231 replies to this topic

[gamesguru]

There's a strong association between Parkinsons and viral load, chronic fatigue (CFS), cardiac failure, and a host of other things you don't want.  There's plenty of reasons to still approach the situation cautiously

 

Risk of never fully recovering after coronavirus ‘very real,’ scientists say

Scientists are only starting to grasp the vast array of health problems caused by the novel coronavirus, some of which may have lingering effects on patients and health systems for years to come, according to doctors and infectious disease experts.

 

Besides the respiratory issues that leave patients gasping for breath, the virus that causes COVID-19 attacks many organ systems, in some cases causing catastrophic damage.

 

“We thought this was only a respiratory virus. Turns out, it goes after the pancreas. It goes after the heart. It goes after the liver, the brain, the kidney and other organs. We didn’t appreciate that in the beginning,” said Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California.

 

In addition to respiratory distress, patients with COVID-19 can experience blood clotting disorders that can lead to strokes, and extreme inflammation that attacks multiple organ systems. The virus can also cause neurological complications that range from headache, dizziness and loss of taste or smell to seizures and confusion.

 

And recovery can be slow, incomplete and costly, with a huge impact on quality of life.

[osris]

 
Agreed, the official death count numbers are likely under reported, and a more reliable figure is the excess death figure. Do you know what excess death means? If you don't look it up, because it's important to this discussion. 
 
So the true coronavirus deaths may be 60% more than those reported. Which indicates that coronavirus is more dangerous than the death figures indicate.




 

 

Your quote from that coronavirus denier website makes no sense, as it confuses antibody testing with death counts.

 

Do you know what an antibody test is? Do you know how these tests work? 

 

Where is your evidence that the death numbers have been under-reported, given that the testing methodology, as has been noted earlier, has produced many false positives, and the UK department of health has admitted that many of these false positive results had been double-counted in error?

 

The “excess death” aspect is just confirmation bias on your part. There is no evidence for it.

 

Your use of the phrase “coronavirus denier website” is hostile and irrational. You seem to be saying that any site that is not to your liking has the inability to quote from primary or secondary sources that are reliable.

 

By the by, just saw this:

 

"It has taken time, but experts now wonder if recent bad flu seasons are, in part, the direct result of mass vaccination; herd immunity may now be weaker, and some cases may be caused by the vaccine, via “antibody-dependent enhancement of infection."”

 

https://www.bmj.com/.../bmj.k2562/rr-0

 

A bit off topic, though.  

[Hip]

Just now it took you amazing 4 month to acknowledge for the first time, that there are indeed 3 million yearly influenza and pneumonia deaths. 

 

I saw your pneumonia comment before, but thought it was too flawed to respond to. And I usually don't respond when people get their info from pseudoscience or conspiracy theory websites, because those people have usually lost their grip on reality to begin with, so they are not amenable to rational discussion. 

 

 

 

Pneumonia is caused by a variety of pathogens, including bacteria and fungi, and there is no easy way to prevent all those pneumonia deaths. It is often acquired in hospital, due to all the bugs moving around in a hospital. So it's not something that can be easily controlled.

 

Likewise, there are around 10 million deaths per year to cancer, but no easy way at present to reduce those either. So what you cannot control, you unfortunately have to let happen.

 

But we can control the coronavirus deaths, and so this is a different story. 

 

 

 

Are you sure you are not getting cabin fever, due to the claustrophobia of lockdown? You sound desperate to promote your view that lockdown is not necessary.

[osris]

Your post post was simply a compilation of mainly Mickey Mouse sources.

 

If I wanted to know what Mickey Mouse thinks about coronavirus, I'd take a trip to Disneyland.

 

It is a pity that this discussion has reduced your arguments to this level. 

[osris]

 

I do sometimes get very mild psychosis symptoms, 

 

This could be affecting how you debate facts etc. Just saying.

[osris]

 

Your conservative calculation isn't even prepublished, nor peer reviewed. Same garbage like Fergusson's stuff. All mental fabrications of unproven speculations shown by now multiple times wrong. 

 

 

 

Spot on about Ferguson. See:

 

 

"Ferguson was responsible for the modelling of a response to Covid–19. His model was recommended by  WHO and passed into policy with no scrutiny. [His] prediction of 500,000 deaths became the foundation of Boris Johnson's U-turn from herd immunity."

