231 replies to this topic

[gamesguru]

I would respond with the same objection as I did with Hip's source: one can't leave out pneumonias, which usually are caused by respiratory viral infections, and most often proceed with bacterial and fungal pneumonia to death. Most often not tested on any virus, and counted as pneumonia-deaths only.

 

But you're like, not a doctor son.  Let's remember to take your opinion with a grain of salt.

 

Pneumonia deaths (if they truly occur at a rate of 3 million per year AND are caused by respiratory viral infections) are still separate from the flu.  But I suspect the number is inflated 3 times, so take 1 million.  Half of those or more are the flu.  Many of the remainders are tuberculosis and unrelated pathogens—which are less contagious and primarily caught in the environment—wouldn't see as drastic a reduction in deaths due to the lockdowns.

 

If you read the study they already did some quite impressive extrapolation to estimate the total number of flu deaths based on recorded deaths, positive rates, past projections, and excess mortality rates.  It's not that they tested 500,000 people but more unreported positives could be lurking, they already considered that.  These guys have PhDs thank you very much.

 

Even still, among causes of pneumonia deaths we still have COVID as the leader (1,100,000+), with the flu in 2nd (600,000), with Streptococcus and Mycobacterium in 3rd (500,000).

 

Are you really ready to just throw up your hands and accept another leading cause of pneumonia related deaths to an immunologically naive population?  Seems to me on the contrary a fine time for rethinking our dirty habits and ways of life.

[osris]

Lmfaooo i know he's righter than right.  Got to call out BS and immortalize with the utmost irony

 

I thought you said he was on the left, hence my saying:

 

"I don't think he is left wing particularly, as most left wing people accept the media's Covid narrative, and he doesn't."

 

If he is on the right, that doesn't make the scientists he quotes right wing. 

 

I don't get this post. Why the photo? Who is she?

[osris]

Now maybe I'm wrong, I have been before, but perhaps the fact that these people are clinically short of breath, and many who have been turned away from hospitals later died at home of suffocation, might it be fair to assume the simple act of making someone sick enough to require ventilation or to indeed die of suffocation, that that is enough of an alarm bell.  That hey, this pathogen is capable of making people en masse so sick they require supplemental oxygen or ventilation.  Again I could be wrong, but something that make me so weak i need oyxgen, something with potential life long side effects, I would remain duly cautious against such a pathogen and not give into right-wing rhetoric that all is fine and dandy.

 

In the UK, people over 70 were automatically put on ventilators regardless of breathing problems or not. This has now been stopped due to the deaths of patients who would otherwise have lived. The situation now is more like this:

 

"Only about half of the sickest Covid-19 patients, admitted to intensive care struggling to breathe, are being put on mechanical ventilators, it has emerged, as evidence grows that many do better with non-invasive help."

 

https://www.theguard...-on-ventilators

 

 

 

Edited by osris, 04 July 2020 - 11:14 AM.

[osris]

Here's an educational website, regarded among academic editors as what we professionals call a "primary source", just a little FYI.

 

 

Source: https://www.cidrap.u...rate-deaths-flu

 

Note how we have already over 500,000 confirmed deaths from COVID in the first 7 months alone.  And all this despite draconian lockdowns across the world which have curbed the spread of the flu and other diseases too.  I have not been since last October now, *knocks on wood*

 

The majority of the Covid death numbers are due to test results being false positives.

 

See:

 

"2.3% false positive rate with 0.04% virus prevalence rate (ONS) means that if you test positive you have only a 4/234= 1.7% chance of being infected." 

 

https://evidencenotf...tag/statistics/

 

 

"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/

 

 

"Thousands of Covid tests have been double-counted in the Government’s official tally, public health officials have admitted. Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England confirmed the double-counting."

 

https://www.telegrap...6ajncWKoKrJ_coo

 

 

“Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.”

 

https://www.wakingti...agnostic-tests/

[osris]

 

Pneumonia deaths (if they truly occur at a rate of 3 million per year AND are caused by respiratory viral infections) are still separate from the flu.  But I suspect the number is inflated 3 times, so take 1 million.  Half of those or more are the flu.  Many of the remainders are tuberculosis and unrelated pathogens—which are less contagious and primarily caught in the environment—wouldn't see as drastic a reduction in deaths due to the lockdowns.

