Corona Virus

[chancellor]

An Applied Econ professor at Johns Hopkins really created a stir with a paper published in the JHU newsletter - her data shows that the overall death rate has not statistically moved pre-COVID to now. Her premise was many of the COVID deaths are being misdiagnosed/listed, but naturally, it was glommed onto by a number of media sources including many on the right that used it to point to the futility of lockdowns and such.

JHU then pulled the paper, but it's been captured. If interested, it's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19

[GwynnInTheHall]

An Applied Econ professor at Johns Hopkins really created a stir with a paper published in the JHU newsletter - her data shows that the overall death rate has not statistically moved pre-COVID to now. Her premise was many of the COVID deaths are being misdiagnosed/listed, but naturally, it was glommed onto by a number of media sources including many on the right that used it to point to the futility of lockdowns and such.

JHU then pulled the paper, but it's been captured. If interested, it's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19

The whole Misdiagnosed angle has been debunked many times. But hey, if it can get you published (even for a moment) throw whatever shit you want against that wall--maybe it will stick (The Trump Presidency in a nut shell)

[GwynnInTheHall]

I had the same type situation come up - when my extended family tested positive, we started being worried, and my wife was in bed sick for a couple days - we all tested negative over and over though, so I think it was just a seasonal cold. Hope the same for you.

Thanks--Pam is much better today and I'm doing fine as well. Still planning a test soon so....here's top more negativity in my life!

[chancellor]

The whole Misdiagnosed angle has been debunked many times. But hey, if it can get you published (even for a moment) throw whatever shit you want against that wall--maybe it will stick (The Trump Presidency in a nut shell)

I'd agree in a number of cases, but Johns Hopkins stuff is usually pretty solid. Fundamentally, the data looks correct, also - the prof pulled from publicly available CDC data; it's not like this is some secret source or "confidential" study. Moreover, she doesn't downplay the seriousness of COVID - if you look further down, she's explicitly clear it's a very serious illness and needs to be dealt with correctly. I'm randomly backchecking some of the data, and so far, it looks accurate.

Her premise is a sound one - if the death rate among all age groups does not statistically differ pre-COVID versus now, that's not an expected outcome. I know I'd think the death rate has notably increased over time. Her conclusion as to why may well be wrong, but I'm much more interested in seeing the data checked, and if valid, the conclusion challenged. I find it distressing that a research university with the bona fides of Johns Hopkins is pulling papers not because there's a flaw in the study, but because they don't like the outcome.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I'd agree in a number of cases, but Johns Hopkins stuff is usually pretty solid. Fundamentally, the data looks correct, also - the prof pulled from publicly available CDC data; it's not like this is some secret source or "confidential" study. Moreover, she doesn't downplay the seriousness of COVID - if you look further down, she's explicitly clear it's a very serious illness and needs to be dealt with correctly. I'm randomly backchecking some of the data, and so far, it looks accurate.

Her premise is a sound one - if the death rate among all age groups does not statistically differ pre-COVID versus now, that's not an expected outcome. I know I'd think the death rate has notably increased over time. Her conclusion as to why may well be wrong, but I'm much more interested in seeing the data checked, and if valid, the conclusion challenged. I find it distressing that a research university with the bona fides of Johns Hopkins is pulling papers not because there's a flaw in the study, but because they don't like the outcome.

Are we certain that was the reason?

[The Feral Slasher]

I'd agree in a number of cases, but Johns Hopkins stuff is usually pretty solid. Fundamentally, the data looks correct, also - the prof pulled from publicly available CDC data; it's not like this is some secret source or "confidential" study. Moreover, she doesn't downplay the seriousness of COVID - if you look further down, she's explicitly clear it's a very serious illness and needs to be dealt with correctly. I'm randomly backchecking some of the data, and so far, it looks accurate.

Her premise is a sound one - if the death rate among all age groups does not statistically differ pre-COVID versus now, that's not an expected outcome. I know I'd think the death rate has notably increased over time. Her conclusion as to why may well be wrong, but I'm much more interested in seeing the data checked, and if valid, the conclusion challenged. I find it distressing that a research university with the bona fides of Johns Hopkins is pulling papers not because there's a flaw in the study, but because they don't like the outcome.

How does comparing anything this year with any normal year make any sense at all ? What would all the data show if everyone went about business as usual, no masks, no shut downs, no closures ? Unless I am missing something the whole study is pointless

[rhd]

An Applied Econ professor at Johns Hopkins really created a stir with a paper published in the JHU newsletter - her data shows that the overall death rate has not statistically moved pre-COVID to now. Her premise was many of the COVID deaths are being misdiagnosed/listed, but naturally, it was glommed onto by a number of media sources including many on the right that used it to point to the futility of lockdowns and such.

