I had a high level hospital adminitrator in the metroplex send me this link today. He's an Ag.

I defer judgment on its contents to those with greater expertise than I.

Researchers are just as prone to group think as any other group. The fact that so many do not realize how it is better for a researcher to be wrong with the group than right on their own is astounding.

Only the elite thinkers and those who by circumstance are in position with the most relevant data has true influence against the "consensus".

Look at how this board viciously disregards ANY doctor that does not follow the consensus and finds success.

EyeBalz said:

---

I had a high level hospital adminitrator in the metroplex send me this link today. He's an Ag.

I defer judgment on its contents to those with greater expertise than I.

---

They've been nails for as long as I've followed.

Israel and Sweden came to this conclusion already.

Need the premise explained before I can understand the skeptical answer...

That is fascinating

Germany has over 500 doctors wanting to investigate Covid more to see if the world should have shut down.

German doctors investigate the world response

Collin County is doing an investigation and they said the DSHS has over-counted cases by at least 4 times, on current cases they found less than 1,000 but there are 4,638 listed. If you listen to the Collin County county commissioners meeting they go into the evidence behind their findings.

I'm confused. What was the tweet?

Capitol Ag said:

---

I'm confused. What was the tweet?

---

Talked about how people can be feared to make decisions not based on facts.

P.U.T.U said:

---

Capitol Ag said:

---

I'm confused. What was the tweet?

---

Talked about how people can be feared to make decisions not based on facts.

---

That's exactly what's happened in many instances throughout all of this.

And the worst is, those same types will never admit they are wrong. They'll just double down.

It's also not that dangerous a bug.

What metric is "relative to April 16" and why isn't April 16 relative to April 16? Also, there are 3 things plotted (maybe 4 with the yellow line on the bottom) but only 2 scales? Call me skeptical.

beerad12man said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Capitol Ag said:

---

I'm confused. What was the tweet?

---

Talked about how people can be feared to make decisions not based on facts.

---

That's exactly what's happened in many instances throughout all of this.

And the worst is, those same types will never admit they are wrong. They'll just double down.

---

If it saved one life they were right. Ha

What happened to Covid-19 hospitalizations between April and July?

If only the world had looked here for all of
the armchair epidemiologists and health experts with perfect information from the very beginning. It's too bad armchair quarterbacks aren't eligible for the Heisman. They'd call it the "Aggie."

EyeBalz said:

---

I had a high level hospital adminitrator in the metroplex send me this link today. He's an Ag.

I defer judgment on its contents to those with greater expertise than I.

---

So does this graph explain the 10,000+ Texans that died in July and August?
If we tested less, would less die or more?

AgE Doc said:

---

EyeBalz said:

---

I had a high level hospital adminitrator in the metroplex send me this link today. He's an Ag.

I defer judgment on its contents to those with greater expertise than I.

---

So does this graph explain the 10,000+ Texans that died in July and August?
If we tested less, would less die or more?

---

people would have still died, they just would have died without the covid virus inside them.

2PacShakur said:

---

What metric is "relative to April 16" and why isn't April 16 relative to April 16? Also, there are 3 things plotted (maybe 4 with the yellow line on the bottom) but only 2 scales? Call me skeptical.

---

I also like the "Gain-amplified data" to manipulate the image to prove their point.

For me, I think all that image does is make the fair point that if we had been testing at the same rate way back in the early spring we would have detected way more cases early on and the huge explosion of cases in June/July/August wouldn't have looked as big in comparison.

Back in the early spring when were at 2,200+ deaths per day we had very limited testing capabilities and we were not diagnosing nearly as many of the mild cases. Now we are seeing 1000+ deaths a day despite a much higher number of new cases per day due to the increased access to testing.

It certainly is possible that this increased capacity to detect cases is what caused the "Panic" that led to various mask mandates and distancing rules to go into place in late June/early July. It is possible these high case numbers caught people's attention and changed behaviors before that daily death toll would have again potentially reached 2,200+ deaths per day.

AgE Doc said:

---

EyeBalz said:

---

I had a high level hospital adminitrator in the metroplex send me this link today. He's an Ag.

I defer judgment on its contents to those with greater expertise than I.

---

So does this graph explain the 10,000+ Texans that died in July and August?
If we tested less, would less die or more?

---

Pretty much every measure of this has been manipulated by the government as a scare tactic.

But, excess deaths are a measure that is very hard to manipulate.

We are starting to see excess deaths decrease to annual averages, so this thing is getting close to being finished.

Another interesting concept is "pull-forward effect". A lot of people that were likely going to die in 2020 died in Q1, as they were very vulnerable when they contracted the disease, so they died a few months earlier. Still tragic, but important to consider.

Here is a graph that looks at all other forms of death (not COVID or Flu related). You can see we are already way below the average. This effect will likely continue to increase in the next coming months:

Interesting analysis, but how is the hospitalization spike at TMC "gain amplified data?"

94chem said:

---

Interesting analysis, but how is the hospitalization spike at TMC "gain amplified data?"

---

Hospital data is probably the most reliable data and would not have this effect short of a hospital over admitting.

I believe this graph includes all "natural cause deaths" which does include covid and flu.

anyone want to summarize these findings in a simple paragraph for the drive-by readers?

