USA Deaths for 2020 will be similar to 2019 - Covid19 Virus Had Little Effect on Mortality Stats.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

Luckily we have graphs.

From the OP’s source, the CDC..

www.cdc.gov...

I suspect you over estimate your intellectual value.

Go back and read about the chart.

Estimates of excess deaths can provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to the COVID-19 pandemic,

See the two words , "estimates" and potential ?
Know what they mean ?

From your link
And that was just one excerpt out of many.
Perhaps you should rethink exactly who has overestimated what .

a reply to: Gothmog

Yeah. Estimates of it being excessive or not, compared to other years.

Whatever issue you have with me, I suggest you go and piss in someone else’s yard, it’s getting boring.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Gothmog

Yeah. Estimates of it being excessive or not, compared to other years.

Whatever issue you have with me, I suggest you go and piss in someone else’s yard, it’s getting boring.

Nope
Projected.
Try again.
There are lots of statements on "projected " and others there .
I just went with one as an example .
But , I would always emphasize that one read the document before posting.

To sum it up , one should only go by REAL numbers , not guesses .

a reply to: carewemust

Don’t expect this to change the course the fear peddlers have laid out. Fear is addictive and man they got folks mainlining the stuff. It’s gonna be a hell of a come down.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: ScepticScot


No doubt the last minute surge will be Bidenesque.

The dead will die again ... just like they voted.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One should also note that the CDC just released the final mortality figures for 2019 ... in December 2020.

The CDC is very clear, as ScepticScot quoted, that the 2020 figures are nowhere close to being final in OPs source.

So ... another fabrication.

So figures aren't final yet they are claiming 300,000 excess deaths already? Which one is it? They can either track deaths fairly close real time with a 1 to 8 week lag or it takes a year to figure out a death count?

a reply to: Edumakated

I'm quoting the same source as the OP.

Just not as misleadingly.

The OP argument was based on comparing the "final" death numbers from two years.

The quote I posted from CDC was from October. I can't help you with what the CDC says.

However, you're rather desperately trying to set up a false dichotomy.

The release of the report we're referencing involves more, I'd guess, than just finalizing death totals.

You're trying to make it an either/or. It doesn't have to be.

Death totals for the previous year could be finalized in 8 weeks from today, and the report we've been citing from could take a lot longer to publish. The two are not dependent on each other.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One should also note that the CDC just released the final mortality figures for 2019 ... in December 2020.

The CDC is very clear, as ScepticScot quoted, that the 2020 figures are nowhere close to being final in OPs source.

So ... another fabrication.

So figures aren't final yet they are claiming 300,000 excess deaths already? Which one is it? They can either track deaths fairly close real time with a 1 to 8 week lag or it takes a year to figure out a death count?

The 300k estimate was up to the end of October, there is sufficient data to give a reasonable estimate.

The premise of the OP is flawed as it is comparing part year figures to finalised full year figures.

You can look at the weekly figures on the link the OP provided and see this quite clearly.

a reply to: carewemust

We all know these democrats pushing for lockdowns also don't wear a mask when the cameras are off, and that the masks are for political theater, they've been busted on both of those. But the most important reason, however, was to push mail-in voting.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Wait 8 weeks and come back to this thread and I am willing to bet you money the OP is correct.

The OP is wrong. There are no facts that support his claims

The final death statistics will take a few months at minimum to come out, but all indications are 2020 will set a record high of total deaths and life expectancy is about 3 years shorter as a result of COVID.

US poised for deadliest year ever as pandemic cuts life expectancy, experts say

The US is on track to record its deadliest year in history, largely due to the pandemic, as public health experts say overall life expectancy for 2020 could drop by as much as three years.

Final mortality data for this year will not be available for months, but preliminary numbers suggest the country will see more than 3.2 million deaths this year. That would be the first time annual deaths have cracked 3 million and would make 2020 the deadliest year on record.

US deaths increase most years, so some annual rise in fatalities is expected. But the 2020 numbers are expected to amount to a jump of about 15%, which would mark the largest single-year percentage leap since 1918, when tens of thousands of US soldiers died in the first world war and hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the 1918 flu pandemic.

That said, despite all actual facts contradicting the OP, some just believe what they want to believe. The reality is the pandemic is real, and despite mitigation efforts, it has killed over 1 in 1000 in the US. That is per total population, NOT just those infected

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

I'm quoting the same source as the OP.

Just not as misleadingly.

The OP argument was based on comparing the "final" death numbers from two years.

