Keyante Johnson UF basketball player

[fsufool]

Nope dead on. You cannot refute the excess death numbers or the likely drop in American life expectancy. People's agenda driven desire to minimize this virus is tiresome. This is the only social media I am on. I read my news and I get it from multiple sources. I do not search out alt right sources which I believe others on here do to get their information. However I read all legitimate information.

The excess death numbers will not be out until April at the earliest. Obviously, there will be some, but the actual number will be meaningless unless you look at the details (deaths in each category). Deaths in the USA go up 18-70,000 each year, so they should account for that. You stated a drop in life expectancy of 3-4 years which is .......well out there. It won't be anything near that. Again, the trend is a drop in life expectancy going back a couple of years. Since the average death from Covid is 78-79 years old, if there is a change it won't be large, let alone a 5% change.

Your not alone in this, but with no background in epidemiology nor statistical analysis of social science data you are just failing around with what the media says (which also doesn't have the background to understand). Last time I looked the excess deaths was about 15% above the 2015-2019 average. But that was provisional numbers and will go higher. But, just so you know how long it will take for the final numbers to get out, CDC hasn't published the final numbers from 2019 yet. Usually provisional numbers come out in the spring. Final 2019 number will be around 2,860,000. Estimates for 2020 are between 3 million and 3.2 million. Expected deaths for this year would be in the 2.9MM range. So, excess deaths are unlikely to be anywhere near your 500,000 number.

Hence my comments. Mimicking the media's hyperbole doesn't make it so. Just so you know while the excess deaths in the USA and Europe are significant, world wide it won't be anywhere near what we saw in 1957 nor 1968 flu pandemics.

 

[chumleynole]

The excess death numbers will not be out until April at the earliest. Obviously, there will be some, but the actual number will be meaningless unless you look at the details (deaths in each category). Deaths in the USA go up 18-70,000 each year, so they should account for that. You stated a drop in life expectancy of 3-4 years which is .......well out there. It won't be anything near that. Again, the trend is a drop in life expectancy going back a couple of years. Since the average death from Covid is 78-79 years old, if there is a change it won't be large, let alone a 5% change.

Your not alone in this, but with no background in epidemiology nor statistical analysis of social science data you are just failing around with what the media says (which also doesn't have the background to understand). Last time I looked the excess deaths was about 15% above the 2015-2019 average. But that was provisional numbers and will go higher. But, just so you know how long it will take for the final numbers to get out, CDC hasn't published the final numbers from 2019 yet. Usually provisional numbers come out in the spring. Final 2019 number will be around 2,860,000. Estimates for 2020 are between 3 million and 3.2 million. Expected deaths for this year would be in the 2.9MM range. So, excess deaths are unlikely to be anywhere near your 500,000 number.

Hence my comments. Mimicking the media's hyperbole doesn't make it so. Just so you know while the excess deaths in the USA and Europe are significant, world wide it won't be anywhere near what we saw in 1957 nor 1968 flu pandemics.

I get my information from what are widely considered legitimate news sources. I do not search for information based on a preconceived opinion. Everything I read and I do quite bit is contrary to the information you are providing. I absolutely guarantee when all is said and done the numbers for Covid deaths will be higher then reported. Of course you will call this fake news. What bothers most about the times we live in the ability of people to search the fringes of science and discredit the factual information that is out there.

 

[fsufool]

I get my information from what are widely considered legitimate news sources. I do not search for information based on a preconceived opinion. Everything I read and I do quite bit is contrary to the information you are providing. I absolutely guarantee when all is said and done the numbers for Covid deaths will be higher then reported. Of course you will call this fake news. What bothers most about the times we live in the ability of people to search the fringes of science and discredit the factual information that is out there.

LOL.........I get all my information from the CDC who will be reporting the official numbers. I also get info from the world's leading epidemiologists in peer reviewed scientific papers. What I don't do is respond to the hyperbole from the media, either mainstream or right/left wing. For example a few weeks ago USA Today ran a headline that said in large letters, "2020 deadliest year ever." That is pure hyperbole because you could have said that about 2010,2011,2012,2013, 2014,2015,2016,2017,2018, etc. Every year, for the most part we have more deaths than the year before. The provisional numbers for 2019 are up only around 18,000, which is a smaller increase than average of late. It's the death rate that is important anyway. We will know the death rate for 2020 in around 13 months. By then, we hopefully would have moved on to other issues and Covid will be in our rear view mirror, hence the media will not care and it will be page 29C. If you are still interested by then, the real analysis will be about the death rates by age groups and cause.

 

[chumleynole]

LOL.........I get all my information from the CDC who will be reporting the official numbers. I also get info from the world's leading epidemiologists in peer reviewed scientific papers. What I don't do is respond to the hyperbole from the media, either mainstream or right/left wing. For example a few weeks ago USA Today ran a headline that said in large letters, "2020 deadliest year ever." That is pure hyperbole because you could have said that about 2010,2011,2012,2013, 2014,2015,2016,2017,2018, etc. Every year, for the most part we have more deaths than the year before. The provisional numbers for 2019 are up only around 18,000, which is a smaller increase than average of late. It's the death rate that is important anyway. We will know the death rate for 2020 in around 13 months. By then, we hopefully would have moved on to other issues and Covid will be in our rear view mirror, hence the media will not care and it will be page 29C. If you are still interested by then, the real analysis will be about the death rates by age groups and cause.

Did you read the article? It covers all of what you said above about expected increases. The excess death total for 2020 is going to be hundreds of thousands more then normal. It backs up everything I have said as does the cdc preliminary totals.

 

[fsufool]

Did you read the article? It covers all of what you said above about expected increases. The excess death total for 2020 is going to be hundreds of thousands more then normal. It backs up everything I have said as does the cdc preliminary totals.

Sigh............Last comment of this. I have tried to educate you on this. You said 500,000 excess deaths. Probably going to be around half or so of that. You said average life expectancy down 3-4 years. Going to be less than a year. You don't understand the various ways they can statistically look at excess deaths, nor that it is an estimate. Hence my comment "whoa.....you are out there" as is out there on the margins of what we are seeing to the upside.

Merry Christmas

 

[chumleynole]

Sigh............Last comment of this. I have tried to educate you on this. You said 500,000 excess deaths. Probably going to be around half or so of that. You said average life expectancy down 3-4 years. Going to be less than a year. You don't understand the various ways they can statistically look at excess deaths, nor that it is an estimate. Hence my comment "whoa.....you are out there" as is out there on the margins of what we are seeing to the upside.

Merry Christmas

I have not tried to educate you. I disagree with you. I am completely confident that when this is behind us and the numbers are confirmed they will be far closer to my estimates. I am also confident you will dismiss them as products of the media . By the way that is not an argument. It is obfuscation. It is the equivalent of a lawyer banging the table when both the law and the facts are against him. God willing I will be here for years to come and when the CDC finalizes their numbers in relation to this virus I expect them to be significantly more severe then what we see being reported currently.

 

[fsufool]

I have not tried to educate you. I disagree with you. I am completely confident that when this is behind us and the numbers are confirmed they will be far closer to my estimates. I am also confident you will dismiss them as products of the media . By the way that is not an argument. It is obfuscation. It is the equivalent of a lawyer banging the table when both the law and the facts are against him. God willing I will be here for years to come and when the CDC finalizes their numbers in relation to this virus I expect them to be significantly more severe then what we see being reported currently.

And for another opinion:

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the...

web.archive.org

In the world of ideas, there are many...........you choose to pick one that adheres to you pre-existing thoughts. I am more open to other possibilities because I have seen how wrong official pronouncements and the mass media has been on many topics. So, after we get provisional numbers for the year, people will dig into it and we will get a better understanding...............just won't read about it in the mass media.

 

[chumleynole]

And for another opinion:

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the...

web.archive.org

In the world of ideas, there are many...........you choose to pick one that adheres to you pre-existing thoughts. I am more open to other possibilities because I have seen how wrong official pronouncements and the mass media has been on many topics. So, after we get provisional numbers for the year, people will dig into it and we will get a better understanding...............just won't read about it in the mass media.

Your posting of this absolutely proves my point. The only way you could have found it is by going on alt fact/conspiracy theory websites. A week after it was posted is was disavowed and retracted by Johns Hopkins as being inaccurate and spreading a false narrative. They were alarmed that it was being circulated on conspiracy theory websites and considered its message potentially dangerous. I do not form my opinion and then look for information that supports it. I form my opinion after I learn about the facts. Not sure that is what you do.

