Zero Excess COVID Deaths, How They're Twisting the Numbers

originally posted by: eitea
a reply to: ScepticScot

So, macrotrends.net is incorrect?
www.macrotrends.net...

you can look at other countries, besides US there.

That isn't age adjusted.

If you filter to the UK you see a sub 1% increase for the non age adjusted deaths.

The ONS figures show there has been a significant increae in UK Mortality rates in 2020.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm a little lost here, so help me out.

What do you exactly mean by age adjusted? How is the statistics exactly adjusted by age?

Where can I find a 50 year chart for the statistics of that particular age adjustment statistic?

If you help me get that information, then I could decide if that age adjustment shows something valuable, or is another trick to adjust the presentation of information in a way that it would go with the ongoing narrative.

originally posted by: eitea
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm a little lost here, so help me out.

What do you exactly mean by age adjusted? How is the statistics exactly adjusted by age?

Where can I find a 50 year chart for the statistics of that particular age adjustment statistic?

If you help me get that information, then I could decide if that age adjustment shows something valuable, or is another trick to adjust the presentation of information in a way that it would go with the ongoing narrative.

The population the UK has been getting older for some time.

If you compare straight mortality rates v groups with different age distributions you will get a misleading figure.

Even if you look at the unadjusted figures using your choice of source macro trends.

Population has been increasing about .6 % a year and mortality rate by about .7%. That would give an expected increase in recorded deaths of about 1.5%. That no way near covers the increae we have seen in 2020.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So, the adjustment is made in a way that it only shows the mortality of higher age groups?
How does the general trend stay the same then. Would it mean that the covid period has actually been good for the death rate of younger age groups, so that balance will keep the general trend the same?

originally posted by: eitea
a reply to: ScepticScot

So, the adjustment is made in a way that it only shows the mortality of higher age groups?
How does the general trend stay the same then. Would it mean that the covid period has actually been good for the death rate of younger age groups, so that balance will keep the general trend the same?

It weights the mortality rate to take into account the age demographic of the population you are looking at.

It means that you can more accurately compare year on year changes even if the age of the population has changed.

For example if the number of people over 80 had doubled from 10 years ago you would expect all else being equal the death rate to increase. Using age adjustment removes this impact so you can see if mortality really has increased or decreased.

a reply to: eitea

It's still the highest death toll since 1981 in the UK when figures are adjusted for population increase/age brackets etc...

Either way comparing total doesn't show a true picture. Q1 (pre covid) had much lower deaths than average and lives saved from the immediate impact (less RTAs, less work-related injury) vs lives lost due to immediate or long term outfall of lockdowns is more of a guessing game than exact science.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: eitea

It's still the highest death toll since 1981 in the UK when figures are adjusted for population increase/age brackets etc...

Either way comparing total doesn't show a true picture. Q1 (pre covid) had much lower deaths than average and lives saved from the immediate impact (less RTAs, less work-related injury) vs lives lost due to immediate or long term outfall of lockdowns is more of a guessing game than exact science.

That's an important point when people are claiming that the increased deaths are from consequences of the lockdown.

Most additional deaths would expect either a small lag (suicides) or large lag (missed non emergency appointments).

The shape of the additional deaths over the year fits what we would see from the Virus being the primary cause.

a reply to: bastion

Like I said before. The more you zoom into statistics, the more you can choose what parts you show that will support your narrative.

You can choose higher age groups because their mortality has risen.
Now if I chose another specific age group, for instance some younger group, thats death rate is actually declining, then I could present the statistics like covid is actually good for ones health.

In reality, both of these methods are manipulation with the presentation of information, and to get the total picture, you have to zoom out and actually look at the total picture.
Lockdowns aren't specificly directed towards age groups either, but towards all groups.

originally posted by: eitea
a reply to: bastion

Like I said before. The more you zoom into statistics, the more you can choose what parts you show that will support your narrative.

You can choose higher age groups because their mortality has risen.
Now if I chose another specific age group, for instance some younger group, thats death rate is actually declining, then I could present the statistics like covid is actually good for ones health.

In reality, both of these methods are manipulation with the presentation of information, and to get the total picture, you have to zoom out and actually look at the total picture.
Lockdowns aren't specificly directed towards age groups either, but towards all groups.

It isn't choosing to use higher or lower age groups. It's adjusting for the age distribution in the population.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Adjusting the trend, so that older groups have more importance on the outcome just because of their numbers, but ofcourse forgetting the factor that older people have a lot higher chance of death then younger groups, even without covid. Total trend is about everyone. The same everyone who are affected by the lockdowns.

People should start being suspicious when a lot of adjusting of the statistics is somehow involved. Like Mark Train once said: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". As a former citizen of Soviet Union, it is very familiar to me how statistics are twisted so that their numbers will remain true.

originally posted by: eitea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Adjusting the trend, so that older groups have more importance on the outcome just because of their numbers, but ofcourse forgetting the factor that older people have a lot higher chance of death then younger groups, even without covid. Total trend is about everyone. The same everyone who are affected by the lockdowns.

