Johns Hopkins: Heart Disease Deaths Dropped in 2020 [pdf]
corona-transition.org
corona-transition.org
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-...
Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19.
>After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September
Addendum:
> This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years.
Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per age category" and "total raw death count"?
> Am I the only person confused with the language here? What is the difference between "Total deaths per age category" and "total raw death count"?
The article has multiple items of incorrect analysis.
One is that having constant percentages of deaths per age category, does not show that the death count is itself constant.
A separate one is that the claim that “total death numbers are not above normal death numbers” is factually incorrect.
While reading the link, and before reading the retractation, I made myself these exact remarks. One thing I saw in the article, which the retractation implies, but does not emphasize, is that this assertion:
> 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
… is a non-sequitur. The fact that a large number of deaths has been reached in the past, does not imply that it being reached with COVID-19 is normal.
This is 100% malicious misinformation and should not be posted anywhere.
Many of the conclusions drawn in the paper and in articles reporting on it are overblown or misleading on their own. There was good reason John Hopkins added a five paragraph disclaimer and a "RETRACTED" watermark to this on their own site.
If you doubt me or disagree, look at the claim of the paper that has been reported on by various media outlets. It essentially states that looking at cdc data there is drop in other forms of death that was replaced with covid deaths, meaning that there was no actual increase in deaths. Now, go pull up the cdc data that breaks down how many people died of each cause per week for 2019 and 2020 [1]. Using either the on-website graph creator, python notebooks, excel, or your data scientist tool of choice try to recreate a graph showing all causes of death by week that supports this paper. I quickly got a graph that showed a simple reality, compared to 2019 there has been an increase in deaths per week that almost precisely corresponds with the numbers of covid deaths per week.
If you want to argue the number of covid deaths is too low to worry about or it was handled well, go for it. Just don't get sheeped into believing that covid deaths aren't real.
[1] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-Counts-of-Deaths-by-State-a...
EDIT: Apparently the video presentation this paper is based on is out there at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKJN61aflI . Since I have not finished it I've amended the post considerably and added a disclaimer since I used some strong words originally. Many thanks to the commenter who pointed me to the youtube presentation.
I agree with you that her claims could be wrong, but please watch the original source material (https://youtu.be/3TKJN61aflI) - I think she is being much more nuanced that you're giving her credit for. She is presenting her findings, showing exactly how she did it, and asking for feedback ("I hope I hear more from people who have done more than me" - 43:10).
You can follow her workflow and disagree - and probably will! But that's ok - that's how science works. I look forward to many well-written posts going through her analysis and showing alternate interpretations. I'm guessing she looks forward to this too.
We (the US, probably other countries) have pretty good statistics for how many people die every year (and what killed them). We can use this historical data to estimate how many people would have died in a normal 2020. Compare that to what actually happened, and its a pretty good argument for how many people COVID killed.
Similarly, homicides are the only type of crime that statistics can be reliably compared across countries, because the definition of "murder" is consistent in a way that other crimes aren't.
To copy a previous comment of mine - regardless of the actual effect of lockdowns, I think this has become such a political issue in the US that the American left would be very hard pressed to publicly change course.
I really hope that statisticians are able to look past their own personal convictions and look at possible ways our assumptions may have been incorrect. (Personally speaking, I wear a mask, I don't think the coronavirus is a giant conspiracy by the lizard people etc. but I do recognize that the modern scientific community has a tendency to think one way, and then remain cemented in that way for a while.)
[0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do...
> "In countries with UHC—defined in the study as [...]—the link between unemployment and excess cancer deaths disappeared, suggesting that greater access to health care played a key role in mitigating the problem."
If you are really interested in the effect of lockdown on public health my suggestion is to decouple your thinking from American politics and view it as a global problem. How did lockdown affect public health in {China, South Korea, Italy, Germany, etc.}? As a counter-example, how did Sweden fare?
> I really hope that statisticians are able to look past their own personal convictions and look at possible ways our assumptions may have been incorrect.
This is pretty vague, what do you mean?
Also, while many countries have (on paper) universal health care, in reality you will need to go into the private system for quality care. I am definitely a fan of universal healthcare, and it works well in many rich countries, but this is a global pandemic, not just something affecting Europe and America.
> This is pretty vague, what do you mean?
People in general - and the scientific community is no exception - have the tendency to engage in groupthink and maintain incorrect assumptions, and this pandemic has shown that very clearly. For one simple example, look at the messaging around masks: the WHO was very slow to change their response. I think it's very possible that one or more major assumptions are incorrect, for example around transmission mechanisms, the best ways to stop the spread of the virus etc, and that we should encourage a diversity of approaches.
For one example, I am shocked that the countries that are incredible coronavirus "success stories" such as Vietnam only occasionally appear in the news. They just went three entire months with zero locally transmitted cases - what can we learn from them?
I'm not sure masks are a good example for 'groupthink'. The messaging was inconsistent not because 'all scientists were thinking alike' but because there was a lack of evidence around cotton-based 'community' masks and even medical masks of type II.
Sorry I'm pressing you on this. I agree groupthink does exist and is bad, however in the true sciences it's very rare. So would be interested to get an example related to Covid.
> For one example, I am shocked that the countries that are incredible coronavirus "success stories" such as Vietnam only occasionally appear in the news. They just went three entire months with zero locally transmitted cases - what can we learn from them?
Fully agree with you here. Every country seems to be in their own bubble and rarely look abroad in a deeper manner.
I think masks are a fine example - even far after there seemed to be evidence for their efficacy, many governments said they were not necessary based on advice from local scientists, and as late as September, you would see as few as 1 in 50 people wearing a mask in much of Western Europe.
> I agree groupthink does exist and is bad, however in the true sciences it's very rare.
Hmm. Most scientists I know are convinced groupthink is a problem in the sciences. One excellent example is particle physics and supersymmetry, which was basically treated as a religion. Some of the brightest minds of the 21st century were behind a theory that wasn't even falsifiable! The hunt to prove supersymmetry has, at this point, easily cost into the multiple _billions_ of dollars. Now, I don't consider it a total waste, but it certainly is a good example of groupthink. There are countless examples out there, but suffice to say scientists are just as human as the rest of us, and prone to groupthink like anyone else.
These claims are not from "Johns Hopkins" as an institution. The instructor making the claims is associated with a rolling-admission adult extension school, and the article discussing them appeared only in the general-purpose undergraduate campus student newspaper, which does not validate the scientific or academic accuracy of instructors' claims.
Disclaimer: I'm a JHU alum and former staff member of said student newspaper
At least Our World in Data website has those numbers:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat...
I encourage you to watch that video and judge the analysis yourself. In this video I feel like she is very balanced and is taking a scientific approach ("Here's how I did the analysis and here's what I'm saying - please let me know what you think") vs the media/twitter trying to summarize/polarize.
That should really teach you something about relying on the style of presentation for judging whether a claim is reasonable. In this case, it's garbage.
This is a subject where incorrect information is actually endangering lives. Why keep this up, when it is known to be wrong?
That, to me, implies malice. I do not see any other way to interpret that.
Although this is pre-COVID so perhaps the stress was because it was the minority of people at a company who were working remotely, therefore feeling left-out, stressed etc