4 ms·

Interesting, Johns Hopkins said they deleted the study because it "was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic",

Interesting, Johns Hopkins said they deleted the study because it "was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic", and not because it was incorrect. Regardless of if it's correct, I think this has become such a political issue in the US that the American left would be very hard pressed to publicly accept this study's claims. I really hope that statisticians are able to look past their own personal convictions and look at possible ways our assumptions may have been incorrect. (Personally speaking, I wear a mask, I don't think the coronavirus is a giant conspiracy by the lizard people etc. but I do recognize that the modern scientific community has a tendency to think one way, and then remain cemented in that way for a while.)

BFatts 6y ago
Why would the American Left need to? Look, it's obvious how easy this is to manipulate. Tell people that every year people die at higher rates of these four causes, but in 2020 we don't see that happen but the Covid numbers are where we saw the increase. So covid is really just no big deal and Trump was always right." Am I getting the gist of where you're going with this? That the American right was always correct? Laughable. What this says is that in 2020 they didn't see the same numbers that they've always seen. Heart disease death counts aren't as high as they've always been. But wow, take a look at covid - those numbers are WAY up. To the observer who wants to say that covid isn't bad and is just the left's fever dream, this is the proof in the pudding. To the intelligent, highly educated left, this says "Covid is the biggest cause of death in 2020. The right is just looking for something else to point at because Trump said so." I believe the article is saying something, but it's not saying the right thing. Covid, in 2020, has been the biggest killer. Trying to identify an alternative cause is just wishful thinking.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quotemstr 6y ago
It's become sadly common to suppress true research results because gatekeepers are afraid of the wrong people using them. It's gotten so bad that when I see an instance of egregious academic censorship, I think to myself "Yep. That's probably true.". At both society and personal levels, the truth is always the best policy. Suppressing the truth, even for an ostensibly good reason, never ends well. Maybe there's something to the censored article. Maybe there isn't. But whenever I see heavy handed censorship, I have to ask myself, "is there something here?"
- eesmith 6y ago
  There absolutely is a general issue about suppressing "true research results", as with government scientists who have been forbidden from speaking when that research opposes the interests of politicians (for one example, "Government Scientist Blocked from Talking About Climate and Wildfires" at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/government-scientist-blocked-from-talking-about-climate-and-wildfires/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/government-scient... ). However, this doesn't appear to be true search result. If it is indeed an erroneous conclusion published in a newsletter by JH students, and people implied ("Johns Hopkins published a study") that it was actual research result published by JH staff, then is there anything JH can do to suppress falsehoods that wouldn't be interpreted by the uninformed as heavy handed censorship?
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    Why not rebut the study at all? A free society doesn't "suppress falsehoods": it rebuts them.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      There's no study to rebut. We're talking about something published by a student in an undergraduate newspaper. The information I've looked at is clearly wrong, as I've highlighted elsewhere in these comments. I used "suppress" because you wrote "suppress true research results" - given your qualifiers, I assumed you thought suppression was appropriate for other contexts. For example, isn't retracting a paper a way suppress the propagation of egregiously wrong research results?
    - holyavengerone 6y ago
      They clearly have debunked the original article that was published here: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19 https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-... (including a copy of the original article), saying: "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." That's rather clear and unequivocal. Reading that, in conjunction with the original article and other science papers, it appears clear that none of that minimizes in any way the impact of the pandemic if you know how to read those sources properly. That is apparently not the case for everyone.
ykevinator 6y ago
You cannot choose science when it suits you but faith when it does not. Atheists are the only people qualified to discuss the American left's receptivity to science, because the American right's dual belief system (faith plus science) disqualifies them, as they have said out loud that they believe in the supernatural. Therefore if you are a part of the right lamenting the lefts refusal to consider the study, you are disqualified, respectfully, as you are from all critique of all receptivity to all studies because you overtly believe in the supernatural. If you are a conservative atheist, I am all ears. I am absolutely receptive to the study being true, but that begs the question, how can both the study be true and the world scientific leaders have a consensus that there is not only net new death, but significant net new death due to covid? What would explain the discrepancy? A well run conspiracy? I ask not in mockery but I genuinely want to know what explains the difference?

BFatts 6y ago

Why would the American Left need to? Look, it's obvious how easy this is to manipulate. Tell people that every year people die at higher rates of these four causes, but in 2020 we don't see that happen but the Covid numbers are where we saw the increase. So covid is really just no big deal and Trump was always right." Am I getting the gist of where you're going with this? That the American right was always correct? Laughable. What this says is that in 2020 they didn't see the same numbers that they've always seen. Heart disease death counts aren't as high as they've always been. But wow, take a look at covid - those numbers are WAY up. To the observer who wants to say that covid isn't bad and is just the left's fever dream, this is the proof in the pudding. To the intelligent, highly educated left, this says "Covid is the biggest cause of death in 2020. The right is just looking for something else to point at because Trump said so." I believe the article is saying something, but it's not saying the right thing. Covid, in 2020, has been the biggest killer. Trying to identify an alternative cause is just wishful thinking.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

quotemstr 6y ago

It's become sadly common to suppress true research results because gatekeepers are afraid of the wrong people using them. It's gotten so bad that when I see an instance of egregious academic censorship, I think to myself "Yep. That's probably true.". At both society and personal levels, the truth is always the best policy. Suppressing the truth, even for an ostensibly good reason, never ends well. Maybe there's something to the censored article. Maybe there isn't. But whenever I see heavy handed censorship, I have to ask myself, "is there something here?"

eesmith 6y ago
There absolutely is a general issue about suppressing "true research results", as with government scientists who have been forbidden from speaking when that research opposes the interests of politicians (for one example, "Government Scientist Blocked from Talking About Climate and Wildfires" at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/government-scientist-blocked-from-talking-about-climate-and-wildfires/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/government-scient... ). However, this doesn't appear to be true search result. If it is indeed an erroneous conclusion published in a newsletter by JH students, and people implied ("Johns Hopkins published a study") that it was actual research result published by JH staff, then is there anything JH can do to suppress falsehoods that wouldn't be interpreted by the uninformed as heavy handed censorship?
- quotemstr 6y ago
  Why not rebut the study at all? A free society doesn't "suppress falsehoods": it rebuts them.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    There's no study to rebut. We're talking about something published by a student in an undergraduate newspaper. The information I've looked at is clearly wrong, as I've highlighted elsewhere in these comments. I used "suppress" because you wrote "suppress true research results" - given your qualifiers, I assumed you thought suppression was appropriate for other contexts. For example, isn't retracting a paper a way suppress the propagation of egregiously wrong research results?
  - holyavengerone 6y ago
    They clearly have debunked the original article that was published here: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19 https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-... (including a copy of the original article), saying: "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." That's rather clear and unequivocal. Reading that, in conjunction with the original article and other science papers, it appears clear that none of that minimizes in any way the impact of the pandemic if you know how to read those sources properly. That is apparently not the case for everyone.

ykevinator 6y ago

You cannot choose science when it suits you but faith when it does not. Atheists are the only people qualified to discuss the American left's receptivity to science, because the American right's dual belief system (faith plus science) disqualifies them, as they have said out loud that they believe in the supernatural. Therefore if you are a part of the right lamenting the lefts refusal to consider the study, you are disqualified, respectfully, as you are from all critique of all receptivity to all studies because you overtly believe in the supernatural. If you are a conservative atheist, I am all ears. I am absolutely receptive to the study being true, but that begs the question, how can both the study be true and the world scientific leaders have a consensus that there is not only net new death, but significant net new death due to covid? What would explain the discrepancy? A well run conspiracy? I ask not in mockery but I genuinely want to know what explains the difference?