 

If you read the study they already did some quite impressive extrapolation to estimate the total number of flu deaths based on recorded deaths, positive rates, past projections, and excess mortality rates.  It's not that they tested 500,000 people but more unreported positives could be lurking, they already considered that.  These guys have PhDs thank you very much.

 

Even still, among causes of pneumonia deaths we still have COVID as the leader (1,100,000+), with the flu in 2nd (600,000), with Streptococcus and Mycobacterium in 3rd (500,000).

 

Are you really ready to just throw up your hands and accept another leading cause of pneumonia related deaths to an immunologically naive population?  Seems to me on the contrary a fine time for rethinking our dirty habits and ways of life.

 

Not quite. See:

 

 

"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/

 

 

“The shortcomings of tests means testing is impractical. As a result, many coronavirus victims we see in the statistics are ‘assumed positive’. The hospitals may not have tested the patient for COVID-19 but assumed the death was caused by the virus."

 

https://evidencenotfear.com/evidence/

 

 

“Coronavirus deaths ‘may be less than half official toll – as docs wrongly mark certificates’, says ex-WHO chief.”

 

https://www.thesun.c...ign=sharebarweb

 

 

“Is Britain's Covid-19 death toll HALF of the 50,000 already recorded? Expert claims official tally may be too high because doctors are too keen to name the virus on death certificates and most victims were going to die anyway because they were elderly.”

 

https://www.dailymai...18228&si=464550

 

 

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.”

 

https://off-guardian...-over-estimate/

 

 

"More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority."

 

https://www.bloomber...fqpwuvUJgFTH_FA

[pamojja]

Are you really ready to just throw up your hands and accept another leading cause of pneumonia related deaths to an immunologically naive population?  Seems to me on the contrary a fine time for rethinking our dirty habits and ways of life.

 

A: No dirty habits and ways of life. (honesty, harmlessness, etc.)

 

B: A good scientist always tries to disprove his own thesis to see if it holds water.

 

Since we are both not trained scientists and both are better in tearing an opposing theory apart, I suggested to wait for the WHO's data, so you also have a better job at  their inaccuracies, methology and definitions.

 

 

However, your study is actually perfect in many respects: showing the limitation of any precise numbering - also applying to the WHO's - and it's big difference in definition, of how they come to their number compared of how it is done with covid-19.

 

 

 

Many of the remainders are tuberculosis and unrelated pathogens—which are less contagious and primarily caught in the environment—wouldn't see as drastic a reduction in deaths due to the lockdowns.

 

Tuberculosis being a dangerous infectious disease itself, therefore tested for and many places very thightly registrated, and accordingly given as a separate catergory in WHO mortality statistic, couldn't ever have been confused with pneumonia.

 

2018 WHO mortality rate:

Cause of Death         Rank     Deaths

Coronary Heart Disease	1	9,405,008
Stroke	                2	5,765,313
Lung Disease	        3	3,032,444
Influenza and Pneumonia	4	2,947,050
Alzheimers/Dementia	5	1,976,848
Lung Cancers	        6	1,696,334
Diabetes Mellitus	7	1,582,816
Road Traffic Accidents	8	1,399,255
Diarrhoeal diseases	9	1,382,508
Tuberculosis	        10	1,292,603
Liver Disease	        11	1,247,237
Kidney Disease	        12	1,172,181
Low Birth Weight	13	1,012,063
HIV/AIDS	        14	1,011,748
Hypertension	        15	893,402
Liver Cancer	        16	818,785
Suicide	                17	788,851
Colon-Rectum Cancers	18	786,962
Stomach Cancer	        19	755,968
Birth Trauma	        20	678,355

Rank 4 is influenza and pneumonia with almost 3 million deaths in 2018 (still to be confirmed with the original data).

 

Rank 10 is Tuberculosis with about 1.3 millions deaths.

 

However, I readily admit that in your lanced-study there really isn't any indication they excluded pneumonia from their influeza estimate. Different to Hip's secondary source.