The quote I posted from CDC was from October. I can't help you with what the CDC says.

However, you're rather desperately trying to set up a false dichotomy.

The release of the report we're referencing involves more, I'd guess, than just finalizing death totals.

You're trying to make it an either/or. It doesn't have to be.

Death totals for the previous year could be finalized in 8 weeks from today, and the report we've been citing from could take a lot longer to publish. The two are not dependent on each other.

You are trying to have it both ways...

You implied that it takes a year to finalize death numbers to call into question the OPs claim.

If that is the case, then how can we also then claim an excess death count YTD? Either we have estimates of deaths or we don't.

The fact the "final tally" may take a few months or a year is not unusual. However, that still does not change real time tracking may or may not be showing any real excess deaths.

I am neutral on this issue because I've seen both claims which is why my first post in thread was questioning the difference and how to reconcile the two data sets.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

I'm quoting the same source as the OP.

Just not as misleadingly.

The OP argument was based on comparing the "final" death numbers from two years.

The quote I posted from CDC was from October. I can't help you with what the CDC says.

However, you're rather desperately trying to set up a false dichotomy.

The release of the report we're referencing involves more, I'd guess, than just finalizing death totals.

You're trying to make it an either/or. It doesn't have to be.

Death totals for the previous year could be finalized in 8 weeks from today, and the report we've been citing from could take a lot longer to publish. The two are not dependent on each other.

You are trying to have it both ways...

You implied that it takes a year to finalize death numbers to call into question the OPs claim.

If that is the case, then how can we also then claim an excess death count YTD? Either we have estimates of deaths or we don't.

The fact the "final tally" may take a few months or a year is not unusual. However, that still does not change real time tracking may or may not be showing any real excess deaths.

I am neutral on this issue because I've seen both claims which is why my first post in thread was questioning the difference and how to reconcile the two data sets.

The tracking already shows excess deaths, look at The weekly numbers in the link on the OP.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: ScepticScot

Wait 8 weeks and come back to this thread and I am willing to bet you money the OP is correct.

You would be throwing your money away.

You can already see excess deaths looking at the weekly numbers in the link OP provided. He is trying to compare part year numbers against full year.

Yes but even with a delay I am still willing to bet that the deaths will be less than one percent larger than last year. i.e. statistically insignificant.

a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Yes but even with a delay I am still willing to bet that the deaths will be less than one percent larger than last year. i.e. statistically insignificant.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Even if previous weeks didn't increase ( and they will) the remaining 2 weeks alone will put it way above 1%.

a reply to: ScepticScot

*drum roll*
let's see!
Bookmarking this thread!

a reply to: Gothmog

Like others have pointed out, the numbers don’t get confirmed for quite some time.

So the numbers in the OP are equally inaccurate.

Funny how you don’t have a problem with the OP though, huh?

If they can tell us how many people have died each day from covid, pull a vaccine out of their hat in record time, and coordinate the shutdown of the planet they should be able to provide us with close numbers of TOTAL deaths this year.

Especially in first world countries.

This is no difference from the US election disaster.

We shouldn’t ask for data and be critical of it. We should just STFU and blindly follow the “experts”.

Which “experts” have ever been trustworthy in the past?

The ones that discovered the WMD in Iraq?
The ones that said the ice packs would be gone by now?
The ones that said that the WT Towers melted?
The ones that were debunked by the History Channel regarding Pearl Harbour?
The ones that said UFOs don’t exist?
The ones that said we would be hopelessly overpopulated by the year 2000?

I could go on but I think that’s enough to demonstrate that the “experts” aren’t so “expert”.

a reply to: carewemust

Please note that the pages you linked to call these figures "Provisional Death Counts". There is a reason for that.

The death figures are not instantaneous. They are compiled from death certificates submitted to the CDC via multiple medical data collection offices across the United States.

So, with only two weeks to go, there may be death certificate data that has not yet been submitted to the CDC.

Please read the small print disclaimers at the bottom of the posted pages which explain this fact.

BTW, the adjusted total deaths figure, from the posted web pages, for the year is currently 2,851,438. Obviously this is 15,905 more than the figure of 2,835,533 you posted just yesterday.

The fact that you have posted similarly incomplete figures in denial of the serious effects of COVID-19 on at least 5 separate occasions on ATS, and you have been appraised of why the posts were not correct, would indicate that either you have not understood what is going on, or that you are knowingly spreading misinformation in a traitorous disregard for the welfare and public safety of your fellow citizens.