4 ms·

> In a revision to a technical paper on their methods, researchers cut Germany’s pandemic-related deaths estimate by 37%, pulling its excess death rate below th

by ls15 4y ago

> In a revision to a technical paper on their methods, researchers cut Germany’s pandemic-related deaths estimate by 37%, pulling its excess death rate below those of the United Kingdom and Spain1. As a German, this was obvious to me when it happened, but the vaccinism was so deep, that anyone who dared to question the status quo was treated like a traitor.

seattle_spring 4y ago
What exactly was "obvious"? That there were somewhat less extra deaths than expected (though still a lot)? How was it obvious?
- ls15 4y ago
  It was not socially accepted to ask if someone died with Covid or from Covid. To me it is obvious that this alone already leads to wildly inaccurate data. There have been incentive structures for hospitals to make their Covid numbers larger than they actually were. There clearly was a bias towards seeing Covid as severe as it can possibly be seen. Not a big surprise for me to see afterwards that the numbers were indeed exaggerated. Tim Röhn's investigations provide some deeper insight (German): https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn For example Hamburg put all patients were vaccination status was unknown into the unvaccinated group. This clearly makes no sense and was corrected late, but things like these made the official numbers. They claimed 90% of infections were affecting unvaccinated people. As a consequence politicians started to call it a "Pandemic of the unvaccinated". The real numbers were these: - 63,2 % Impfstatus unbekannt (unknown) - 22,5 % Geimpfte (vaccinated) - 14,3 % Ungeimpfte (unvaccinated) https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn/status/1471802903191076870#m https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn/status/1471802903191076870#m The deeper you look, the more you find out, how many numbers were estimated, model-based, outdated, skewed by weird incentives or otherwise incorrect instead of just plain simple counts, based on common criteria, like they appear to be at first glance.
  - TurkishPoptart 4y ago
    Important to know. I think it's obvious what the reason was - stoking fear in the populace.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > It was not socially accepted to ask if someone died with Covid or from Covid. Except this had nothing whatsoever to do with the estimation errors or the correction in the WHO study. Not to mention that there's nothing uniquely German about your complaint. Germany was revised downward. Sweden was revised upward. The rest of the countries remained the same. What does "socially accepted" even mean? There seems to be literally nothing in society that isn't the subject of some debate.
lapcat 4y ago
> anyone who dared to question the status quo was treated like a traitor. What is "the status quo"? A study was released recently. People pointed out some errors in the study. The errors were acknowledged. Where's the "traitor" part here?
- ls15 4y ago
  I am referring to the way, data was handled in Germany, during the pandemic and how there was an extreme bias to make public health authorities the sole arbiters of truth, not so much how this particular study was handled. I now realize that I wasn't clear/ontopic enough.

by ls15 4y ago

seattle_spring 4y ago

What exactly was "obvious"? That there were somewhat less extra deaths than expected (though still a lot)? How was it obvious?

ls15 4y ago
It was not socially accepted to ask if someone died with Covid or from Covid. To me it is obvious that this alone already leads to wildly inaccurate data. There have been incentive structures for hospitals to make their Covid numbers larger than they actually were. There clearly was a bias towards seeing Covid as severe as it can possibly be seen. Not a big surprise for me to see afterwards that the numbers were indeed exaggerated. Tim Röhn's investigations provide some deeper insight (German): https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn For example Hamburg put all patients were vaccination status was unknown into the unvaccinated group. This clearly makes no sense and was corrected late, but things like these made the official numbers. They claimed 90% of infections were affecting unvaccinated people. As a consequence politicians started to call it a "Pandemic of the unvaccinated". The real numbers were these: - 63,2 % Impfstatus unbekannt (unknown) - 22,5 % Geimpfte (vaccinated) - 14,3 % Ungeimpfte (unvaccinated) https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn/status/1471802903191076870#m https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn/status/1471802903191076870#m The deeper you look, the more you find out, how many numbers were estimated, model-based, outdated, skewed by weird incentives or otherwise incorrect instead of just plain simple counts, based on common criteria, like they appear to be at first glance.
- TurkishPoptart 4y ago
  Important to know. I think it's obvious what the reason was - stoking fear in the populace.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > It was not socially accepted to ask if someone died with Covid or from Covid. Except this had nothing whatsoever to do with the estimation errors or the correction in the WHO study. Not to mention that there's nothing uniquely German about your complaint. Germany was revised downward. Sweden was revised upward. The rest of the countries remained the same. What does "socially accepted" even mean? There seems to be literally nothing in society that isn't the subject of some debate.

lapcat 4y ago

> anyone who dared to question the status quo was treated like a traitor. What is "the status quo"? A study was released recently. People pointed out some errors in the study. The errors were acknowledged. Where's the "traitor" part here?

ls15 4y ago
I am referring to the way, data was handled in Germany, during the pandemic and how there was an extreme bias to make public health authorities the sole arbiters of truth, not so much how this particular study was handled. I now realize that I wasn't clear/ontopic enough.