 

https://www.ukcolumn...ovid19-part-one

 

 

"While some understood that Ferguson later reduced his mortality calculations, he actually doubled down on his projections on Twitter, insisting that without drastic lockdown measures being taken, the numbers would be even higher."

 

https://www.ukcolumn...ovid19-part-one

 

 

Neil Ferguson's modelling code revealed as unscientific

 

"... makes the code unusable for scientific purposes, given that a key part of the scientific method is the ability to replicate results. Without replication, the findings might not be real at all."

 

https://lockdownscep...ergusons-model/

 

 

"Imperial College’s modelling ... which helped persuade the UK and other countries to bring in draconian lockdowns ... could go down in history as the most devastating software mistake of all time, in terms of economic costs and lives lost."

 

https://www.telegrap...ftware-mistake/

[osris]

We also noticed 2 further members, mind and dorian, starting to interact. But soon disappeared due to members like you never answering direct questions, but always telling ignorant lies about anyone not your opinion.

 

A thread is nothing. Complying to no ethical standards, as you again and again knowingly do by adhominems and disparaging contiously, but not given any reasonable argument in exchange, will of course will have long-term ramification do your life only.

 

True, they don't address specific questions, and use diversion tactics and other fallacious ways of arguing.  As well as relentlessly quoting official death count numbers like a parrot.

[Hip]

Where is your evidence that the death numbers have been under-reported, given that the testing methodology, as has been noted earlier, has produced many false positives, and the UK department of health has admitted that many of these false positive results had been double-counted in error?

 

The “excess death” aspect is just confirmation bias on your part. There is no evidence for it.

 
Have you not seen the excess death data? The excess death shows more deaths that the official coronavirus death figures. And we know that coronavirus has been under reported in the UK, because for a long time deaths that occurred out of hospital were not being included in official figures. 
 
What do you proposed has suddenly caused all this excess death? The excess death is now declining, along with the general decline in coronavirus cases.



 

It is a pity that this discussion has reduced your arguments to this level. 

 

What do you mean "reduced to this level"? If you are quoting from Mickey Mouse sources, this must to pointed out. Perhaps you have never discussed a scientific subject before. I do it all the time, and the first thing you do in scientific debate is point out dubious sources. 

 
 

This could be affecting how you debate facts etc. Just saying.

 

I agree, very much so. In fact when I first started to experience mild psychosis symptoms around 20 years ago, I developed a sudden fascination with conspiracy theory. So I have personal experience on how mental health issues on the psychosis spectrum can lead to a propensity to wallowing in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. 

 

The human condition is a frail one, and at any stage in our lives, we can be hit with changes in mental state that result in poor judgement or strange beliefs. 

 

Fortunately these mental issues on the psychosis spectrum that cause orientation to conspiracy theory are no longer affecting me, and having recovered from my period of wallowing in conspiracy theories, I am now very aware of others online who might be suffering some psychosis spectrum mental distortions, however mild, which is manifested by their interest in fringe conspiracy material. There are many studies that have linked belief in conspiracy theories to schizotypy, which is on the psychosis spectrum. 

 

Many people are not even aware that they have schizotypy, as they just assume their (distorted) worldview is the correct one.   

Edited by Hip, 28 June 2020 - 03:21 PM.

[Hip]

Osris, you are repeatedly quoting from conspiracy theory websites, the https://www.ukcolumn.org website you quoted being yet another one which mediabiasfactcheck.com classifies as strong on conspiracy theories. 

 

Quoting one conspiracy theory website might be a coincidence, but you have repeatedly quoted from lots of different conspiracy theory websites, which suggests you might be one of these people who perceive the world through the prism of conspiracy theory.

Edited by Hip, 28 June 2020 - 05:03 PM.

[Hip]

If anyone finds themselves strangely attracted to conspiracy theory literature, you might like to take this quick online schizotypal personality test, to see if you might have schizotypy. 

Edited by Hip, 28 June 2020 - 05:11 PM.

[Hip]

There's a strong association between Parkinsons and viral load, chronic fatigue (CFS), cardiac failure, and a host of other things you don't want.  There's plenty of reasons to still approach the situation cautiously 

 

Definitely. Nearly all the chronic diseases that afflict humanity are associated with common infectious pathogens in circulation, and some researchers think these diseases are caused by these pathogens.

 

See: List of Chronic Human Diseases Linked to Infectious Pathogens. 

 

As this new coronavirus starts to circulate in the human race, it will very likely start triggering chronic diseases.