 

So let's take a look at the actual study:
 

 

 

 

Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study

• A Danielle Iuliano, PhD
• Katherine M Roguski, MPH
• Howard H Chang, PhD
• David J Muscatello, PhD
• Rakhee Palekar, MD
• Stefano Tempia, PhD

Published:December 13, 2017 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1...6736(17)33293-2

 

Summary Background

 

Estimates of influenza-associated mortality are important for national and international decision making on public health priorities. Previous estimates of 250 000–500 000 annual influenza deaths are outdated. We updated the estimated number of global annual influenza-associated respiratory deaths using country-specific influenza-associated excess respiratory mortality estimates from 1999–2015.

 

Methods

 

We estimated country-specific influenza-associated respiratory excess mortality rates (EMR) for 33 countries using time series log-linear regression models with vital death records and influenza surveillance data. To extrapolate estimates to countries without data, we divided countries into three analytic divisions for three age groups (<65 years, 65–74 years, and ≥75 years) using WHO Global Health Estimate (GHE) respiratory infection mortality rates. We calculated mortality rate ratios (MRR) to account for differences in risk of influenza death across countries by comparing GHE respiratory infection mortality rates from countries without EMR estimates with those with estimates. To calculate death estimates for individual countries within each age-specific analytic division, we multiplied randomly selected mean annual EMRs by the country's MRR and population. Global 95% credible interval (CrI) estimates were obtained from the posterior distribution of the sum of country-specific estimates to represent the range of possible influenza-associated deaths in a season or year. We calculated influenza-associated deaths for children younger than 5 years for 92 countries with high rates of mortality due to respiratory infection using the same methods.

 

Now that raises of course the interesting question, why they needed to exptrapolate from only 33 countries? - And by which methology the WHO data in comparison could estimate it for each of the 200 something countries on the earth? - Will be really interesting to see the WHO methology and definitiions.

 

Findings

 

EMR-contributing countries represented 57% of the global population. The estimated mean annual influenza-associated respiratory EMR ranged from 0·1 to 6·4 per 100 000 individuals for people younger than 65 years, 2·9 to 44·0 per 100 000 individuals for people aged between 65 and 74 years, and 17·9 to 223·5 per 100 000 for people older than 75 years. We estimated that 291 243–645 832 seasonal influenza-associated respiratory deaths (4·0–8·8 per 100 000 individuals) occur annually. The highest mortality rates were estimated in sub-Saharan Africa (2·8–16·5 per 100 000 individuals), southeast Asia (3·5–9·2 per 100 000 individuals), and among people aged 75 years or older (51·3–99·4 per 100 000 individuals). For 92 countries, we estimated that among children younger than 5 years, 9243–105 690 influenza-associated respiratory deaths occur annually.

Interpretation

 

These global influenza-associated respiratory mortality estimates are higher than previously reported, suggesting that previous estimates might have underestimated disease burden. The contribution of non-respiratory causes of death to global influenza-associated mortality should be investigated.

Funding

None.

 

The short text doesn't give a clue. However, your news article also links to a lancet commentary to this study:

 

In The Lancet, Danielle Iuliano and colleagues ¹  have attempted to estimate the global mortality burden of seasonal influenza. This study provides a much needed update to the often cited but unsubstantiated WHO-attributed estimate of 250 000–500 000 annual influenza deaths. The authors used country-specific, influenza-associated excess respiratory mortality estimates from 1999 to 2015, to calculate a new estimate of 291 243–645 832 seasonal influenza-associated respiratory deaths per year (4·0–8·8 per 100 000 individuals). Although these new estimates indicate that influenza-associated mortality has increased, they might underestimate the true mortality burden, which would also include deaths attributable to non-respiratory causes. ²

 

Finally the CDC press-release to this study does get more specific, in which deaths would also be included attributable to non-resperatory causes:

 

Seasonal flu death estimate increases worldwide

 

Press Release

 

According to new estimates published today, between 291,000 and 646,000 people worldwide die from seasonal influenza-related respiratory illnesses each year, higher than a previous estimate of 250,000 to 500,000 and based on a robust, multinational survey.

 

The new estimate, from a collaborative study by CDC and global health partners, appears today in The Lancet. The estimate excludes deaths during pandemics.

“These findings remind us of the seriousness of flu and that flu prevention should really be a global priority,” says Joe Bresee, M.D., associate director for global health in CDC’s Influenza Division and a study co-author.

