4 ms·

This is apparently the result of an "assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program" downloading the CDC data and playing with it.

This is apparently the result of an "assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program" downloading the CDC data and playing with it. It's not even a study, it's just someone putting together some graphs. It's not clear that they have any experience in interpreting this sort of data, which is probably important. Random economists poking around datasets they don't understand have a habit of coming to weird conclusions that disappear when looked at by subject matter experts. I'm not sure it even counts as a study, where was it published? Is there a preprint somewhere? Is it just a PowerPoint presentation?

URfejk 6y ago
This is true, but that again someone had to approve this before it was put up on their site. That is what any serious institution would do.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  It's a student paper, the author of the piece appears to be a neuroscience undergrad... I'm sure they're a fine student journalist but it's not exactly peer review.
  - TigeriusKirk 6y ago
    Now that you're firmly and repeatedly on record being skeptical of the author, what do you think is wrong about the content?
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      I don't know, there's no paper, it's just powerpoint slides. I have previously poked around NYC-area death statistics and it looks like 1) a massive spike in deaths by any cause that looks like several 9/11s followed by 2) a regression to the usual rate of deaths once COVID was largely brought to heel in the summer months. I can't imagine that the total number of deaths in NYC this year could possibly be the same as in 2019. But I'm not an expert. Ed: glancing over the CDC statistics, when COVID-attributed deaths go up, all-cause mortality goes up, too... by approximately the same amount. If a large proportion of those COVID deaths were mislabeled heart disease deaths, why is that? I made these graphs with the same CDC data: https://imgur.com/a/YejafCE https://imgur.com/a/YejafCE And of course, there's the CDC's own dashboard on excess deaths, which lets you slice this more finely. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
    - eesmith 6y ago
      What do you think is wrong with the CDC information https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm ? The charts "Weekly number of deaths (from all causes)" shows it's a big deal. Or, select the dashboard "Excess deaths with and without COVID-19" and see that the number of deaths without COVID is pretty close to the expected number of deaths, and not a drop that would compensate for the COVID deaths. You can also see that while the linked-to site claims "The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths.", the CDC writes: > For example, in some cases, COVID-19 may have contributed to the death, but the underlying cause of death was another cause, such as terminal cancer. For the majority of deaths where COVID-19 is reported on the death certificate (approximately 95%), COVID-19 is selected as the underlying cause of death. Furthermore, the CDC write "deaths from all causes excluding COVID-19 were also estimated. Comparing these two sets of estimates — excess deaths with and without COVID-19 — can provide insight about how many excess deaths are identified as due to COVID-19, and how many excess deaths are reported as due to other causes of death." Since the surface-level description contradicts easily available evidence, why do you believe the rest of the details are any more meaningful?
riskneutral 6y ago
Your comments are merely ad hominem attacks, and have no place in rational discourse. There is no priesthood of "subject matter experts" who are the only ones capable of studying and interpreting mortality data from the CDC website. There is a very clear anomaly here, that all non-COVID causes of death have reduced at the same time and by the same amount as COVID deaths have increased in 2020 (as compared with all previous years in available history). This is indeed a very interesting observation that requires explanation, rather than suppression by "experts."
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Ad hominem is simply a judgment made on credibility. One does the same thing when you look for a doctor. It’s not that an unofficial doctor has no merit, but rather that they have negative credibility. Just how valuable is it to be a credible person, especially if you want to make an impact in the world, such as by being a doctor or researcher?
- roywiggins 6y ago
  The headline was making an appeal to authority ("Johns Hopkins published a study..."). I was responding to that. Johns Hopkins didn't publish a study, a Johns Hopkins student newspaper published some slides. It's not an ad hominem to try to deflate an appeal to authority by pointing out that the authority is not all it's cracked up to be, and that the extent of the supposed study is some charts.
  - evanelias 6y ago
    Just to add to this, it was the general-purpose undergraduate newspaper (the News-Letter), posting an interview with the author of this "study". The News-Letter is not a scientific or economic journal, and the staff don't validate or endorse the academic accuracy of this type of content. Additionally, the Applied Economics master’s degree program is an adult extension program located on a satellite campus. Its student admission requirements [1] are substantially less rigorous than a traditional master's program at one of JHU's main schools. I agree the headline here is completely misleading, as it attempts to tie the content to other schools/divisions of JHU that have a much more solid academic reputation. [1] https://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/graduate/ms-applied-economics/admission-application-requirements/ https://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/graduate/ms-applied-econo...
tboyd47 6y ago
If that’s the case, why wouldn’t they invite a subject matter expert to debunk this analysis and clarify why the numbers seem to suggest there is no pandemic? Why take the video down?
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Who said the video was taken down? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKJN61aflI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKJN61aflI

URfejk 6y ago

This is true, but that again someone had to approve this before it was put up on their site. That is what any serious institution would do.

roywiggins 6y ago
It's a student paper, the author of the piece appears to be a neuroscience undergrad... I'm sure they're a fine student journalist but it's not exactly peer review.
- TigeriusKirk 6y ago
  Now that you're firmly and repeatedly on record being skeptical of the author, what do you think is wrong about the content?
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    I don't know, there's no paper, it's just powerpoint slides. I have previously poked around NYC-area death statistics and it looks like 1) a massive spike in deaths by any cause that looks like several 9/11s followed by 2) a regression to the usual rate of deaths once COVID was largely brought to heel in the summer months. I can't imagine that the total number of deaths in NYC this year could possibly be the same as in 2019. But I'm not an expert. Ed: glancing over the CDC statistics, when COVID-attributed deaths go up, all-cause mortality goes up, too... by approximately the same amount. If a large proportion of those COVID deaths were mislabeled heart disease deaths, why is that? I made these graphs with the same CDC data: https://imgur.com/a/YejafCE https://imgur.com/a/YejafCE And of course, there's the CDC's own dashboard on excess deaths, which lets you slice this more finely. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
  - eesmith 6y ago
    What do you think is wrong with the CDC information https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm ? The charts "Weekly number of deaths (from all causes)" shows it's a big deal. Or, select the dashboard "Excess deaths with and without COVID-19" and see that the number of deaths without COVID is pretty close to the expected number of deaths, and not a drop that would compensate for the COVID deaths. You can also see that while the linked-to site claims "The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths.", the CDC writes: > For example, in some cases, COVID-19 may have contributed to the death, but the underlying cause of death was another cause, such as terminal cancer. For the majority of deaths where COVID-19 is reported on the death certificate (approximately 95%), COVID-19 is selected as the underlying cause of death. Furthermore, the CDC write "deaths from all causes excluding COVID-19 were also estimated. Comparing these two sets of estimates — excess deaths with and without COVID-19 — can provide insight about how many excess deaths are identified as due to COVID-19, and how many excess deaths are reported as due to other causes of death." Since the surface-level description contradicts easily available evidence, why do you believe the rest of the details are any more meaningful?

riskneutral 6y ago

Your comments are merely ad hominem attacks, and have no place in rational discourse. There is no priesthood of "subject matter experts" who are the only ones capable of studying and interpreting mortality data from the CDC website. There is a very clear anomaly here, that all non-COVID causes of death have reduced at the same time and by the same amount as COVID deaths have increased in 2020 (as compared with all previous years in available history). This is indeed a very interesting observation that requires explanation, rather than suppression by "experts."

threatofrain 6y ago
Ad hominem is simply a judgment made on credibility. One does the same thing when you look for a doctor. It’s not that an unofficial doctor has no merit, but rather that they have negative credibility. Just how valuable is it to be a credible person, especially if you want to make an impact in the world, such as by being a doctor or researcher?
roywiggins 6y ago
The headline was making an appeal to authority ("Johns Hopkins published a study..."). I was responding to that. Johns Hopkins didn't publish a study, a Johns Hopkins student newspaper published some slides. It's not an ad hominem to try to deflate an appeal to authority by pointing out that the authority is not all it's cracked up to be, and that the extent of the supposed study is some charts.
- evanelias 6y ago
  Just to add to this, it was the general-purpose undergraduate newspaper (the News-Letter), posting an interview with the author of this "study". The News-Letter is not a scientific or economic journal, and the staff don't validate or endorse the academic accuracy of this type of content. Additionally, the Applied Economics master’s degree program is an adult extension program located on a satellite campus. Its student admission requirements [1] are substantially less rigorous than a traditional master's program at one of JHU's main schools. I agree the headline here is completely misleading, as it attempts to tie the content to other schools/divisions of JHU that have a much more solid academic reputation. [1] https://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/graduate/ms-applied-economics/admission-application-requirements/ https://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/graduate/ms-applied-econo...

tboyd47 6y ago

If that’s the case, why wouldn’t they invite a subject matter expert to debunk this analysis and clarify why the numbers seem to suggest there is no pandemic? Why take the video down?

roywiggins 6y ago
Who said the video was taken down? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKJN61aflI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKJN61aflI