Also from that link:

Also if you actually read the ONS stats for that winter, the contribution is around 35%.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...016to2017final


Also if you look at hospital admission data, ICU demand from flu in a historically cold winter is not comparable to ICU admissions from C19 in again in a warm spring.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...17_to_2018.pdf

Again though you are trying to compare excess deaths from a historically severe winter with excess deaths from a comparatively warm spring, that is absolutely ridiculous.

C19 is killing people in significant numbers in Northern Hemisphere states with poor prevention in June, July and August and suggesting well so what flu did the same when there was a bad vaccine during a particularly cold winter December to March is of course a terrible argument. Even more so when you drill down into those excess deaths and find it was the historically cold weather causing the lion share.

If we implement the same poor prevention here then there is no reason not to expect the same results.

I would highly recommend ignoring 3-day moving averages for +cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

I am currently tracking about 17 states individually. The number of +cases, hospitalizations and deaths varies by day of the week. I think some states do less reporting over the weekend. Some states right now don't do any reporting at all over the weekend (CT, RI and maybe now MA).

Overall in the US the average # of cases and deaths by day of the week since February 28 (I get my data at 6:30pm so it could very well be that some states are reporting prior day data and some are reporting the past 24 hr data):
Day of the Week ( Avg +Cases ) Avg Deaths
- Mondays ( 25,818 ) 609
- Tuesdays ( 28,266 ) 1,120
- Wednesdays ( 31,064 ) 1,170
- Thursdays ( 32,274 ) 1,098
- Fridays ( 33,480 ) 1,025
- Saturdays ( 31,131 ) 928
- Sundays ( 27,958 ) 631

You can see that Sundays and Mondays are much lower than the other days of the week. And Saturdays deaths are lower than weekdays other than Mondays. So if Sunday and/or Monday are included in any 3-day averages it will grossly affect the results. Edit: Similar results for Texas.

For individual states that don't do any reporting of data at all for any given day I do smooth out the data (averaging it over the missing days with the data from the following day which is usually substantial).

But even when doing that I am left with lower averages on the weekends. Are people really dying less on Saturday and Sunday?

I would highly recommend using rolling averages that cover multiples of 7 days (like 7 day, 14 day, 21 day, etc.)

If the positivity rate is soaring then it means either that the rate of infection is increasing or that you are testing less. Even if you are testing less it can still indicate that Covid is spreading faster. That would depend on how much less you are testing...

If you are testing more or the same then it unequivocally means that Covid is spreading more.

In the middle of July the +test rate in Texas was going up (7 day rolling averages) and at the same time they were setting daily records for 7 day test case averages. This was about the time that the Governor of Texas recognized that he had to do something.

Currently 7 day and 14 day rolling avgs for +cases in Texas are substantially lower than the peaks about 2 weeks ago. However, testing has been reduced in the past 2 weeks as well. If Texas was doing the same amount of testing as in the past, Texas would be recording near high +cases if we held the positive test rates the same (which would be a worst case analysis).

That's the bad news.

The good news is that in the past 4 days the deaths in Texas show that they are declining. 7 day avgs are lower than 14 day and 21 day avgs (though 21 day avgs are lower than 14 day avgs which is unusual)

Israel has been “We didn’t open schools until we had the virus under control and it was still an unmitigated disaster!”

US: “What I can’t hear you?”

Meanwhile we already have multiple examples of schools opening in southern states that were immediate disasters.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone who isn’t a science denier.

Being in Texas I have been hopeful in the recent trend. More specifically rd where I live in DFW. Dallas cases have really dropped. Unfortunately death rate decline is not matching cases but that is likely just the lag, or at least I hope.

It’s crazy that someone has to caveat a factual reality with “not being political” because tens of millions of Americans are too dumb to Science.

When you have hundreds of thousands of people participating in mass gatherings (encouraged by health professionals) in the middle of the worst pandemic for 100 years then your conclusion is probably accurate. Dumbness is the common denominator in USA #1.

My home town county made the national news for being the first school district to open up. Makes me proud

Haha so much fun.

They are calling for me to be banned in the CoronaVirus thread in the Business, Finance and Investing saying it is supposed to be devoid of politics and I am "politarding" the thread with my Trump points.

I put together a mega post quoting the TS, and showing long before I joined the thread his entire thesis is that the 'US is doing poorly as Covid is a "Dem Disease" and if not for Dem Leadership at the Governor and Mayor level and Dem voters, none of which whom would ever listen to Trump, things would be much better'.


In post over post he used that underlying premise and would post selective data to support and no one cried about politics. ANyone posts a counter and the tears flow.

It is amazing really but i guess not surprising that Trump fans would eat up confirmation bias material and think they should have a safe space to do so.



In the spoilers is just a smattering of the TS' posts as he, himself is now calling for my banning saying I am being political.

You obviously mean going to clubs, bars and indoor dining as those seem to be the factors that the US did a lot differently earlier than countries like Canada that also had large protests, except the protests did not cause a spike in cases as the indoor dining and parties were not available.

No doubt an honest mistake on your part that you keep making, because people like you do get confused pretty easily. Still, I hope the Trump team continues to try to message things like you as that will really ensure the orange moron loses to LOLBiden.

All the best.

