Given the strange complete disappearance of the flu this year, I would expect to see overall mortality re-converge to normal, or even go below normal, as what the COVID likely did was bring forward the deaths of frail and sick elderly person by a few months. A UK study concluded the average life lost of a COVID death was 5.5 months, if I recall. The Flu and COVID prey upon the same elderly population, so last year’s COVID spike likely killed a good number of elderly that may have died of the flu this season. The problem is there was no COVID vaccine to mitigate or control spread, so it hit the elderly hard, but a number of those elderly flu deaths we would expect this year probably will not happen because the victims are already dead leading to a convergence to statistical mean.

          It’s a complex problem, but I suspect the statistically relevant excess deaths caused by COVID are somewhat less than the reported by several 10’s of thousands. I would hazard a swag the likely numbers now are approaching 200,000. A serious outcome to be sure, but correct measure is necessary to devise correct public response. Excess deaths NOW are likely not statistically higher than any other year. We’ll see.

          mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | January 22, 2021 at 2:27 pm

          @Mac45

          There is plenty of evidence , the death certificates give a reason for each cause of death. I appreciate the point about indirect causes but again there would be a death certificate and thus the stats are grounded in an informed way. The onus really is on you to prove that the stats are erroneous in some way.

          mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | January 22, 2021 at 2:44 pm

          @ Brave Sir Robbin

          The graph is pretty self explanatory, the overlaying of average deaths from 2020 compared to the previous five year average is absolutely significant. You don’t get to attribute anything to the other causes you state, the deaths all include those cause by Covid. Fundamentally over ventilation of patients is a secondary effect compared to Covid. That remains the fundamental cause of death. Improvements in medical care can be seen as the second spike is less pronounced than the first. That supports the assertion of an excess number of deaths because of covid. It fits the picture.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | January 22, 2021 at 5:04 pm

          “The graph is pretty self explanatory, the overlaying of average deaths from 2020 compared to the previous five year average is absolutely significant.”

          You seem to not understand the nature of statistical proof. In addition, the chart does not present the average of 2020 deaths, but actual deaths. Statistical calculation is required to state that the data presented for 2020 is not fluke of chance. As stated, it appears to have statistical significance at glance, but this needs verification by calculation of results. If the hypothesis is that COVID has increased deaths above non-COVID years, then a proper calculation can validate this hypothesis to a level of certainty, say, 99%, or what ever confidence level I select. This would present a powerful argument that COVID is causing the excess deaths. However, if that hypothesis fails…

          “You don’t get to attribute anything to the other causes you state, the deaths all include those cause by Covid.”

          I honestly do not understand what you attempted to say. The data, as far I understand it, captures all deaths from all causes in the US. So, yes, it captures all COVID deaths and non-COVID deaths, so yes, I do get to attribute to the other causes I state.

          “Fundamentally over ventilation of patients is a secondary effect compared to Covid. That remains the fundamental cause of death.”

          Not really. It means the death may be attributable to either medical mal-practice or the use of misunderstood and improperly applied medical procedures which at the time were considered the gold standard. If you have a headache and take arsenic instead of aspirin and hence die, it was not the headache that killed you.

          “Improvements in medical care can be seen as the second spike is less pronounced than the first. That supports the assertion of an excess number of deaths because of covid. It fits the picture.”

          Not claiming COVID does not cause and increase in deaths. I am trying to ascertain the true and certifiable scoop of that increase, which I think is less the reported figures, though still substantial. Understanding the world is key to effectively reacting to it. Example, only ventilate people as a very last resort. Don’t lock down an entire economy. Stop sending sick old people to back to enclosed communities of frail old people to spread a virus. Let everyone else go about their business. This disease affects overwhelmingly the aged. Let’s concentrate efforts on them. Let kids go back to school and have a life.

          The smaller second wave of deaths would seem to support a conclusion medical outcomes of infections is improving which is one of my points. However, it could also mean the number of reported positive cases are rather bogus if medical care has not actually improved but reports of positive test results are spiking. Knowing which is which would be important, would it not?

          mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | January 23, 2021 at 3:20 am

          @ Brave sir Robbin

          Apologies I shouldnt have used the word average

          As for statistical proof, these are raw numbers. And he’s it does show the numbers from previous years including an average from the previous five years. The trend lines from all five previous years and the average line roughly match indicating a common pattern of death rate over the course the year. 2020 is not like that at all. The obvious and plain reason for that is Covid. If you have an alternative explanation for the rise in deaths feel free to provide a reasoned hypothesis.

          I’m not sure your arsenic analogy is appropriate. By the medical knowledge of the time for a novel virus that was the appropriate thing to do. So that lack of understanding was a contributory cause but that doesn’t change the fact the patient would be alive if not for having Covid. That’s inescapable. Medical negligence in this scenario would be doing something that wouldn’t make sense like from a medical view.

          The graph is pretty clear. What statistical methods are you proposing exactly? The data set is strong with no indication of issues so the direct comparison of weekly deaths leads to a simple conclusion there are a lot more deaths from Covid. We already know that 400,000 deaths are from Covid due to the death certificates that’s already pretty hard to argue against. The graph reinforces that because there is a clear disparity from previous years.

          It’s good that you agree re Covid, respectfully how would you propose locking down just the elderly? Is your proposal to make everyone over 60 stay at home in perpetuity (until Covid becomes a non issue) that sounds like a can of worms.

          Bogus reported Covid cases? Well that seems a bit of a leap doesn’t it?

          Mac45: The flaw in your argument is that there is NO evidence that there is a direct correlation that COVID infection was responsible for the increase in deaths.

          It’s independent evidence supporting the claim.

          Mac45: There could be several other factors, including improper treatment methods for respiratory infections, failure of people to seek treatment for non-respiratory conditions, denial of needed medical care as a result of the imposed restrictions, suicide, homicide, etc.

          Except none of those factors can explain the 400,000 excess deaths in the U.S., or why the excess deaths also occurred in other countries that have had outbreaks.

          Brave Sir Robbin: it appears COVID death numbers are overstated against excess deaths by about 50,000 to 75,000.

          Excess deaths are actually somewhat larger than the count of COVID deaths, indicating an undercount.

          Brave Sir Robbin: More so, I would need to calculate and look at means for prior years to the death counts for 2020 to determine if this is a statistically significant departure from the mean at a given confidence level.

          Gosh. What will those epidemiologists think of next!?

          https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/93/99341944-d905-11ea-a9fd-c7aecb76617f/5f307b76bd213.image.png

          Brave Sir Robbin: I would likely attribute the large initial spike to health care mistakes primarily in NY and NJ which (1) sent the sick and frail elderly back to nursing homes

          Excess deaths are found wherever there have been significant outbreaks. Here is the U.K, for instance:

          https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/var/ezdemo_site/storage/images/media/images/excess_deaths-small_multiple-united-kingdom/163930-1-eng-GB/excess_deaths-small_multiple-united-kingdom.png

          Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | January 24, 2021 at 12:07 pm

          Mark,

          Two things wrong with that argument.

          First the “cause of death” is established by applying certain criteria to establish that. Depending upon the criteria used, he recorded cause of death can vary widely. In the case of the criteria for applying CO ID infection as an attendant cause of death, the criteria does not require either a positive test for an active COVID infection or even symptomology associated with the virus. And, in the case of COVID related deaths, the vast majority of death certificates for COVID, the cause of death was established by an attending physician, not by a forensic pathologist.

          Then we have the multi-layer death reporting system in most states. We have seen numerous incidents where a person’s death was due to physical trauma not associated with any viral infection [automobile accidents, falls, industrial accidents and homicides and suicides] being recorded as COVID deaths due to positive exposure tests after death, at the time of death or, sometimes as much as 30+ days prior to death. This has been shown to occur even when the ME does not list the death as COVID related.

          So, unless the medical community is totally incompetent, COVID death stats are being manipulated to produce more COVID related deaths than actually occurred. The question is exactly how many deaths, not related to COVID, were attributed to it?

          Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | January 24, 2021 at 12:30 pm

          Zach: “Mac45: There could be several other factors, including improper treatment methods for respiratory infections, failure of people to seek treatment for non-respiratory conditions, denial of needed medical care as a result of the imposed restrictions, suicide, homicide, etc.

          Except none of those factors can explain the 400,000 excess deaths in the U.S., or why the excess deaths also occurred in other countries that have had outbreaks.”

          How do we know this? No one has done an comprehensive analysis on the cause of the problem. They have simply assumed that COVID was directly responsible for the “excess deaths”.

          Is COVID responsible for some of the excess deaths? Very likely. However, given the media hype of COVID as an apocalyptic disease and the worldwide draconian measures imposed because of that, there are very likely a myriad of other factors which contributed to the excess death rate this year. The problem is that no one is looking at those. They simply assume the excess is COVID related. One reason for that is because verified reports of non-COVID related deaths being classified as COVID related surfaced. So, those wishing to hype the disease looked for some other way to verify it. The most accurate way to do this would be to verify all of the deaths as being attributed to COVID as being accurately reported and classified. Instead people took thee lazy man’s way out an simply attribute all “excess deaths” to COVID, whether this was accurate or not.

