Horowitz: Hopkins analysis showing COVID-19 has 'relatively no effect on deaths' in US retracted from publication. Why?

[Cathoholic]

OP-ED NOVEMBER 30, 2020

Horowitz: Hopkins analysis showing COVID-19 has ‘relatively no effect on deaths’ in US retracted from publication. Why?​

If data analysis is insensitive or appears to ‘trivialize’ a pandemic, does it make the research false?

Floaria Bicher/Getty Images

DANIEL HOROWITZ

If data analysis is insensitive or appears to “trivialize” a pandemic, does it make the research false? The arguments of the lockdown and mask totalitarians are so fickle that they must resort to unprecedented censorship in order to win the day. Their views cannot coexist with any trace of dissent on the internet, which is why Johns Hopkins University, which has become a lead advocate for lockdowns, is evidently now censoring its own faculty in academic research.

POLL: What are you most worried about?

Last week, the Johns Hopkins News-Letter, a student newspaper, posted an article by Yanni Gu titled, “A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19.” It was based on an analysis conducted by Dr. Genevieve Briand, an economics teacher at Hopkins. I originally saw the article on Thanksgiving morning and quickly saw this very catchy conclusion. “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.”

When I clicked on it Thursday night, the link was dead. Then I saw that the Twitter account for the Hopkins News-Letter announced that it had been deleted:

The article “A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19,” published in the Science & Technology section on Nov. 22, has been deleted.

— JHU News-Letter (@JHU News-Letter)1606432396.0

Thankfully, the internet is eternal and you can still see an archived version here.

Isn’t it interesting how any analysis that seems to cast doubt on the prevailing panicked narrative of the virus must immediately be deleted or censored? When was the last time you saw one of the numerous inaccurate papers overstating the threat of the virus taken down from the web or labeled as inaccurate on social media? . . .

Horowitz: Hopkins analysis showing COVID-19 has 'relatively no effect on deaths' in US retracted from publication. Why? | Blaze Media

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 - The Johns Hopkins News-Letter

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is what the editors said:

After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we explained on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website.

In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently.

Briand’s study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

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. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

Because of these inaccuracies and our failure to provide additional information about the effects of COVID-19, The News-Letter decided to retract this article. It is our duty as a publication to combat the spread of misinformation and to enhance our fact-checking process. We apologize to our readers.

 

[toddy]

You did it right absolutely.

I was econometrist. Rough estimate how many percent of people maybe spread virus out door?

Pos cases/city population = infected %%

Infected %% x number of days affected = new infected %

Previous affect = 28 days spreading capacity – above days affected.

Pos cases from previous affect/population = previous infect %%

Previous infected %% x days of previous affect = previous infected %

Total of [new infected % + previous infected%] = infected spreading %

New infected per day in 15 days since Thanksgiving for high risk Los Angeles: 4.8%% x 15 days

Plus lesser infected 1.4%% x 13 days within 28 days before the holiday

Total is 7.2% + 1.8% = 9% can spread virus

This does not include an unknown group of asymptomatic people!

In lower risk cities with about 1200 pos cases a day.

The rates are 1%% x 13 + 1.4%% x 15 or total of 3.4%

The sinful people can kill other innocent people by saying:

99% infected are recovered
99% youth has no symptoms or recovered in few days
etc.

If any one get into the crowd in L.A. right now, at least 1 in 10 people do spread the virus. I do not hide my calculation to save other people’s life.

My city is 3.4+%

What is your city’s score?

You can forward my math to Briand so she can understand and then measure in the aggregate sums.

Stay home safe and God bless.

 

[Cathoholic]

The sinful people can kill other innocent people by saying:

99% infected are recovered

Were they “sinful” last year when they said 99.8% would get better from influenza too?

Or is it just now with corona virus?

I’m sure you are a non-killer toddy.

And you have been here since 2009.

Would you mind linking me to two of your posts last year where you issued
the same “killer” warning against those doggone minimizer killer people
regarding influenza too?

Thanks in advance.