Why would the onus be on me to bring in the variables which you mention? That is for you to state, which is fine you have made your point, but it has nothing to do with my own point - which is that the infection fatality rates are in the same ballpark. The rebuttal to this was that covid remains vastly more dangerous due to the lack of a vaccine. A reasonable argument, except it needs qualifying with the advice I cited directly from the CDC which is that a poorly matched vaccine can offer little to no benefit. The UK in 2018 is a case in point. Think now, what is my argument? Is it to try to demonstrate UK covid mortality figures Spring 2020 are no worse than the winter 2018 flu figures? No it is not, therefore I do not need to consider factors such as temperature that would affect the figures. My argument is to state that the absence of a covid vaccine does not necessarily make it vastly more dangerous than flu, given there are times when a flu vaccine does not work and we get significant excess mortality as a result. See, nothing to do with comparing excess deaths. As I suggested, perhaps a little less stereotyping on your part would help you understand what the position of your opponent actually is. You have also made the common error of confusing citation with reference. I did not cite the issue of a bad winter from the Independent report, it has nothing to do with my argument.

Also try drilling down into C19 excess deaths with the same forensic zeal.

If you cant see how a historically cold winter is going to contribute to the excess death figures you are basing your whole case on, then there is no hope in expecting you to concede to obvious realities.

Whatever then, consider my position as a meta mooting of your position.

Even in a historically cold winter with a poor vaccine we dont see anything close to the excess deaths from flu that we see from C19 in a warm spring.

If C19 was simply a flu then you would have to produce evidence of flu doing heavy lifting in warm springs, something afaik, flu has never done, even the second wave of Spanish Flu came in the winter.

Wait.... what? When?

Or maybe this will do it.

Yea Billy, remember that year we had a historically cold winter, and we had a **** vaccine for the flu?

That year, the year you contend flu was just as deadly as C19 due to **** vaccine, that year we had no lock down, no preventive measures.

That year, how many people did flu kill in the spring?

It is difficult to assess. Imperial College (Neil Ferguson, who has made multiple previous huge modelling errors eg. foot and mouth, swine flu) claimed there would be 500k deaths or 250k deaths without or with lockdown respectively. There have been 50 maybe 60k deaths reported (bearing in mind issues around reporting cause of death, method of testing etc but let us take this value as read). So the modelling of how lockdowns reduce transmission is guesswork.
In terms of restrictions each measure would need to be considered. For instance there are no Randomised Controlled Trials that support mask wearing to reduce transmission of infectious diseases. There are observational studies that support mask wearing but this does not meet a scientific standard. So you have an argument of 'x country/state mandated masks and had y reduction of infections' which is purely correlative.
What needs to be done is acknowledge the impact of lockdown, eg

https://www.dw.com/en/un-warns-of-ge...res/a-54428520

And yet Sweden for instance did not close its schools and did not suffer worse in terms of reported covid deaths.

I have already explained what my case is and it has nothing to do with excess death figures.
Have you drilled down into the c19 figures yet? No? Then why are you still asserting comparisons about excess mortality? Please state where I claim "c19 is simply a flu" and stop misrepresenting positions.

He's just repeating his lie about the George Floyd protests being the cause of the second wave of outbreaks rather than blaming Trump and Republican governors for opening businesses too soon and too unsafely.

There probably will never be. Do you see why?

Can't be. I find it incredibly hard to believe that scientists would ever say large gatherings are a good thing with C19 in full bloom. Joe... please cite or I will probably need to toss you out on yer butt end. 24 hour timer has started.

He's got a quote where some health professionals said that the protests were an acceptable risk. The lie is that the protests didn't actually cause the second wave.

Sorry, but encouraging and/or participating in mass gatherings in the midst of a 100 year pandemic is dumb. Extremely dumb. That was my point.

That it's risky is not to say that it is dumb or without merit. It's not even close to the dumbest or most damaging thing people have done in this pandemic.

Why bring up the excess death figures for winter 2018, something you explicitly referenced if they are so irrelevant? A bit odd that.

Your whole cite from the Independent is about the excess deaths of winter 2018.

Again when has flu killed significantly in the spring?

I think you are missing that this moots whatever point you are backtracking on to another position. Its the ultimate killer of flu bro positions.

Also lol at mentioning Sweden, maybe look at all the countries you can drive into Sweden from, its a while since I did the comparison, Ill do it again if I have to, but last time it was add up all the DPM of countries you can drive directly into Sweden from, times by 4 still less DPM.

As I understand it, RCTs have been done for previous respiratory illnesses via droplets and aerosol transmissions. Rancourt:

https://thewallwillfall.org/2020/06/...-social-policy

The citations in the report are worth reading. Rancourt has debated this with Kyle Johnson and I thought Rancourt had objectively the stronger argument because his was based on RCTs, ie the gold standard assessing medical intervention (not just for drugs as Kyle asserts) whereas Kyle was basing his view on oberservational/field/correlative which carries less weight. The debate is here:
https://youtu.be/AQyLFdoeUNk?t=165

The influenza virus is not a coronavirus. But OK, let's look at a few :

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

lol, dat sample size.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...6639CCC9D8BC05

The study that blog used to argue that masks don't work actually says that masks work, for exactly the reasons we've been saying.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...9.2011.00307.x

This metastudy confirms masks work.

That blog is lying to you. The studies it cites say masks work.

WOW. Are you serious? You are going to ban me for stating something that I have already verified and cited evidence for multiple times itt?