4 ms·

No. Read it again. Some are. Some aren't. We don't know what percent fall in each category.

by jtbayly 6y ago

ouid 6y ago
How about you read the actual JAMA paper, and stop spreading your uninformed wishful thinking.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  How about you read the paper... Third sentence: > Moreover, restrictions imposed by the pandemic (eg, stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (eg, drug overdoses). Summary: >Large increases in mortality from heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases were observed. Further investigation is required to determine the extent to which these trends represent nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19 or secondary pandemic mortality caused by disruptions in society that diminished or delayed access to health care and the social determinants of health (eg, jobs, income, food security).
  - ouid 6y ago
    You are referring to the article written about the paper, whcih is engaging, at best, in wishful thinking, and at worst, propaganda. A doubling in the number of deaths associated with "diabetes" is absolutely not consistent with not seeing a doctor for your diabetes for 4 months. It's not like you aren't checking your blood sugar or aren't getting insulin. No, indeed the only reasonable explanation for the sudden doubling of diabetes related deaths, is that they are actually the result of covid. 35% is not inconsistent with the false negative rates on testing, which is precisely the reason that we are measuring excess deaths as an estimate of the number of people killed by covid.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      No, These quotes are directly from the academic publication[1]. You either have not read the publication or are gaslighting. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768086 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768086
- jtbayly 6y ago
  I'm not sure how it's wishful thinking to say we don't know something. I wish we did know it, but we don't, in spite of your claims.
- abstractbarista 6y ago
  That's really not helpful. They reiterate what the paper says.

No. Read it again. Some are. Some aren't. We don't know what percent fall in each category.

ouid 6y ago

How about you read the actual JAMA paper, and stop spreading your uninformed wishful thinking.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
How about you read the paper... Third sentence: > Moreover, restrictions imposed by the pandemic (eg, stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (eg, drug overdoses). Summary: >Large increases in mortality from heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases were observed. Further investigation is required to determine the extent to which these trends represent nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19 or secondary pandemic mortality caused by disruptions in society that diminished or delayed access to health care and the social determinants of health (eg, jobs, income, food security).
- ouid 6y ago
  You are referring to the article written about the paper, whcih is engaging, at best, in wishful thinking, and at worst, propaganda. A doubling in the number of deaths associated with "diabetes" is absolutely not consistent with not seeing a doctor for your diabetes for 4 months. It's not like you aren't checking your blood sugar or aren't getting insulin. No, indeed the only reasonable explanation for the sudden doubling of diabetes related deaths, is that they are actually the result of covid. 35% is not inconsistent with the false negative rates on testing, which is precisely the reason that we are measuring excess deaths as an estimate of the number of people killed by covid.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    No, These quotes are directly from the academic publication[1]. You either have not read the publication or are gaslighting. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768086 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768086
jtbayly 6y ago
I'm not sure how it's wishful thinking to say we don't know something. I wish we did know it, but we don't, in spite of your claims.
abstractbarista 6y ago
That's really not helpful. They reiterate what the paper says.