It's pretty misleading to call this Johns Hopkins when it was a student newsletter and also retracted.
Not only retracted, but this link specifically uses the Google cache to avoid showing you that it was actually retracted. This is malicious.
Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
31–40 of 52 posts
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#32This article was retracted (referenced in another thread), but it was essentially a summary of the source webinar that is still posted (but oddly unlisted) here: https://youtu.be/3TKJN61aflI
I encourage you to watch that video and judge the analysis yourself. In this video I feel like she is very balanced and is taking a scientific approach ("Here's how I did the analysis and here's what I'm saying - please let me know what you think") vs the media/twitter trying to summarize/polarize.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#33Where did she get the numbers of total deaths from? Does the US publish death rates during the year or only afterwards?
For Europe, there's a pretty obvious excess death rate this year with two spikes: https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-47
I would be very surprised if the same wasn't true for the US.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#34This article was retracted (referenced in another thread), but it was essentially a summary of the source webinar that is still posted (but oddly unlisted) here: https://youtu.be/3TKJN61aflI I encourage you to watch that video and judge the analysis yourself. In this video I feel like she is very balanced and is taking a scientific approach ("Here's how I did the analysis and here's what I'm saying - please let me kn…
Yet it is still incredibly misleading and dishonest.
That should really teach you something about relying on the style of presentation for judging whether a claim is reasonable. In this case, it's garbage.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#35Reduced commute stress? More family time? Schedule flexibility? Better eating? More sleep?
The link goes in detail, but the main point is that deaths were attributed to covid even if the underlying cause for the death was heat disease. In some states you actually received a discount on medical expenses if you said your loved one died from covid
The link is misleading garbage, and was retracted.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#36Perhaps this should be added to discussion: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-... Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. Accordi…
Yes, this link extremely dishonestly links to the Google cache version of the article, specifically in order to not show that it was retracted due to being misleading and inaccurate. This is 100% malicious misinformation and should not be posted anywhere.
Yes, that prompt me to try to search for it as it was 'odd' if not suspicious.
Further more, if the OP wanted to post it as a way of promoting discussion around covid19 death tracking, he could have used the link with the watermark 'retracted' that is available from the rebuttal article.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#37Reduced commute stress? More family time? Schedule flexibility? Better eating? More sleep?
In this case, garbage data.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#38DISCLAIMER: I initially did not have access to the original presentation. The original presentation is far better from what I can tell compared to how it has been represented in both right wing and left wing media at presenting their claims with nuance that has largely been left out of other reports. Many of the conclusions drawn in the paper and in articles reporting on it are overblown or misleading on their own. T…
> overblown, misleading, and potentially outright lies
I agree with you that her claims could be wrong, but please watch the original source material (https://youtu.be/3TKJN61aflI) - I think she is being much more nuanced that you're giving her credit for. She is presenting her findings, showing exactly how she did it, and asking for feedback ("I hope I hear more from people who have done more than me" - 43:10).
You can follow her workflow and disagree - and probably will! But that's ok - that's how science works. I look forward to many well-written posts going through her analysis and showing alternate interpretations. I'm guessing she looks forward to this too.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#39This article was retracted (referenced in another thread), but it was essentially a summary of the source webinar that is still posted (but oddly unlisted) here: https://youtu.be/3TKJN61aflI I encourage you to watch that video and judge the analysis yourself. In this video I feel like she is very balanced and is taking a scientific approach ("Here's how I did the analysis and here's what I'm saying - please let me kn…
Yet it is still incredibly misleading and dishonest. That should really teach you something about relying on the style of presentation for judging whether a claim is reasonable. In this case, it's garbage.
I think you're being over sensationalist. In today's world I think it's healthy to assume someone is trying to reach for the truth instead of assuming malice. She's trying to present her findings and asking for feedback. I don't think that should be demonized - we've all been wrong before. Please watch the video.
Re: Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
#40Perhaps this should be added to discussion: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-... Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. Accordi…
Article One: >After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September Addendum: > This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per…
> > This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years.
> Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per age category" and "total raw death count"?
The article has multiple items of incorrect analysis.
One is that having constant percentages of deaths per age category, does not show that the death count is itself constant.
A separate one is that the claim that “total death numbers are not above normal death numbers” is factually incorrect.
While reading the link, and before reading the retractation, I made myself these exact remarks. One thing I saw in the article, which the retractation implies, but does not emphasize, is that this assertion:
> Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19
… is a non-sequitur. The fact that a large number of deaths has been reached in the past, does not imply that it being reached with COVID-19 is normal.