ORAggieFan said:

---

I believe this graph includes all "natural cause deaths" which does include covid and flu.

---

Can somebody cite the actual definition of the deaths in the excess death chart?

ORA and Buster have defined it differently...

culdeus said:

---

94chem said:

---

Interesting analysis, but how is the hospitalization spike at TMC "gain amplified data?"

---

Hospital data is probably the most reliable data and would not have this effect short of a hospital over admitting.

---

In other words, I did not fail the basic logical cross-check exercise.

buffalo chip said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

I believe this graph includes all "natural cause deaths" which does include covid and flu.

---

Can somebody cite the actual definition of the deaths in the excess death chart?

ORA and Buster have defined it differently...

---

Valid question and I often struggle with a lot of what EthicalSkeptic posts, but the top right says Covid-19 and all other natural causes. I believe that is all deaths outside of accidental, homicide, suicide, etc.

Yea, I'm more suspicious who the heck is Ethical Skeptic. Even his "about this blog" page doesn't give any identifying information but I'm supposed to believe he was a top ranked grad student in both engineering AND science from a top ranked school that later led a nationally top ranked consulting/advisory company with top ranked clients, but before all that he was a top ranked military officer. Probably tapped some top ranked *** during that time too.

I feel his first graph is a manipulation of one produced by Johns Hopkins, adding a "gain-amplified data" that you have no idea about the data source, just that it grows and put it in grey so it "feels" scary. Also, feel s/he selected April 16th as it happens to be the day before Trump tweeted LIBERATE MINNESOTA (&c.) "ending" the pandemic.

I question where s/he got the data regarding excess deaths and the pull forward effect (I won't even get into how a "pull-forward effect" would imply it knew a patient would die later this year.) Just looking at the chart the area under the curve for the first 2020 hump is approximately half the AUC for the second part of the curve (that we're only "half way" into this effect) so it would suggest the pandemic has saved lives in the long run. Here is the CDC/NCHS page regarding excess deaths

nortex97 said:

---

It's also not that dangerous a bug.

---

It is difficult to justify the restrictions, and fear driven responses to COVID-19 with respect to NCAA competitions and band performances, etc. when you think about the ages of the participants and look at this chart.

In fact, with the sample size we now have, I'd suggest this charts illustrates how ridiculous the general response to this virus has been since the beginning.

Catag94 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

It's also not that dangerous a bug.

---

It is difficult to justify the restrictions, and fear driven responses to COVID-19 with respect to NCAA competitions and band performances, etc. when you think about the ages of the participants and look at this chart.

In fact, with the sample size we now have, I'd suggest this charts illustrates how ridiculous the general response to this virus has been since the beginning.

---

How can you honestly make statements like this after seeing the spike in hospitalizations in Houston before the "oh **** people put your masks on, be more responsible, stop gathering at bars like idiots" response kicked in?

Or, you know, the 190,000 Americans that have died even with our supposedly 'ridiculous' response.

Makes absolutely no sense.


On NCAA, seems tricky given the students don't exist in a bubble. However, they could have got by with no fans and minimal staff at games, imo.

Your comment about "Houston spike" in hospitalization. Are you referring to the one when it was in combination when elective surgeries started back up? If so, then the spike wasn't only due to covid.

The CDC has recently reported that on 6% of those 190k deaths were sticky SARS-COV 2. The other 94% included "Comorbid factors". Many of these people could/would have died from catching a cold or the flu. No doubt the virus accelerated deaths of many people, but, there is likely also a high percentage of deaths labeled COVID-19 that aren't.

Next, have you any idea how many confirmed cases of re-infection there have been? In the US, as of a week ago, there was precisely 1 confirmed case. So, the idea of herd immunity being effective, is pretty solid I'd say. Considering the number of cases we've had. In a few years, this won't be a common discussion anymore then the bird flu is IMO.

I don't believe indisputable evidence of the masks I see being worn are at all effective. Obviously complete isolation is however.

I think a response more consistent with the survival statistics above would have been to educate and protect the elderly as the chart above indicates are most at risk but not shut down our society and spread false fear like was done. Take Sweden for example.

The point is, with exceptions of the elderly, and those with certain existing conditions, it just isn't that serious. And the chart above, from significant sample size, pretty plainly illustrates that.

nortex97 said:

---

It's also not that dangerous a bug.

---

An interesting mental exercise: If, somehow, we had three months of advance warning that COVID-19 was going to hit the US...and at the same time were provided the above information on who it would most affect....what would the state to state mitigation policies then look like?

Can someone explain what "gain-amplified data" and "true pandemic form" mean? I understand they are trying to illustrate that published case counts are drastically exaggerated for some reason, but it's entirely unclear.

My best guess is that starting April 16, the gray area is raw case counts, and the blue bars are case counts normalized to test rate. Is this correct?

Catag94 said:

---

The CDC has recently reported that on 6% of those 190k deaths were sticky SARS-COV 2. The other 94% included "Comorbid factors". Many of these people could/would have died from catching a cold or the flu. No doubt the virus accelerated deaths of many people, but, there is likely also a high percentage of deaths labeled COVID-19 that aren't.

---

You did not read that properly. Your statement is wrong. Quit stating it. It does no one any good to say wrong things.