 

 

 

Infectious pathogens are the oldest enemy of mankind. Over our history, pathogens have killed more humans than any other factor. 

Edited by Hip, 28 June 2020 - 05:58 PM.

[pamojja]

But we can control the coronavirus deaths, and so this is a different story.

 
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
 
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
 
Alice in Wonderland.

 

 

Are you sure you are not getting cabin fever, due to the claustrophobia of lockdown? You sound desperate to promote your view that lockdown is not necessary.

 
How could I? Austria never made it illegal to go for a walk or for sports in the open, face-masks only required for shopping and public transport (always meeting some who didn't comply, no prosecution on trains), all fines because of private gatherings have been repealed. This mini-lockdown already ended 11 weeks ago.
 
Beside, I'm very experienced in seclusion. Spent 2 years in a Burmese forest meditation monastery, when still young.
 
 
 

this quick online schizotypal personality test,

 
Damn it, took all the tests and no trace of any disorder - so f**king boringly 'normal'. Even my IQ is only better than 68% of people, which might suggest I might end up as naive as the vast majority, in believing everything mainstream says without double checking..

 

 

 

I am very happy to talk about all the mental health issues I have, which include depression, anhedonia, blunted affect, ADHD, generalized anxiety disorder and a few more, especially if it helps other who might be suffering the same symptoms.

 

Oops, now I'm also getting forgetful. Just remembered your mental difficululties were all caused by Epstein Barr virus passed with a single kiss.

Such, of course, makes your viral-phobia much more understandable.
 

 

 

I am not bullying, I am just having a bit of fun, teasing people a bit, and making a few humorous remarks.

 

And? Did I get better at it making you laugh?


 

Edited by pamojja, 28 June 2020 - 10:25 PM.

[Hip]

Did I get better at it making you laugh?[/size]

Your Alice in Wonderland quote was a reasonable effort at humor. But humorous insults work best when you also have truth on your side. So keep working on the humor, and try to avoid the Mickey Mouse science.

[pamojja]

Your Alice in Wonderland quote was a reasonable effort at humor. But humorous insults work best when you also have truth on your side.

 

You see. Ridiculing others always hurts, because its never the truth. My conscince still hurts. I'll leave it at that single experiment.

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 29 June 2020 - 08:20 AM.

[osris]

 
Have you not seen the excess death data? The excess death shows more deaths that the official coronavirus death figures. And we know that coronavirus has been under reported in the UK, because for a long time deaths that occurred out of hospital were not being included in official figures. 
 
What do you proposed has suddenly caused all this excess death? The excess death is now declining, along with the general decline in coronavirus cases.



 

 

What do you mean "reduced to this level"? If you are quoting from Mickey Mouse sources, this must to pointed out. Perhaps you have never discussed a scientific subject before. I do it all the time, and the first thing you do in scientific debate is point out dubious sources. 

 
 

 

I agree, very much so. In fact when I first started to experience mild psychosis symptoms around 20 years ago, I developed a sudden fascination with conspiracy theory. So I have personal experience on how mental health issues on the psychosis spectrum can lead to a propensity to wallowing in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. 

 

The human condition is a frail one, and at any stage in our lives, we can be hit with changes in mental state that result in poor judgement or strange beliefs. 

 

Fortunately these mental issues on the psychosis spectrum that cause orientation to conspiracy theory are no longer affecting me, and having recovered from my period of wallowing in conspiracy theories, I am now very aware of others online who might be suffering some psychosis spectrum mental distortions, however mild, which is manifested by their interest in fringe conspiracy material. There are many studies that have linked belief in conspiracy theories to schizotypy, which is on the psychosis spectrum. 

 

Many people are not even aware that they have schizotypy, as they just assume their (distorted) worldview is the correct one.   

 

The excess death theory in relation to Covid as a way to attribute these deaths to Covid, is a statistical “begging the question”, and therefore logically flawed. If the actual death count for Covid is much lower than the count given by epidemiologists—as we now know it is, and which you have yet to address—then the “excess” deaths are part of this low count. Besides:

 

"The hospitals may not have tested the patient for COVID-19 but assumed the death was caused by the virus. The assumption is based on whether a patient presents with COVID-19 symptoms. This is problematic because COVID-19 presents as flu-like symptoms."