          Mac45: In the case of the criteria for applying CO ID infection as an attendant cause of death, the criteria does not require either a positive test for an active COVID infection or even symptomology associated with the virus.

          While nearly everyone who is hospitalized with respiratory distress is tested, determining the cause of death didn’t require the development of modern molecular testing.

          Mac45: We have seen numerous incidents where a person’s death was due to physical trauma not associated with any viral infection [automobile accidents, falls, industrial accidents and homicides and suicides]

          Can you provide evidence of this and how prevalent such mis-determinations might be?

          Mac45: How do we know this?

          Because when COVID death counts increase, excess deaths increase, and when COVID death counts decrease, excess deaths decrease. And we see this for the United States, for South Dakota or New York, for Italy, for the United Kingdom, and anywhere there are outbreaks.

          Or it could be imaginary demons.

      Mac45 in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 11:47 am

      Again with the studies. One more time:

      The history of the “studies” involved with this disease have shown, categorically, that NONE OF THEM CAN BE BELIEVED. Got it? From the 2 million dead projections to the masks and social distancing work studies, all have been proven wrong.

      What we HAVE seen is actual evidence that COVID infection and death stats have been inflated by classifying every person showing exposure or SUSPECTED of being exposed as being an active COVID case. The only thing we do not have n accurate read on is exactly to what degree these statistics were padded.

        mark311 in reply to Mac45. | January 22, 2021 at 2:31 pm

        I really think you don’t understand the death certificates. It’s pretty clear that in each case where Covid is listed that person would alive if they hadn’t caught Covid. That’s the principle reason that’s it listed as the cause of death as opposed to anything else. I know you’ve given specific examples of oddities in the data set but those specific examples refer to a very very small number of cases. Not nearly enough to change the picture statistically.

        I’m not sure what your issue with studies are, that’s how science works. Studies, experiments to understand the world. Then more studies to expand up or criticise other studies giving more coherence and thought to the matter at hand. More studies are better.

          healthguyfsu in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 4:15 pm

          mark is twisting himself into knots again.

          “EACH death is due to COVID”

          “oddities…refer to a very, very small number of cases”

          Frankee in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 5:26 pm

          Given the significant false positives (now admitted), I wonder how many death certificates are filled out as “COVID” even if a minor factor given federal indemnification of hospital costs.

          https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/estimated-cost-of-treating-the-uninsured-hospitalized-with-covid-19/

          felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 23, 2021 at 7:20 am

          According to the WHO it could appear influenza has been eradicated since early last year:
          Flumart Data

          As for the death certificates, we can probably agree that they are not unfailingly accurate and people can make mistakes filling those out. More importantly, there is the economic incentive to resolve any doubt in favor of adding this as a (contributing) cause.

          None of the actors have an incentive to downplay it (so far). This changes now because the new administration needs some success, so we can now expect the numbers to be underreported rather than inflated.

          Mac45 in reply to mark311. | January 24, 2021 at 12:14 pm

          I’ll give you three examples to illustrate my point. In one county in Colorado, there ws a murder suicide by hand gun. The ME listed the cause of death as trauma due to gunshot. But, because the victims had tested positive for exposure 30 days prior to the shooting, the state classified the deaths as COVID related. In Florida, a motorcyclist lost control and crashed. He died from trauma associated with the accident. Post mortum, he was tested for COVID exposure and a positive result was obtained. His death was listed as COVID related. So, once again, we have evidence that deaths are being improperly classified as being COVID related. The problem is that we do not know how many such improper classifications have occurred.

          Mac45: a murder suicide by hand gun … a motorcyclist lost control and crashed

          Both were improperly added to the count and were removed per CDC guidelines. Is that it?

    hopeful in reply to Cleetus. | January 22, 2021 at 9:48 am

    Don’t forget that smarmy idiot Pence who appointed Fauci and led the commission that promoted him. Pence also didn’t appoint any anti-panic scientists to the board til about September, even tho there were several eminent ones against the panic from the beginning. Not a lefty, just a fool.