 

The new estimates use more recent data, taken from a larger and more diverse group of countries than previous estimates. Forty-seven countries contributed to this effort. Researchers calculated annual seasonal influenza-associated respiratory deaths for 33 of those countries (57 percent of the world’s population) that had death records and seasonal influenza surveillance information for a minimum of four years between 1999 and 2015. Statistical modeling with those results was used to generate an estimate of the number of flu-associated respiratory deaths for 185 countries across the world. Data from the other 14 countries were used to validate the estimates of seasonal influenza-associated respiratory death from the statistical models.

 

Poorest nations, older adults hit hardest by flu

 

Researchers calculated region-specific estimates and age-specific mortality estimates for people younger than 65 years, people 65-74 years, and people 75 years and older. The greatest flu mortality burden was seen in the world’s poorest regions and among older adults. People age 75 years and older and people living in sub-Saharan African countries experienced the highest rates of flu-associated respiratory deaths. Eastern Mediterranean and Southeast Asian countries had slightly lower but still high rates of flu-associated respiratory deaths.

 

Despite World Health Organization recommendations to use flu vaccinationexternal icon to help protect people in high-risk populations, few developing countries have seasonal flu vaccination programs or the capacity to produce and distribute seasonal or pandemic vaccines.

 

Global flu surveillance protects all nations, including U.S.

 

CDC works with global partners to improve worldwide capacity for influenza prevention and control. CDC has helped more than 60 countries build surveillance and laboratory capacity to rapidly detect and respond to influenza threats, including viruses with the potential to cause global pandemics.  These efforts, along with technical support, has helped some partners generate estimates of influenza-associated deaths, which contributed to this global effort.

 

Global surveillance also provides the foundation for selecting the viruses used to make seasonal flu vaccines each year. This helps improve the effectiveness of flu vaccines used in the United States. Global surveillance also is crucial to pandemic preparedness by identifying viruses overseas that might pose a human health risk to people in the United States.

 

“This work adds to a growing global understanding of the burden of influenza and populations at highest risk,” says CDC researcher Danielle Iuliano, lead author of The Lancet study. “It builds the evidence base for influenza vaccination programs in other countries.”

 

The study authors note that these new estimates are limited to flu-associated respiratory deaths and therefore may underestimate the true global impact of seasonal influenza. Influenza infection can create or exacerbate other health factors which are then listed as the cause of death on death certificates, for example cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or related complications. Additional research to estimate non-respiratory causes of flu-associated deaths are ongoing.

 

There you have it: Other than the covid-19 death numbers always knowingly did, the yearly influenza mortality estimate of this study explicitly excludes co-morbitities like CVD and diabetes!

 

Therefore comparing the influenza mortality of this estimate, to covid-19 deaths with expicitly includes co-morbitities, is really comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

 

 

 

If we believe all study-results that covid-19 deaths includes over 90% of comorbities in CVD, diabetes and obesity, we have to substract just 90% of these comorbities from the yearly influenza-death-estimate of your study:

 

Today: 529,596 x 0.1 = 52 959 pure covid-19 deaths after about half a year, versus comparable 646 000 influnzia-deaths in this study!

 

Therefore not even only 3 times less worse than the yearly influenzia and pneumonia mortality by the WHO data, but according to the by you provided study actually about 6 times less worse.

Edited by pamojja, 04 July 2020 - 11:23 AM.

[gamesguru]

Nice sophistry guys, checked a few sources and they were ALL BS.  Back to my morning cup of tea.

 

For example pamojja conflates general lung disease deaths with viral pneumonia, stating there are 3 million of each.  This is a horrific blunder only capable of being committed by a man whose faculties have all but eroded, leaving in place nothing but a rambling madness.

 

osris i don't even think read half the things he quoted, because he quotes to very clearly contradictory articles:

 

• The majority of the Covid death numbers are due to test results being false positives.
• “Coronavirus deaths ‘may be less than half official toll – as docs wrongly mark certificates’, says ex-WHO chief.”

 

Remember this one fact in academic research: quality over quantity.  Have a nice morning lads.

Edited by gamesguru, 04 July 2020 - 12:05 PM.