 

https://evidencenotfear.com/evidence/

 

It is clear what I mean when I say that your insults towards people who try to get you to answer questions instead of changing the subject have reduced the level of your position in this discussion. I note that in your response to what I said, you repeat the insult, and again beg the question regarding what you assume as “Mickey Mouse” sources. I don’t know if this is partly due to your admitted psychosis. If it is, my apologies.

 

It is regrettable that you also accuse people who disagree with you as also being psychotic. That accusation confirms your psychosis, I’m afraid. By the way, what medications are you taking for it?   

[osris]

Osris, you are repeatedly quoting from conspiracy theory websites, the https://www.ukcolumn.org website you quoted being yet another one which mediabiasfactcheck.com classifies as strong on conspiracy theories. 

 

Quoting one conspiracy theory website might be a coincidence, but you have repeatedly quoted from lots of different conspiracy theory websites, which suggests you might be one of these people who perceive the world through the prism of conspiracy theory.

 

Again, you ignore the fact, as I explained to you before, that if a quote by a respectable scientist is quoted on a site that you don’t approve of, that doesn’t invalidate the quote. To say it does, is illogical.

[osris]

 

Oops, now I'm also getting forgetful. Just remembered your mental difficululties were all caused by Epstein Barr virus passed with a single kiss.

 

 

 

This does indeed explain Hip's irrational fear of a virus that kills mainly old and obese people, has only killed 500 thousand worldwide as of yesterday, and that number is high. as it is based on official overestimated numbers, as has been shown. 

 

It is sad that someone with mental difficulties considers himself the fount of all scientific knowledge in relation to Covid. Sad, but not unexpected, especially given the mental issue he has is psychosis. I suggest that because of this, we not take much he says very seriously.

[pamojja]

I suggest that because of this, we not take much he says very seriously.

 

I would suggest not to succumb to this strategy (as you certainly aren't yourself, by responding to all points raised), which the majority even without any signs of psychosis generaly does to anyone not mainstream.

 

Lets still engage with anyone, be it the most gullible, or the most differentiating critical thinkers. Prejudices are never the truth, only remaining in dialog is not repeating this mistake most out of intelectual lazyness are succumbing.

 

Though on the other hand, everyone who never engages in honest investigation and reasoning, always relys on industry sponsored fact-checking, without ever double-checking, only knows to argue with fallacies in discussion - is of course difficult to be taken seriously. With which I mean the expossed unreflected position, not the person itself. Which is always in flux, and unexpectedly one day might get it.
 

Edited by pamojja, 29 June 2020 - 12:11 PM.

[Hip]

You see. Ridiculing others always hurts, because its never the truth. My conscince still hurts. I'll leave it at that single experiment.

 

I am not offended by your remark, I thought it was quite funny. I am not part of generation snowflake, who get so upset and offended by words.

 

When I was at school, we still had corporal punishment. Harsh, but perhaps it strengthens character, and prevents the creation of snowflake kids. It may not have been a good idea to drop corporal punishment; it may have helped create generation snowflake.

 

But see if you can do better in terms of creating jokes. Put a bit more charisma into it. And you must try to do better in terms of avoiding bogus science. 

Edited by Hip, 29 June 2020 - 03:48 PM.

[Hip]

The excess death theory in relation to Covid as a way to attribute these deaths to Covid, is a statistical “begging the question”, and therefore logically flawed. 

 

You have totally evaded the point. 

 

I will ask again: what do think caused the excess deaths that we see in all countries where coronavirus deaths are high. These excess deaths only appeared once coronavirus came on the scene. And these excess deaths started to decline once lockdown, social distancing, etc had brought coronavirus under control.

 

Very simple question. What do you think caused the excess deaths? 

Edited by Hip, 29 June 2020 - 03:42 PM.

[Hip]

Again, you ignore the fact, as I explained to you before, that if a quote by a respectable scientist is quoted on a site that you don’t approve of, that doesn’t invalidate the quote. To say it does, is illogical.

 

If the scientific data comes from scientific studies published in a good peer-reviewed journal, preferably a MEDLINE journal (do you know what a MEDLINE journal is, if not I can explain), then it should be OK. Using high-quality journals is what we are looking for.

 

But then the conspiracy theory and pseudoscience websites that you clearly love so much will often distort the scientific data, by various means. For example, the website might follow your totally unscientific practice of selectively cherry-picking scientific studies which support the conclusion the website wants to promote, and omitting studies which contradict their desired conclusion. That's just plain dishonest.

