Elderly Woman Euthanized to Avoid Anguish of Lockdown Loneliness
Well okay. See ya.
An analysis of US deaths, for any cause, by all ages, was finally completed by JHU. Similar to the UK findings, COVID-19 deaths have 0 affect on the overall death data.
JHU deleted their article because it exploded and people posted it everywhere.
But not before it got archived. 🙂 People got it archived and we can see the overview of the research:
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.
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 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people.
The article is a good read. Turns out that Artol's comments back in April were right: these elderly would have died within the year, anyway.
And, there is a "sudden decline in deaths" in multiple categories during the pandemic but a massive increase in respiratory related deaths. Indicating, quite clearly, that we changed how we classified causes of deaths on paper but the actual causes of death are due to the same problems as before (the comorbidities that the average COVID-19 patient has are the reasons they die because almost no one dies from SARS-CoV-2 who contracts the virus).
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
However, this does not explain the loss of life from depression, violence, drug use, suicide, stress, immuno-suppression, etc. But as some European countries discovered, the lack of "activity" reduced deaths in some areas (car accidents, for example) so the increase in deaths in one area may be offset in another leaving the overall deaths pretty much unchanged.
Did anyone ever end up doing a rebuttal to this?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Dutch study has finally passed peer review and got published on the public use and efficacy of mask wearing:https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
And the results: 1.8% of the mask-wearing group got infections over the study period. 2.1% of the non-mask-wearing group got infections over the study period. A result which was deemed "not statistically significant." Meaning, there was no statistical difference between the two groups.
But they did a deeper dive into the data because the "mask group" had 3 levels of mask-adherence: exactly as instructed, mostly as instructed, not very well.
In the "exactly as instructed group", which was about 40% of the study group, the infection percentage is 2.0%. The comparable control group is 2.1%. Meaning, when they looked at the group of strictly wearing mask adherents in the study group, the infection rate when up and matched "no mask." Again, none of these differences were deemed statistically significant.
And the researchers were clear on the setting for this research:
Meaning, they'd get the absolute best results to measure for the non-mask group since almost no people were wearing masks, at the time. But they still found no statistically significant difference even with these factors at play.
Even more bad news: eyeglasses provided no additional protection when they stratified the participants into eyeglass and non-eyeglass wearing groups. This is bad news because we thought that having eye glasses might offer some protective benefit from conjunctival infections. But it doesn't. Face shields are still a relevant area to study, though. We need data on faceshields.
In their conclusion statement:
So it is possible, where social distancing is not possible, that masks could still provide a protective benefit.
They also reviewed other studies and why they are weak or just not great science when it comes to mask wearing efficacy.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
One thing to note, though, is it looks like N95s make a comeback in one of the studies they referenced with a significant result showing a marked protective benefit from the N95s. Likely, they are citing (in the cited meta analysis study) the research I already have cited in this thread. To be fair, there is also RCT research out there that contradicts the protective benefit of he N95 and you should probably save those for the immuno-compromised (like my mother and -Pr-) and healthcare workers.
Social distancing, however, still appears to work. Stay out of people's personal space.
Originally posted by Surtur
Did anyone ever end up doing a rebuttal to this?
I’m not sure it needs a rebuttal, it’s not super surprising. As far as I can tell the suggestions of wearing masks are based on masks being effective in protecting others if you have the virus, not offering much if any protection for you. The study doesn’t really aim to address that.
Originally posted by Artol
I’m not sure it needs a rebuttal, it’s not super surprising. As far as I can tell the suggestions of wearing masks are based on masks being effective in protecting others if you have the virus, not offering much if any protection for you. The study doesn’t really aim to address that.
It's still a nice find given the mass protests lack of social distancing was defended with "but they wore masks".
Despite no health official ever saying masks negate the need for social distancing. In fact they are most effective if you social distance while wearing one.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's still a nice find given the mass protests lack of social distancing was defended with "but they wore masks".Despite no health official ever saying masks negate the need for social distancing. In fact they are most effective if you social distance while wearing one.
Yeah ppl need to learn the most important take away from masks and that is stop playing the with damn mask and touching shit.
Originally posted by SurturYou are correct in that social distancing is still preferred over mask wearing. In fact just avoiding large crowds of people in general is preferred.
It's still a nice find given the mass protests lack of social distancing was defended with "but they wore masks".Despite no health official ever saying masks negate the need for social distancing.
That being said wearing masks does still help make it harder for people already infected to spread the virus.
Also I've always heard it phrased that at least democratic rallies and large gatherings tend to at least try to reduce risk.
Compare that to conservative gatherings and most of them just don't care. Which is why Trump rallies started becoming super spreader events on their own.
Originally posted by Newjak
You are correct in that social distancing is still preferred over mask wearing. In fact just avoiding large crowds of people in general is preferred.That being said wearing masks does still help make it harder for people already infected to spread the virus.
Also I've always heard it phrased that at least democratic rallies and large gatherings tend to at least try to reduce risk.
Compare that to conservative gatherings and most of them just don't care. Which is why Trump rallies started becoming super spreader events on their own.
But see they have no room to cry about conservative rallies when they do not social distance at their own. That is the point. If they're gonna gripe about covid guidelines not being followed they should follow them. They don't get a pass cuz the conservatives give even less of a shit.
And I know you don't need to be told it hasn't been conservatives by and large as the ones lecturing people about how we need to follow these guidelines...it has been democrats.