[pamojja]

A:Therefore not even only 3 times less worse than the yearly influenzia and pneumonia mortality by the WHO data, but according to the by you provided study actually about 6 times less worse.

 

For example pamojja conflates general lung disease deaths with viral pneumonia, stating there are 3 million of each.  This is a horrific blunder only capable of being committed by a man whose faculties have all but eroded, leaving in place nothing but a rambling madness.
 
Remember this one fact in academic research: quality over quantity.  Have a nice morning lads.

 

By the way, now you confuse rank 3 in yeary mortality of - lung disease - with 3,032,444 deaths, with rank 4 - influenzia and pneumonia - with 2,947,050 deaths in 2018 (down one rank from 2017).

 

Just ignoring we still await the WHO-data methology and definitions to tear it appart? - Allready a proven fact for you without even checking?
 
Only taking the plain numbers of your study in consideration because they confirm your bias, again simply playing blind to the fact they excluded comorbitities?  And also have to be excluded from the covid-19 deaths, for becoming comparable?
 
Your only source in fact indicating, that covid-19 deaths are even 6 times less than from influenzia!

 

 

 

And while being so good a playing dumb, again insults after insults without any rational response?

Edited by pamojja, 04 July 2020 - 01:26 PM.

[bladedmind]

Thread crasher here.  Nearly every post appeals to argument from authority, ad hominem, or both.  Such appeals do nothing to advance understanding or knowledge.  

[gamesguru]

By the way, now you confuse rank 3 in yeary mortality of - lung disease - with 3,032,444 deaths, with rank 4 - influenzia and pneumonia - with 2,947,050 deaths in 2018 (down one rank from 2017).

 
Your only source in fact indicating, that covid-19 deaths are even 6 times less than from influenzia!

 

Sources please on the first statement.

 

Second statement is mere slanderance.  I never said that, I proved the opposite.  COVID cause 2x more deaths than Influenza EVEN DESPITE THE LOCKDOWN.  Take lockdown away and it is clearly leading cause by far.  Need to see sources on the first statement to show they are not reliable, thank you.

[pamojja]

Sources please on the first statement.

 

Just a page ago I asked you kindly for the source for an accusation against me, you claimed found only 2 posts ago, but not found even 20 posts back! You just made it up and ignored my request, and let your smearing stand without quote.

 

Either give sources for lies yourself, or don't expect anyone from me anymore. Especially since the source you're asking for is actually already written on this page, and you just condinued to smear without ever reading, or comprehending carefully whatever you smear.

 

Second statement is mere slanderance.  I never said that, I proved the opposite.

 

No, you didn't said that. But you obviously didn't read the study itself, given as source by you. Instead only its news-article you gave as your source, mistakingly considered as the primary study itself. And the study provided by you but not read said, the limitation of their yearly influenzia-death estimate would be underestimation due to its exclusion of comorbidities.

 

Not done with covid-19 deaths in most countries today.


 

 

[gamesguru]

Just a page ago I asked you kindly for the source for an accusation against me, you claimed found only 2 posts ago, but not found even 20 posts back! You just made it up and ignored my request, and let your smearing stand without quote.

 

Are you so forgetful, I posted the PRIMARY SOURCE.  It shows through advanced statistical extrapolation less than 600,000 die annually of the flu.

 

EDU sites are considered primary sources even if they are quoting academic journals.  For anyone in a website setting, or powerpoint presentation, or a forum board, these are primary sources.

 

Here it is again:

https://www.cidrap.u...rate-deaths-flu

https://www.thelance...3293-2/fulltext

 

You're the one who's failing to produce primary sources for the 3 million claim and it's ridiculous

[osris]

Nice sophistry guys, checked a few sources and they were ALL BS.  Back to my morning cup of tea.

 

 

Nice scientific attitude, saying sources that prove you are wrong are BS. Is Hip your mentor? Are you, indeed, Hip? 

[pamojja]

Are you so forgetful, I posted the PRIMARY SOURCE.

 

You're the one who's failing to produce primary sources for the 3 million claim and it's ridiculous

 

Below is your 'original' source quoted. Since you can't differentiate a news article from an original study (usually containing scientists names, abstract, methology, results and conclution) cast high doubt about you being anything 'professional'.
 