 

In science, when you want to produce a balanced summary of what is known so far, that is done in a published study called a systematic review. A systematic review is performed by professional scientists, and it does not omit studies just because the author disagrees with the study conclusions. I suggest you spend less time on bullshit pseudoscience websites, and more time reading how science actually operates.

 

 

I am still waiting to hear what your academic and professional background is. Probably something like sales, marketing or advertising, where hype and fabrication is more important than fact and truth. 

Edited by Hip, 29 June 2020 - 03:53 PM.

[Hip]

a virus that kills mainly old and obese people

 

Can you explain your reason for saying that? If a virus preferentially targets a particular subset of people, does that make it any less lethal?

 

In the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the virus mainly killed the young and healthy, and tended not to kill the old, the frail or the unhealthy. Does that make it any less lethal? Each virus will tend to target a specific subset of the population.

 

Coronavirus does target certain groups of people more: the old, those suffering from obesity, people with diabetes, people with type A blood group, smokers, those with asthma, those with heart disease, etc.

 

Are you implying that the lives of these groups of people are not worth the same as other groups?  

Edited by Hip, 29 June 2020 - 03:54 PM.

[pamojja]

And you must try to do better in terms of avoiding bogus science. 

 

No thanks. I wont let myself be dragged down to such a low niveau of not double-checking sources myself. And having absolutely no ethical standards, as you continously expose in discussions when it comes to covid.
 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

Neil Ferguson's modelling code revealed as unscientific

 

"... makes the code unusable for scientific purposes, given that a key part of the scientific method is the ability to replicate results. Without replication, the findings might not be real at all."

 

https://lockdownscep...ergusons-model/

 

 

"Imperial College’s modelling ... which helped persuade the UK and other countries to bring in draconian lockdowns ... could go down in history as the most devastating software mistake of all time, in terms of economic costs and lives lost."

 

https://www.telegrap...ftware-mistake/

 

 

 

Going forward, I wish peer reviewed journals would refuse to publish any papers based on modeling unless the modeling code is fully disclosed. As you say, there is no possibility for replication without the model code and replication is a foundation of the scientific method.  

 

We had this same issue with the IPCC's Climate Change report based on the University of East Anglia's and Michael Mann's climate models which were not disclosed.  

 

No model code = No publication (or it should).

[osris]

I would suggest not to succumb to this strategy (as you certainly aren't yourself, by responding to all points raised), which the majority even without any signs of psychosis generaly does to anyone not mainstream.

 

Lets still engage with anyone, be it the most gullible, or the most differentiating critical thinkers. Prejudices are never the truth, only remaining in dialog is not repeating this mistake most out of intelectual lazyness are succumbing.

 

Though on the other hand, everyone who never engages in honest investigation and reasoning, always relys on industry sponsored fact-checking, without ever double-checking, only knows to argue with fallacies in discussion - is of course difficult to be taken seriously. With which I mean the expossed unreflected position, not the person itself. Which is always in flux, and unexpectedly one day might get it.
 

 

You have a point. 

[osris]

You have totally evaded the point. 

 

I will ask again: what do think caused the excess deaths that we see in all countries where coronavirus deaths are high. These excess deaths only appeared once coronavirus came on the scene. And these excess deaths started to decline once lockdown, social distancing, etc had brought coronavirus under control.

 

Very simple question. What do you think caused the excess deaths? 

 

You are again begging the question, which I earlier pointed out that you were doing when I replied to the same question before that you now repeat in your post: “What do you think caused the excess deaths?” You are assuming that excess deaths occurred, which is a form of confirmation bias on your part. If the death count for Covid is lower than the official count, as we know it is, then “excess” deaths are part of this low count. 

 

Please try not to evade the point.

[osris]

If the scientific data comes from scientific studies published in a good peer-reviewed journal, preferably a MEDLINE journal (do you know what a MEDLINE journal is, if not I can explain), then it should be OK. Using high-quality journals is what we are looking for.

 

But then the conspiracy theory and pseudoscience websites that you clearly love so much will often distort the scientific data, by various means. For example, the website might follow your totally unscientific practice of selectively cherry-picking scientific studies which support the conclusion the website wants to promote, and omitting studies which contradict their desired conclusion. That's just plain dishonest.

 

In science, when you want to produce a balanced summary of what is known so far, that is done in a published study called a systematic review. A systematic review is performed by professional scientists, and it does not omit studies just because the author disagrees with the study conclusions. I suggest you spend less time on bullshit pseudoscience websites, and more time reading how science actually operates.