 

[fsufool]

Your posting of this absolutely proves my point. The only way you could have found it is by going on alt fact/conspiracy theory websites. A week after it was posted is was disavowed and retracted by Johns Hopkins as being inaccurate and spreading a false narrative. They were alarmed that it was being circulated on conspiracy theory websites and considered its message potentially dangerous. I do not form my opinion and then look for information that supports it. I form my opinion after I learn about the facts. Not sure that is what you do.

No, you just proved my point. It was disavowed/censored because it was picked up by certain groups and appeared on facebook/utube. John Hopkins never approved of it nor disapproved of it. The point is that instead of censorship, the correct response should have been to discuss/point out its flaws and move on. I read it, then looked for discussion on it and eventually found one that made me move on from it. That is the way science works. Science is about alternate theories, not one monolith of thinking.

Here is another example of what is going on:

A Contagion of Hatred and Hysteria

"The simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the...

www.aier.org

 

[chumleynole]

Here is another article you no doubt got from social media or some other non journalistic site. I am sure there are some articles that agree with your opinion on legitimate sites. However I believe you go to sites where there is a compilation of articles that fit your preconceived and in my opinion biased opinion. I agree with portions of this article but the author is advocating for herd immunity which most of the scientific community finds outrageous. It is impossible to protect the vulnerable. Maybe where you live things seem different. Healthy people live with vulnerable people. I know this first hand. I have a guy who works for me who is healthy. His wife is going through cancer treatments. He has to work. My stepson just found out his stepson who lives with him is positive for covid. I have 2 employees that have caught covid from their wives. These people are in the their 50s. Are they part of the vulnerable population? The percentage of Americans that have a comorbidity represent a pretty significant part of the work force. I have about 30 people that work for me. At least 20 percent have a serious comorbidity. They are not in a position where they could be protected. The article you previously posted was from the John's Hopkins student newspaper. It was neither peer reviewed or fact checked. It was stated there were factual errors but if I had not pointed that out to you - you would have relied on it as accurate. You said you tried to educate me. Please move on.

 

[fsufool]

Here is another article you no doubt got from social media or some other non journalistic site. I am sure there are some articles that agree with your opinion on legitimate sites. However I believe you go to sites where there is a compilation of articles that fit your preconceived and in my opinion biased opinion. I agree with portions of this article but the author is advocating for herd immunity which most of the scientific community finds outrageous. It is impossible to protect the vulnerable. Maybe where you live things seem different. Healthy people live with vulnerable people. I know this first hand. I have a guy who works for me who is healthy. His wife is going through cancer treatments. He has to work. My stepson just found out his stepson who lives with him is positive for covid. I have 2 employees that have caught covid from their wives. These people are in the their 50s. Are they part of the vulnerable population? The percentage of Americans that have a comorbidity represent a pretty significant part of the work force. I have about 30 people that work for me. At least 20 percent have a serious comorbidity. They are not in a position where they could be protected. The article you previously posted was from the John's Hopkins student newspaper. It was neither peer reviewed or fact checked. It was stated there were factual errors but if I had not pointed that out to you - you would have relied on it as accurate. You said you tried to educate me. Please move on.

Again, you are missing the point. I don't care if you agree with or disagree with any viewpoint. The problem is in a free society, and especially in science, there should be little censorship especially from our institutions just because the research goes against the mainstream. Scientist and intellectuals should be free to publish their ideas and then others WHO HAVE SIMILAR expertise should discuss/argue/demonstrate why those ideas are wrong or right. Covid has brought out the worst in our institutions to create a narrative of what is right or wrong based on "what they think is best for us to know" as opposed to letting the process play itself out. This is an old saw usually seen in fascist/totalitarian regimes. The fact it is playing out (and you are taking part in this process) in my country causes me great concern.

I'm sure you are a great guy, just have no expertise in these matters to give you the ability to pick and choose "good" science from "bad" science. Fact is, it is all just science playing out as it should and we will never have complete consensus from the scientist in these matters of how to deal with a pandemic. The numbers will be bantered about for years.

Remember, what started this was my comment of you being "out there" for saying the life expectancy would drop by 3-4 years. The number will not be anywhere near your statement. From there you accused me of multiple things. Why?