Here's an educational website, regarded among academic editors as what we professionals call a "primary source", just a little FYI.

 

 

Source: https://www.cidrap.u...rate-deaths-flu

 

 

 

Here it is again:

https://www.cidrap.u...rate-deaths-flu

https://www.thelance...3293-2/fulltext

 

You're the one who's failing to produce primary sources for the 3 million claim and it's ridiculous

 

Yes, its orginal study link was long ago added by me. Nice try.

 

You still didn't read the study and comprehent its limitation though yet.. And that exactly this very study provided by you does falsify your claims. And actually suggests covid-19 actully 6 times less deathly then influenza, as defined by these study authors.
 

Edited by pamojja, 05 July 2020 - 12:09 PM.

[osris]

Sources please on the first statement.

 

 

Every time he gives you sources you say they are BS.

Just a page ago I asked you kindly for the source for an accusation against me, you claimed found only 2 posts ago, but not found even 20 posts back! You just made it up and ignored my request, and let your smearing stand without quote.

 

 

 

Correct, that is what he did. Not even Hip did that. 

[osris]

Below is your 'original' source quoted. Since you can't differentiate a news article from an original study (usually containing scientists names, abstract, methology, results and conclution) cast high doubt about you being anything 'professional'.
 

 

 

 

 

Yes, its orginal study link was long ago added by me. Nice try.

 

You still didn't read the study and comprehent its limitation though yet.. And that exactly this very study provided by you does falsify your claims. And actually suggests covid-19 actully 6 times less deathly then influenza, as defined by these study authors.
 

 

Good that you pointed out his deceitfulness in such irrefutable detail, 

[gamesguru]

Below is your 'original' source quoted. Since you can't differentiate a news article from an original study (usually containing scientists names, abstract, methology, results and conclution) cast high doubt about you being anything 'professional'.

 

It's an education site, as such can be referenced from the literature without losing points in English class.

 

Regardless it links back to an academic source, which is more than you could do for the wild 3 million claim.  Which itself requires more rugged ethical assumptions to support the ultimate right-wing downplaying of COVID threat.

[pamojja]

It's an education site, as such can be referenced from the literature without losing points in English class.

 

Regardless it links back to an academic source, which is more than you could do for the wild 3 million claim.  Which itself requires more rugged ethical assumptions to support the ultimate right-wing downplaying of COVID threat.

 

Aha, an English class is now considered 'professional'. Are you a teenager? - Which would indeed explain your levels or argumentation.
 

 

Still not read your own source? Which clearly states its limitation is in underreporting due to excluding comorbitities!

 

Or in wilful and permanent denial?

[gamesguru]

Yes I read my source, I'm waiting to read yours if it exists.

 

Bacterial causes of pneumonia are typically the leading source, and are not spread by asymptomatic people.  That's why this whole idea of accepting a HUGE 30% increase in NEW pneumonia deaths from a single cause, this new coronavirus, is absolutely wrong.

[pamojja]

Still not read your own source? Which clearly states its limitation is in underreporting due to excluding comorbidities!

 

Or in wilful and permanent denial?

Yes I read my source,

 

If you read your source, than what makes you ignore the underreporting due to excluding comorbidities? CVD, diabetes and obesity? - All comorbitities counted in and not excluded with covid-19 death numbers?

 

In fact, if counted that way as in your study, covid-19 without comorbidities would only make a 6th of pure influenzia deaths. Thereby even no other source as from the WHO needed, according to which covid-19 would only be a 3rd of pure influenzia deaths.

 

Don't feel any cognitive disonance, in accepting only the part of your source study which confirms your bias, but completely denying the other, totally contradicting?

Edited by pamojja, 05 July 2020 - 02:52 PM.

[gamesguru]

If you read your, than what makes you ignore the underreporting due to excluding comorbidities? CVD, diabetes and obesity? - All comorbitities counted in and not excluded with covid-19 death numbers?

 

Please explain.  They already factor a multivariate analysis into their UPDATED extrapolation.

 

It says higher than PREVIOUSLY reported.  In this report they set 600,000 as THE NEW upper bound to yearly influenza deaths.  THANK YOU!

 

These global influenza-associated respiratory mortality estimates are higher than previously reported, suggesting that previous estimates might have underestimated disease burden.