People should start being suspicious when a lot of adjusting of the statistics is somehow involved. Like Mark Train once said: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". As a former citizen of Soviet Union, it is very familiar to me how statistics are twisted so that their numbers will remain true.

I dont think you are understand.

They adjust to take into account that older people are more likely to die. That is the point.

If they don't do that you get a misleading figure as a changing age demographic will obscure real trends in mortality.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Guess I don't, but then please do explain how is the total trend in macrotrends mis-leading.

a reply to: eitea

The stats from ONS are bound by the Statistics Code of Practice for quality, trutworthy data to avoid 'lying with numbers' and to provide clear data, hence the adjustment to account for an older population.

There's good stats and bad stats, the corect methods need to be used to create an acurate picture.If the stats weren't broken down into different age catagories or adjusted for population growth it would give a false impression of a higher death toll every year as we have a growing and ageing population.

ONS is independent of government, fully transparent and is seen as one the leading international sources of statistics. It provides a good benchmark of how data should be presented, as you state any source not follwing this methodology should be ignored as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes too big and the data is open to manipulation.

a reply to: bastion

Oh, when they say they are independent, then they must be. Like with all the independent organizations that push some political agenda just because their strong sense of justice

I think that this is where there is no point to continue this conversation, because it will reduce to your belief and my disbelief in some organization. As much point as arguing about religion.

In a simplistic form, this situation to me is like "okok, the general death rate trend has not been changed, but, but, if you look at it in a special way, the way special people look at it, who everyone can trust, then you can agree with me" Seen this stuff too much in my life and let you believe you.

originally posted by: eitea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Guess I don't, but then please do explain how is the total trend in macrotrends mis-leading.

Pretty sure that's what I have just done.

If you don't adjust for the changing age of the population mortality rate will be affected by that rather than the variables you are trying to measure.

originally posted by: eitea
a reply to: bastion

Oh, when they say they are independent, then they must be. Like with all the independent organizations that push some political agenda just because their strong sense of justice

I think that this is where there is no point to continue this conversation, because it will reduce to your belief and my disbelief in some organization. As much point as arguing about religion.

In a simplistic form, this situation to me is like "okok, the general death rate trend has not been changed, but, but, if you look at it in a special way, the way special people look at it, who everyone can trust, then you can agree with me"

Seen this stuff too much in my life and let you believe you.

Even if you don't adjust and look it as a straight volume the number of deaths has clearly increased.

a reply to: eitea

It's wise to be skeptical but the Office of National Statistics is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation and all data pulished has to follow the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 so it's not just a hollow claim of independence. - Like I said failing to adjust the figures would give a false impression of mortality having risen more than it has; if it was a politically motivated organisation rather than a scientific one it would have ommited the breakdown.

Personally I'm boring enough to have a degree in Applied Maths which included a module on 'lying with numbers' so don't have to rely on belief.

A johns Hopkins researcher analyzed the death numbers for the US and discovered there are no excess deaths due to COVID. Rather, what she found is that we have the normal number of deaths. The extra deaths due to COVID are accompanied by a corresponding drop in deaths due to causes like heart disease.

If COVID was the cause of excess deaths, then those numbers would have gone up across the board, but they didn't instead, there are drops in more than one category.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.

You can see the information in the charts at the link. It's on an archive site because Johns Hopkins deleted the paper, not because they disputed any of the information but because they didn't want it to support "dangerous misinformation".

**EDIT** I tried to get the Wayback machine link to work directly, but I couldn't get it to go through. So you'll have to deal with PJ Media being where I found it from. They have a working link to the archived paper. I suggest you go and see it for yourself instead of simply dismissing the intermediary out of hand because ... right wing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
A johns Hopkins researcher analyzed the death numbers for the US and discovered there are no excess deaths due to COVID. Rather, what she found is that we have the normal number of deaths. The extra deaths due to COVID are accompanied by a corresponding drop in deaths due to causes like heart disease.

If COVID was the cause of excess deaths, then those numbers would have gone up across the board, but they didn't instead, there are drops in more than one category.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.

You can see the information in the charts at the link. It's on an archive site because Johns Hopkins deleted the paper, not because they disputed any of the information but because they didn't want it to support "dangerous misinformation".

**EDIT** I tried to get the Wayback machine link to work directly, but I couldn't get it to go through. So you'll have to deal with PJ Media being where I found it from. They have a working link to the archived paper. I suggest you go and see it for yourself instead of simply dismissing the intermediary out of hand because ... right wing.

it was an article in the Student newspaper by a non medical professional.

If you click through the links it tells you why it was removed, including the inaccurate claim that there was no excess deaths, and even provides a link showing the data.

For anyone who can't follow the links

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.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

Because of these inaccuracies and our failure to provide additional information about the effects of COVID-19, The News-Letter decided to retract this article. It is our duty as a publication to combat the spread of misinformation and to enhance our fact-checking process. We apologize to our readers.