JHU then pulled the paper, but it's been captured. If interested, it's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19

Very interesting. I guess I can add this to the list of aspects of this pandemic that seem to defy satisfactory explanation. And yes, it is distressing that JHU pulled the paper.

[rhd]

Another sign that things might be starting to level off: the total CV-19 hospitalizations decreased today for the 1st time in over a month.

[The Feral Slasher]

Another sign that things might be starting to level off: the total CV-19 hospitalizations decreased today for the 1st time in over a month.

That would be good news....but with Thanksgiving reporting is going to be off.

[rhd]

That would be good news....but with Thanksgiving reporting is going to be off.

Thanksgiving was Thursday. Today is Friday. I was expecting a big increase today because of the underreporting from Thursday. But not only were hospitalizations down but cases and deaths also. This is a continuation of an apparent decrease of the surge that I've noticed for about a week.

[nullnor]

thanksgiving (5 million) will be a major super spreader event. Christmas will be even worse. it will be the mother of all pandemic super spreader events.

[The Feral Slasher]

Thanksgiving was Thursday. Today is Friday. I was expecting a big increase today because of the underreporting from Thursday. But not only were hospitalizations down but cases and deaths also. This is a continuation of an apparent decrease of the surge that I've noticed for about a week.

Many people take the Friday after Thanksgiving off from work, so I have no confidence in the numbers that were reported. The fact that deaths went down is a bit of a red flag in that regard. Anyway, I am not looking at the data from yesterday and drawing any conclusions.

[chancellor]

How does comparing anything this year with any normal year make any sense at all ? What would all the data show if everyone went about business as usual, no masks, no shut downs, no closures ? Unless I am missing something the whole study is pointless

Question 1 - I'd expect, as did the researcher, that the US death rate, especially in the elderly, would go up significantly since a rapidly spreadable illness with no cure or vaccine hit the nation this year, and it's an illness that appears to have a particular proclivity for killing the vulnerable. So, the "sense" if you will, is to explain first, if the data is accurate relative to the death rate staying statistically the same, and second, if so, why?

Question 2 - No one knows at this point, but I'd sure be inclined to find out if the death rate in areas that have appeared to best limit number of illnesses and deaths from COVID-19 was different from areas that have not. Does this mean that if the death rates are the same that no preventitive measures for COVID is merited? Probably not. Does this mean that radical lockdowns are merited? Perhaps not. But, to me, it sure merits serious study.

"Whole study is pointless" - Well, we certainly won't agree on this. I could find thousands of studies I'd find far more pointless than understanding why the death rate remains the same during a pandemic. In fact, I'd consider that not only meriting study, but meriting broad-based extensive study at multiple universities with multiple hypotheses. Especially now that the genie is out of the bottle - which was going to happen sooner or later. Ignorance on this topic is not only not bliss, but it's already fueling stupid outcomes like more anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory.

[rhd]

Question 1 - I'd expect, as did the researcher, that the US death rate, especially in the elderly, would go up significantly since a rapidly spreadable illness with no cure or vaccine hit the nation this year, and it's an illness that appears to have a particular proclivity for killing the vulnerable. So, the "sense" if you will, is to explain first, if the data is accurate relative to the death rate staying statistically the same, and second, if so, why?

Question 2 - No one knows at this point, but I'd sure be inclined to find out if the death rate in areas that have appeared to best limit number of illnesses and deaths from COVID-19 was different from areas that have not. Does this mean that if the death rates are the same that no preventitive measures for COVID is merited? Probably not. Does this mean that radical lockdowns are merited? Perhaps not. But, to me, it sure merits serious study.

"Whole study is pointless" - Well, we certainly won't agree on this. I could find thousands of studies I'd find far more pointless than understanding why the death rate remains the same during a pandemic. In fact, I'd consider that not only meriting study, but meriting broad-based extensive study at multiple universities with multiple hypotheses. Especially now that the genie is out of the bottle - which was going to happen sooner or later. Ignorance on this topic is not only not bliss, but it's already fueling stupid outcomes like more anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory.

Another significant and curious aspect of this study is that, unlike the US, the overall death rate in China has gone way up during this pandemic (also indicating that their CV-19 deaths are far higher than what they've reported). So why would this happen in one significantly affected country but not another? I would like to see a study of the change in overall death rate in some other affected countries, like France, Russia, India or Brazil.

[The Feral Slasher]

An Applied Econ professor at Johns Hopkins really created a stir with a paper published in the JHU newsletter - her data shows that the overall death rate has not statistically moved pre-COVID to now. Her premise was many of the COVID deaths are being misdiagnosed/listed, but naturally, it was glommed onto by a number of media sources including many on the right that used it to point to the futility of lockdowns and such.

JHU then pulled the paper, but it's been captured. If interested, it's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19

Before I respond to your other posts I'll note that the newsletter has been republished and includes the following editiors note (bold emphasize mine):

Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF.

In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently.

Briand’s study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

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. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.