So, where was YOUR highly credible source again on the 3 million influenza deaths?  Now that you've FAILED in your attempt to even READ mine

Edited by gamesguru, 05 July 2020 - 02:52 PM.

[pamojja]

Distracting again from a direct answer by throwing in something unrelated:

 

 

The study authors note that these new estimates are limited to flu-associated respiratory deaths and therefore may underestimate the true global impact of seasonal influenza. Influenza infection can create or exacerbate other health factors which are then listed as the cause of death on death certificates, for example cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or related complications. Additional research to estimate non-respiratory causes of flu-associated deaths are ongoing.

 

Why you deny they exluded comorbidities, when covid-19 death numbers don't?

[gamesguru]

Lol not even in the study, just the "non-primary" write up.  Good work primary pete.

 

Seems highly speculative that respiratory influenza deaths would comprise a minority (600,000) compared to speculative secondary causes (2,400,000).  I find the converse more likely true, that a minority are comprised by speculative causes.

 

Almost as speculative as the idea that COVID is killing more people than reported, except that's way more reasonable given the current climate lol

 

Btw I'm patiently awaiting sources on the 3 million figure

[pamojja]

Obviously in denial:

 

 

The study authors note that these new estimates are limited to flu-associated respiratory deaths and therefore may underestimate the true global impact of seasonal influenza. Influenza infection can create or exacerbate other health factors which are then listed as the cause of death on death certificates, for example cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or related complications. Additional research to estimate non-respiratory causes of flu-associated deaths are ongoing.

 

Since you deny even the definitions by the study authors provided by yourself, how much more you would by the original source of the WHO numbers?

[osris]

 

Still not read your own source? Which clearly states its limitation is in underreporting due to excluding comorbitities!

 

Or in wilful and permanent denial?

 

Good point. Gamesguru hasn't got an eye for detail, it seems.

[osris]

Yes I read my source, I'm waiting to read yours if it exists.

 

 

 

As Pamojja said, your source "clearly states its limitation is in underreporting due to excluding comorbitities!".

 

Like Hip, you avoid responding to specific facts that are put to you.

[osris]

Please explain.  They already factor a multivariate analysis into their UPDATED extrapolation.

 

It says higher than PREVIOUSLY reported.  In this report they set 600,000 as THE NEW upper bound to yearly influenza deaths.  THANK YOU!

 

So, where was YOUR highly credible source again on the 3 million influenza deaths?  Now that you've FAILED in your attempt to even READ mine

 

Here, again, you fail to acknowledge Pamojja's observation that the source you used, as Pamojja said "clearly states its limitation is in underreporting due to excluding comorbidities!"

 

Please stop ignoring inconvenient facts.

[osris]

 

 

Almost as speculative as the idea that COVID is killing more people than reported, except that's way more reasonable given the current climate lol

 

 

 

Not "way more reasonable", I'm afraid.

 

 

"We include all deaths where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate, even if only suspected".

 

https://blog.ons.gov...e0b76ebfda573c8

 

 

“Is Britain's Covid-19 death toll HALF of the 50,000 already recorded? Expert claims official tally may be too high because doctors are too keen to name the virus on death certificates and most victims were going to die anyway because they were elderly.”

 

https://www.dailymai...18228&si=464550

[osris]

osris i don't even think read half the things he quoted, because he quotes to very clearly contradictory articles:

 

• The majority of the Covid death numbers are due to test results being false positives.
• “Coronavirus deaths ‘may be less than half official toll – as docs wrongly mark certificates’, says ex-WHO chief.”

 

 

How are these statements contradictory? 

 

The first one points out that deaths attributed to Covid didn’t occur, but were assumed to be Covid deaths due to inaccurate test results. 

 

The second one points out that deaths attributed to Covid didn’t occur, but were assumed to be Covid deaths due to death certificates being marked incorrectly.  

 

Both statements say the same thing, namely, the deaths referred to were not deaths due to Covid but deaths due to other things, but incorrectly attributed to Covid.

[gamesguru]

NPR has a comprehensive story about DeSantis’s corruption in Manipulating Covid data and concealing the failure of his administration to deal with Covid. He has a great deal of Florida blood on his hands. Stay out of Florida if you value your health.