For the record, in my graduate school career I took several classes in public health/epidemiology studying under world renown scientists. My interests were more about "risk" than excess deaths or disease spread. This was back in the 1990s and it was made clear, even back then, that the CDC/NIH was more interested in propagandizing/pushing their programs than in allowing their scientist to fully participate in science. That stuck with me as I discovered how medical practice evolved many times along non-scientific lines, not as most people assume totally evidence based. So, I don't assume what any public health official says is the only verifiable scientific viewpoint. In fact my dissertation chair opened in his medical sociology undergraduate class by saying he had little fear of "brownshirts" reemerging, but did fear "medical fascism." He spent the entire semester demonstrating why he made that statement. Great class for undergraduates. (He was an older Jewish guy who was married to a medical doctor for background).

Well, my wife has been awake for a while now and we wait for our 18 year old to wake so we can begin our Christmas morning rituals...........

Merry Christmas

 

[chumleynole]

No, you just proved my point. It was disavowed/censored because it was picked up by certain groups and appeared on facebook/utube. John Hopkins never approved of it nor disapproved of it. The point is that instead of censorship, the correct response should have been to discuss/point out its flaws and move on. I read it, then looked for discussion on it and eventually found one that made me move on from it. That is the way science works. Science is about alternate theories, not one monolith of thinking.

Here is another example of what is going on:

A Contagion of Hatred and Hysteria

"The simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the...

www.aier.org

Again, you are missing the point. I don't care if you agree with or disagree with any viewpoint. The problem is in a free society, and especially in science, there should be little censorship especially from our institutions just because the research goes against the mainstream. Scientist and intellectuals should be free to publish their ideas and then others WHO HAVE SIMILAR expertise should discuss/argue/demonstrate why those ideas are wrong or right. Covid has brought out the worst in our institutions to create a narrative of what is right or wrong based on "what they think is best for us to know" as opposed to letting the process play itself out. This is an old saw usually seen in fascist/totalitarian regimes. The fact it is playing out (and you are taking part in this process) in my country causes me great concern.

I'm sure you are a great guy, just have no expertise in these matters to give you the ability to pick and choose "good" science from "bad" science. Fact is, it is all just science playing out as it should and we will never have complete consensus from the scientist in these matters of how to deal with a pandemic. The numbers will be bantered about for years.

Remember, what started this was my comment of you being "out there" for saying the life expectancy would drop by 3-4 years. The number will not be anywhere near your statement. From there you accused me of multiple things. Why?

For the record, in my graduate school career I took several classes in public health/epidemiology studying under world renown scientists. My interests were more about "risk" than excess deaths or disease spread. This was back in the 1990s and it was made clear, even back then, that the CDC/NIH was more interested in propagandizing/pushing their programs than in allowing their scientist to fully participate in science. That stuck with me as I discovered how medical practice evolved many times along non-scientific lines, not as most people assume totally evidence based. So, I don't assume what any public health official says is the only verifiable scientific viewpoint. In fact my dissertation chair opened in his medical sociology undergraduate class by saying he had little fear of "brownshirts" reemerging, but did fear "medical fascism." He spent the entire semester demonstrating why he made that statement. Great class for undergraduates. (He was an older Jewish guy who was married to a medical doctor for background).

Well, my wife has been awake for a while now and we wait for our 18 year old to wake so we can begin our Christmas morning rituals...........

Merry Christmas

Someone is missing the point but it is not me. Are you advocating for the publishing of studies that have neither been fact checked or peer reviewed? My final point is that you presented that article as accurate and had to be informed that it was retracted. Now you are scrambling to maintain your credibility by calling into question the validity of the retraction. I believe I am at least as equally informed as you. I do not seek out information to support my opinions. I arrive at those opinions after I receive information. I am not on any social media other then this site. Therefore I do not have people with the same opinion as mine to offer validation. There are two major problems in the country as I see it. There has always been science at the fringes. Because of the internet what used to be obscure and rare goes out to the masses through sharing. Epidemiologist advocating for herd immunity through the transmission of this virus are the vast minority. One article is written and millions of people see it and more share it. You know what we called these fringe scientist before the internet? We called the quacks. The other problem is the fact deniers. If they do not like the information they call it fake news or they blame the "media". Headlines are written by editors. The journalism that is in the articles of the major news sites is no different then the newspaper articles we read 30 years ago. People believed what they saw on the evening news and read in newspapers. Now misinformation is rampant and true factual reporting is discounted. People whose ideas would have been considered off the wall years ago are granted credibility. There are many plusses to being in the age of information but when the truth can be discounted so easily and wild reckless incredible beliefs. being read and believed by millions I am not sure that is progress. By the way, Robert Anderson the head of the CDCs death statistics said life expectancy could decrease as much as 3 years. I would think he would be a pretty reliable source.

 

[fsufool]

My final point is that you presented that article as accurate and had to be informed that it was retracted.

No, I clearly told you it was another opinion. I had read it several weeks ago and had already moved on.
Show me where I said their are no excess deaths this year????
You can't, which proves I am not convinced by it. In fact in this thread I said on multiple occasions that there were excess deaths. So, what are you trying to prove????????
Again, attacking or intentionally misrepresenting others is what you do consistently on here. Why? What does it do for you? You are convinced, as you said, that the numbers you presented are accurate. Yet, you have no expertise in order to assess these numbers. So, why are you so convinced? Because you want them to be worst then they are? Or you are just buying into a narrative?

By the way, no one that has any expertise and is not trying to propagandize would use absolute number of deaths (excess or not), they would use mortality rate. And mortality rates are used to look at specific diseases in order to understand them in context with specific populations. You see mortality rate for the entire population doesn't tell us much that is helpful. That is why the comparison is the 5 year average. It gives a consistent comparison point that evens out the variability and provides a trend line. But, it is a backward looking metric. As such it doesn't work for new disease processes like Covid. The proper metric to see the effect of the new disease is the forward looking estimate. So, you can follow along, that forward looking estimate is 8.89 per thousand (according to the CDC) for 2020. It appears it will end up around 9.2-9.4 per thousand. So, yes excess deaths. The other way that we know Covid created excess deaths is the weeklies. Weekly totals are important because mortality is seasonal. So April and May we saw weekly spikes well above the backward looking 5 year average. Deaths from respiratory viruses peak around the first of the year and drop off significantly through the spring. That spike was Covid. But yet to be determined is what the overall result will be. For, example, since Covid kills people who are at the end of their lives (for the most part), we might see a decrease in deaths in 2021-2022. So, four years from now we will have a better handle on the true costs in terms of death to us as the result of Covid.

 

[chumleynole]

No, I clearly told you it was another opinion. I had read it several weeks ago and had already moved on.
Show me where I said their are no excess deaths this year????
You can't, which proves I am not convinced by it. In fact in this thread I said on multiple occasions that there were excess deaths. So, what are you trying to prove????????
Again, attacking or intentionally misrepresenting others is what you do consistently on here. Why? What does it do for you? You are convinced, as you said, that the numbers you presented are accurate. Yet, you have no expertise in order to assess these numbers. So, why are you so convinced? Because you want them to be worst then they are? Or you are just buying into a narrative?

By the way, no one that has any expertise and is not trying to propagandize would use absolute number of deaths (excess or not), they would use mortality rate. And mortality rates are used to look at specific diseases in order to understand them in context with specific populations. You see mortality rate for the entire population doesn't tell us much that is helpful. That is why the comparison is the 5 year average. It gives a consistent comparison point that evens out the variability and provides a trend line. But, it is a backward looking metric. As such it doesn't work for new disease processes like Covid. The proper metric to see the effect of the new disease is the forward looking estimate. So, you can follow along, that forward looking estimate is 8.89 per thousand (according to the CDC) for 2020. It appears it will end up around 9.2-9.4 per thousand. So, yes excess deaths. The other way that we know Covid created excess deaths is the weeklies. Weekly totals are important because mortality is seasonal. So April and May we saw weekly spikes well above the backward looking 5 year average. Deaths from respiratory viruses peak around the first of the year and drop off significantly through the spring. That spike was Covid. But yet to be determined is what the overall result will be. For, example, since Covid kills people who are at the end of their lives (for the most part), we might see a decrease in deaths in 2021-2022. So, four years from now we will have a better handle on the true costs in terms of death to us as the result of Covid.

Lets get back to what started this. Someone not you made the erroneous statement that more people died from auto accidents then this virus. He also stated that most of the Covid deaths were actually caused by other illnesses but falsely attributed to the virus. I told him he was wrong and brought up excess deaths. The CDC as of about 3 weeks ago said there were approximately 300k excess deaths this year. I also said that life expectancy would likely drop 3 to 4 years. The head of the CDC death statistics predicted a 3 year drop. You took issue with that. I think I defended my position well. You have stated that "you tried to educate me" and said I consistently misrepresent statements made by others. That is condescending, which you seem to resort to as a tactic in debate. It is a failing tactic. Again, please move on.