The study from the previous article was one study , and others painted an entirely different picture. The study in carried out by CDC is specific to schools and the conclusion is that school closures are a last resort based on the best available science. That’s a reflection of improved knowledge not a narrative shift.

    felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 22, 2021 at 9:30 am

    The issue is not the study itself. You might have noticed that there is a link to bloombergDOTcom.
    The fact that they report on this is an indication of a “narrative shift”. Nobody claims that a new scientific study makes for a “narrative shift,” although one could likely identify certain prevailing narratives in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

      mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | January 22, 2021 at 2:34 pm

      The narrative shift was implied in the article based on this study. Given that study has been taken in isolation and not read with others that makes the assertion of a narrative shift suspect.

        felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 23, 2021 at 7:38 am

        Given that “narrative” usually refers to something taking place in media publications, and not in scientific journals, the shift mentioned takes place in those general publications.
        While those have ignored or downplayed studies like this, for example by making sure to mention that the studies are “controversial” or done by “controversial scientists” now reports mentioning these studies without these detracting epithets appear.
        That is indicative of a narrative shift.

caseoftheblues | January 22, 2021 at 9:24 am

Biden Covid death count…over 8,000

…that’s how we do this now right…

beginning to turn… the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials say that in-person classes aren’t driving the COVID-19 outbreaks
Well, to be honest, they were saying this well before the election. And no one was listening. Of course, that was because the media refused to give it any air.

There were excess deaths in the first trimester of 2020, attributable to Planned Parent/hood policies and a social contagion driving runs on medical facilities where there was progressive cross-contamination.

When the response to a health situation is rather transparently selfishly and callously politicized for self-serving gain, and, with the obvious aim of undermining a sitting President, as the vile Dhimmi-crats demonstrated, expect suffering to increase, exponentially.

Now, watch the whitepapers roll out, explaining what every rational American already understood — the “lockdown” was a politically-motivated act of totalitarian callousness that had no rational in science or medical precedent. And, the health consequences resulting therefrom will be orders of magnitude more substantial and widespread than those from Wuhan virus, alone.

Initial death reports for 2020 indicate about 3.1 million died in the US, versus 2.9 million in 2019. So the 200,000 more deaths is from the dreaded covid.

Or are they?

Well, let’s assume every single one of them is from the dreaded covid. How many were preventable because public health authorities
refused to admit that any early treatment was any good? How many are dead because public health authorities didn’t even bother recommending Vitamin D supplements be taken by everyone? Right off the bat we knew that a low Vitamin D blood level meant a worse outcome for ICU patients- so that should have been one of the first things they recommended.

Oh, they did ballyhoo one study that shoed Vitamin D was useless against the dreaded covid. By giving people a one time does of 60,000 IU 10 days after diagnosis. When every single intervention that anyone has said has worked requires intervention as soon as diagnosed. It’s easy to design studies to fail. That’s what the VA did with it’s HCQ study. And I will mention that long before the dreaded covid there have been numerous studies showing that a low Vitamin D blood level results in worse outcomes for virtually every respiratory disease, including TB. What’s the ideal blood level? Appears to be between 40-60 ng/ml from my reading, but the health establishment goes with the minimum to prevent rickets, which is considerably lower than that.

How about ivermectin? Well, the FDA finally said- go ahead and use it. It effect on the dreaded covid has been known for at least 6 months now. It’s almost as if people had to die in order to drive Trump from office.

You know, I’ve had more than a few people recently tell me they didn’t believe in conspiracy theories before covid and before Trump. Seems that every action taken during the pandemic of the dreaded covid was designed to increase deaths, not prevent them, and to drive the economy down, increasing deaths and despair. And giving DEMOCRAT judges and DEMOCRAT governors an excuse to order mail in ballots with no security (because every vote must count, even the invalid and illegal ones) despite what state law said about it. Leading to the highest turnout ever with the highest vote total ever for someone who never left his basement.

    mark311 in reply to gospace. | January 23, 2021 at 3:34 am

    Covid is a novel virus that is to say the treatments for it have been evolving and improving. The best scientific knowledge has resulted in improved survival rates for covid so the idea that valid treatments are being ignored just isn’t the case

    With specific regard to vitamin d , that’s an over the counter drug. Anyone can take it I know its been recommended for the elderly in the UK albeit not very publicly.

    As for HCQ the latest and best scientific data is that it doesn’t improve patient outcomes. The evidence has had some mixed results but over all there isn’t a statistical improvement for patience

    Ivermectin is an interesting one, I don’t know what research has been carried out on this and it may well prove useful. The Latin America countries have used it inspite of lack of studies so they took a gamble looks like that it paid off.

there will be few stories about the dreaded coronavirus by Easter

No, they have to keep up the coronavirus stories for 100 days. They need to prove the effectiveness of mask orders. Never mind that coronavirus always goes dormant in late spring, and would do so no matter what we humans do.

Been keeping notes of Covid-19 deaths from Johns Hopkins university site since end of March last year, updates stopped today so far. Will keep trying .

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend