3 ms·

Perhaps this should be added to discussion: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19 https://www.jhunewsletter

Perhaps this should be added to discussion: 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-... 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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
elhudy 6y ago
Article One: >After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September Addendum: > This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per age category" and "total raw death count"?
- espadrine 6y ago
  > > This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. > Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per age category" and "total raw death count"? The article has multiple items of incorrect analysis. One is that having constant percentages of deaths per age category, does not show that the death count is itself constant. A separate one is that the claim that “total death numbers are not above normal death numbers” is factually incorrect. While reading the link, and before reading the retractation, I made myself these exact remarks. One thing I saw in the article, which the retractation implies, but does not emphasize, is that this assertion: > Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 … is a non-sequitur. The fact that a large number of deaths has been reached in the past, does not imply that it being reached with COVID-19 is normal.
user-the-name 6y ago
Yes, this link extremely dishonestly links to the Google cache version of the article, specifically in order to not show that it was retracted due to being misleading and inaccurate. This is 100% malicious misinformation and should not be posted anywhere.
- Kosirich 6y ago
  Yes, that prompt me to try to search for it as it was 'odd' if not suspicious. Further more, if the OP wanted to post it as a way of promoting discussion around covid19 death tracking, he could have used the link with the watermark 'retracted' that is available from the rebuttal article.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

elhudy 6y ago

Article One: >After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September Addendum: > This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per age category" and "total raw death count"?

espadrine 6y ago
> > This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. > Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per age category" and "total raw death count"? The article has multiple items of incorrect analysis. One is that having constant percentages of deaths per age category, does not show that the death count is itself constant. A separate one is that the claim that “total death numbers are not above normal death numbers” is factually incorrect. While reading the link, and before reading the retractation, I made myself these exact remarks. One thing I saw in the article, which the retractation implies, but does not emphasize, is that this assertion: > Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 … is a non-sequitur. The fact that a large number of deaths has been reached in the past, does not imply that it being reached with COVID-19 is normal.

user-the-name 6y ago

Yes, this link extremely dishonestly links to the Google cache version of the article, specifically in order to not show that it was retracted due to being misleading and inaccurate. This is 100% malicious misinformation and should not be posted anywhere.

Kosirich 6y ago
Yes, that prompt me to try to search for it as it was 'odd' if not suspicious. Further more, if the OP wanted to post it as a way of promoting discussion around covid19 death tracking, he could have used the link with the watermark 'retracted' that is available from the rebuttal article.