 

 

I am still waiting to hear what your academic and professional background is. Probably something like sales, marketing or advertising, where hype and fabrication is more important than fact and truth. 

 

Again, you ignore the fact, as I explained to you before, that if a quote by a respectable scientist is quoted on a site that you don’t approve of, that doesn’t invalidate the quote. To say it does, is illogical. Using your logic, I should dismiss quotes from scientific sources that you post here, because this forum is not a peer-reviewed journal.  But I forget... you are an admitted psychotic and so apt to confuse fact from fiction. 

 

Also, is it hard for you to address direct questions in this discussion without using diversionary tactics and ad hominem arguments? 

[osris]

Can you explain your reason for saying that? If a virus preferentially targets a particular subset of people, does that make it any less lethal?

 

In the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the virus mainly killed the young and healthy, and tended not to kill the old, the frail or the unhealthy. Does that make it any less lethal? Each virus will tend to target a specific subset of the population.

 

Coronavirus does target certain groups of people more: the old, those suffering from obesity, people with diabetes, people with type A blood group, smokers, those with asthma, those with heart disease, etc.

 

Are you implying that the lives of these groups of people are not worth the same as other groups?  

 

Here is the full quote from me that you have taken out of context:

 

“This does indeed explain Hip's irrational fear of a virus that kills mainly old and obese people, has only killed 500 thousand worldwide as of yesterday, and that number is high. as it is based on official overestimated numbers, as has been shown.”

 

As you see, I make no claim that it is not lethal. It is lethal to the groups I mention. Your irrational fear of it was the point I was making, in response to pamojja pointing out that you claimed that your mental illness was due to contracting the Epstein Barr virus when kissing someone, presumably a female. 

[Hip]

Also, is it hard for you to address direct questions in this discussion without using diversionary tactics and ad hominem arguments?

 

I never find ad hominem attacks are necessary with scientifically-minded people, as you can communicate to them with ease, and they are very quick on the uptake of any points made.

 

But when dealing with people who don't know much about science, but nevertheless have strong opinions, such people are often not amenable to calm rational discussion, and they sometimes require a few metaphorical slaps around the face to bring them to their senses! Much like in the movies from the 1950s, where a hysterical woman was dealt with using a sharp slap to the face! Just think of my approach as pedagogical.

 

 

 

 

You are assuming that excess deaths occurred, which is a form of confirmation bias on your part.

 
No I am not assuming the excess deaths occurred; we know for a fact that they did occur.  I provided you with a link to an article which showed the excess deaths.

 

Here is another article which perhaps more clearly shows the excess deaths which suddenly appeared ever since coronavirus came on the scene.
 
Do you actually know what excess deaths means? Probably not. So I guess I'll have to explain it:

 

 

In any country, at any time of year, you always expect a certain amount of deaths (from all causes). There are seasonal variations in the expected deaths, but for each week of the year, there is a known number of expected deaths, which is derived from historical averages. So for each week of the year, we know in advance roughly how many deaths are going to occur in that week.

 

Once coronavirus hit the scene, the expected deaths for this time of year shot up, to a point about 60% higher that the number of official coronavirus deaths. It is believed that these excess deaths are due to coronavirus, because there is no other explanation. So the excess death data shows that we are likely under-recording coronavirus deaths. The excess death data shows the official coronavirus death figures are most likely under-reported by about 60%.  

 

Edited by Hip, 30 June 2020 - 04:16 PM.

[pamojja]

The excess death data shows the official coronavirus death figures are most likely under-reported by about 60%.  

 

According to the CDC, excess deaths is at 103% for the US, only 2 weeks ago it still was still 98%: https://www.cdc.gov/...s/vsrr/covid19/

 

Detailed for European countries: https://www.euromomo...graphs-and-maps
 

 

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick: EuroMOMO showed absolutely no change in mortality across all 25 countries until week eleven, the second week in March. It then rose rapidly, topping-out in week fourteen. By the end of May, everything had fallen back to normal. Which means the COVID mortality spike lasted ten weeks, from start to finish. Overall mortality rates are now lower than normal

It is fascinating that some countries showed a sharp rise in mortality, and some showed nothing. For example, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Germany – nothing. France, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, England – major spikes. Thirteen countries spiked, twelve did not.

 

Edited by pamojja, 30 June 2020 - 05:05 PM.