Excess Death statistical methodology: CDC adds excess deaths by study area to total, but in areas with fewer excess deaths sets the figure to ZERO.
invite response
2021 Sep 27, 3:09pm 875 views 11 comments
Comments 1 - 11 of 11 Search these comments
2
DhammaStep
2021 Sep 27, 3:48pm
I'm not understanding the problem with this. If they have an estimate of "predicted deaths" that exists with an expected range, then the "actual deaths" fall into or below that range, wouldn't that mean there was no "excess" because the deaths were within the predicted range?
I'm not very clever though, so if someone could explain the importance of this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
I'm not very clever though, so if someone could explain the importance of this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
3
mell
2021 Sep 27, 4:19pm
DhammaStep says
It depends, it they simply take the average and con't count negatives but plug in zero, then overall excess deaths will appear higher than they are. That sounds like manipulation.
I'm not understanding the problem with this. If they have an estimate of "predicted deaths" that exists with an expected range, then the "actual deaths" fall into or below that range, wouldn't that mean there was no "excess" because the deaths were within the predicted range?
I'm not very clever though, so if someone could explain the importance of this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
It depends, it they simply take the average and con't count negatives but plug in zero, then overall excess deaths will appear higher than they are. That sounds like manipulation.
4
Patrick
2021 Sep 27, 4:56pm
Patrick
2021 Sep 27, 4:56pm
Bd6r says
Not sure you're seriously asking because it seems so obvious to me. My opinion of course is it is in the interests of the vaxx makers that death counts be inflated, so as to keep the fear going. The more fear there is, the easier people are to control and to herd into the very profitable vaxx-corral.
Interesting. Any thoughts as to why they do this?
Not sure you're seriously asking because it seems so obvious to me. My opinion of course is it is in the interests of the vaxx makers that death counts be inflated, so as to keep the fear going. The more fear there is, the easier people are to control and to herd into the very profitable vaxx-corral.
5
Onvacation
2021 Sep 27, 5:08pm
Onvacation
2021 Sep 27, 5:08pm
DhammaStep says
I think he's saying if the excess deaths are less than...
Oh fuck it Who cares.
HEADLINE: CDC STATISTICS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE AND MANIPULATED.
I'm not understanding the problem with this. If they have an estimate of "predicted deaths" that exists with an expected range, then the "actual deaths" fall into or below that range, wouldn't that mean there was no "excess" because the deaths were within the predicted range?
I think he's saying if the excess deaths are less than...
Oh fuck it Who cares.
HEADLINE: CDC STATISTICS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE AND MANIPULATED.
7
Onvacation
2021 Sep 27, 5:25pm
Onvacation
2021 Sep 27, 5:25pm
A majority of Covid deaths are and have been those with comorbidities the biggest one being old age. 95% of Covid deaths were people over 50; 78% were over 65. The masking's, lockdowns, and vaxxing are not saving the old people from this manmade virus.
8
DhammaStep
2021 Sep 27, 5:41pm
I think looking at the excess deaths percentage being zero is somewhat of a red herring. What I find more interesting and suspicious is that the fall/winter of 2019 had predicted deaths to be a higher threshold than the preceding year, thus no excess deaths until lockdown conveniently happened. Even though we all know COVID was in town before March 2020.
Again, I could be interpreting the data wrong because I'm a dumb dumb no good at maths.
Again, I could be interpreting the data wrong because I'm a dumb dumb no good at maths.
11
Automan Empire
2021 Sep 27, 6:08pm
Automan Empire
2021 Sep 27, 6:08pm
We might see the first waves of covid result in a spike of excess deaths, as it accelerates the demise of people with comorbidities. In the long term, I would expect a period after the initial waves to show a balancing reduction, as the remaining healthier population survives covid with far fewer deaths resulting. This would result in a higher "covid excess death rate" during the first say 2 years of the pandemic, then a balancing period of a few years with a below average "excess death rate" because Covid stole a bunch of the Reaper's unhealthy customers during the initial Covid wave.
DhammaStep says
The problem is cherry-picking the data set. Say for the sake of argument the testing groups are all the same size and distribution of demographics and risk factors. In a given week, some of the groups record fewer than average deaths. Other groups record greater than average numbers of deaths. Instead of deriving an overall average from ALL the groups, they are REWRITING THE DATA so that all groups with lower than average excess deaths are counted as AVERAGE BASELINE NUMBER OF DEATHS. Then, an average is calculated using this corrupted dataset where all values below a chosen value are rewritten to EQUAL the chosen value. The resulting calculation CAN ONLY PRODUCE AN AVERAGE HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL AVERAGE OF THE DATA ITSELF.
DhammaStep says
I'm not understanding the problem with this. If they have an estimate of "predicted deaths" that exists with an expected range,
The problem is cherry-picking the data set. Say for the sake of argument the testing groups are all the same size and distribution of demographics and risk factors. In a given week, some of the groups record fewer than average deaths. Other groups record greater than average numbers of deaths. Instead of deriving an overall average from ALL the groups, they are REWRITING THE DATA so that all groups with lower than average excess deaths are counted as AVERAGE BASELINE NUMBER OF DEATHS. Then, an average is calculated using this corrupted dataset where all values below a chosen value are rewritten to EQUAL the chosen value. The resulting calculation CAN ONLY PRODUCE AN AVERAGE HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL AVERAGE OF THE DATA ITSELF.
I found something very interesting when looking into excess death statistics on the CDC's website. According to a footnote, excess deaths are added up by reporting area weekly and added to a cumulative running total of excess deaths. However, in areas where excess deaths fall BELOW the historical and expected average, they plug in the number ZERO for excess deaths.
Therefore, any "Excess deaths" statistic you see is artificially high, because they're openly only counting areas where excess deaths are above average.
Here's the exact wording of their accounting sorcery:
Number of excess deaths: A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero.