192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:27 am
@oristarA,
I see, pinky's "chart" lumps heart, cancer and all accidents together to get 7K deaths per day. Covid is alrady showing 3K per day just for that disease alone.


Also, doofus,(PINKY) deaths spike after lagging those hospitalized , (usually by a few weeks), Ya gotta gt the disease, then be hospitalized before ya die.

You dont really have a grasp of data do you(pinky), I laughed when you posted the "forensic: crap on voting "spikes"

hightor
 
  3  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:32 am
a non-observant person wrote:
I was handed nothing.

Apparently this character is either egotistical or paranoid and thinks every comment is directed his way. The exchange had nothing to do with this person. Laughing
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:34 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I see, pinky's "chart" lumps heart, cancer and all accidents together to get 7K deaths per day. Covid is alrady showing 3K per day just for that disease alone.

Every cause of death is in there. Those are total deaths per day each year on the chart. Are you that dumb? There is no separate chart for Covid.
farmerman
 
  2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:38 am
@coldjoint,
you didnt list covid at ALL in the D/D list and we already know that Trump is responsible for 3K deaths a DAY right now. So is it 7k +3K or 10 K a day or are all other causes lumped together onl 4K per day? Cmon, man.
follow the bouncing ball doof.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:42 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

a non-observant person wrote:
I was handed nothing.

Apparently this character is either egotistical or paranoid and thinks every comment is directed his way. The exchange had nothing to do with this person. Laughing

Is obsessed any better than paranoid? You seem to be with me.

Keep in mind you really have no opinion of your own, the NYT does your thinking for you.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:43 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

you didnt list covid at ALL in the D/D list and we already know that Trump is responsible for 3K deaths a DAY right now. So is it 7k +3K or 10 K a day or are all other causes lumped together onl 4K per day? Cmon, man.
follow the bouncing ball doof.

Wrong, those are total deaths per day. Every death is included.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:43 am
@farmerman,
Flawed Analysis Leads to False Claim of ‘No Excess Deaths’ in 2020

An economics professor’s flawed interpretation of U.S. mortality data has prompted a viral, false claim that COVID-19 hasn’t led to more deaths than normal this year. In fact, multiple analyses have found there to be a higher-than-normal number of deaths during the pandemic — as much as 20%, according to some studies.

Quote:
Viral headlines and social media posts are propelling the erroneous claim that there have been “no excess deaths” in the U.S. this year, suggesting that concern over COVID-19 is overblown.

That’s wrong.

As we’ve previously explained, excess deaths are deaths above the number expected in a given time period. The metric in the context of COVID-19 can help assess the impact of the pandemic, including by capturing direct and indirect effects of the virus. It can account for unreported COVID-19 deaths and for other factors — such as people dying from other causes, say avoiding medical attention, as well as drops in other deaths due to pandemic-related restrictions.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in October published a report that found that from late January through Oct. 3, there were an estimated 299,028 excess deaths. Two-thirds were estimated to be directly attributed to COVID-19.

The COVID-19 death toll has surpassed 275,000, as of Dec. 3, according to Johns Hopkins University data. Cases are rising around the country, and projections anticipate that the death count will climb past 300,000 by the end of the year.

The viral claim about “no excess deaths” — which has been amplified by unreliable websites and disseminated on Facebook and Twitter — stems from an online presentation by an economics lecturer at Johns Hopkins. But it’s flawed for multiple reasons, experts say.

In a Nov. 13 webinar, Genevieve Briand, the assistant director for the university’s Applied Economics master’s program, looked at select CDC data, such as weekly reported deaths, to reach the faulty conclusion that there is “no evidence that COVID-19 create[d] any excess deaths.”

“Total death number are not above normal death numbers,” she claims. “We found no evidence to the contrary.”

Her claims were then relayed in a story in the Johns Hopkins News-Letter, a student-run publication, which said the analysis showed COVID-19 “has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.” The publication later retracted the report. An archived version of the story, however, has been shared on Facebook 10,000 times according to CrowdTangle analytics data.

The student publication’s retraction also became part of the false narrative online, triggering claims that the university had published a “study” then retracted it. “Johns Hopkins Study Mysteriously Disappears after it Revealed, In Spite of COVID, No More Deaths in 2020 Than In Prior Years,” read the false headline on the Gateway Pundit, a far-right website known for spreading misinformation.

Briand, however, confirmed in an email to us that she had not published her analysis anywhere apart from the webinar. The video is still available on YouTube, where it’s been viewed more than 58,000 times. Briand told us she stood by her analysis.

But Dr. Steven Woolf, a professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University, told us that “multiple studies have shown that total deaths in the US are about 20% higher than expected.”

Woolf and colleagues relayed as much in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in October. “Although total US death counts are remarkably consistent from year to year, US deaths increased by 20% during March-July 2020,” the authors wrote.

Studies from others, including a paper by two University of Oxford economists, have reached similar conclusions.

Woolf said in an email that the lecture video instead presented a “very unsophisticated analysis, in which the speaker uses crude death counts for one year (2018) as the basis for comparison and performs simple subtraction from 2020 values for her assertions. Any reputable analysis of excess deaths is based on statistical modeling that computes seasonal averages over a period of many years, and this is done to adjust for random variation from year to year.”

“For example, our studies use Poisson regression modeling. Statistical modeling is necessary to know whether differences in death counts are statistically significant,” he said. “The speaker admits to merely eyeballing the trend lines for 2020. Researchers prefer to use statistical modeling to know whether a supposed change in counts is random variation or a statistically significant trend.”

The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics excess death analysis (which uses such modeling) has found deaths above normal rates week after week since the end of March — as readers can see in the center’s chart below.

https://public.tableau.com/static/images/CO/COVID_excess_mort_withcauses_11252020/WeeklyExcessDeaths/1_rss.png

Briand’s video doesn’t consider that analysis or any other previous studies on the issue.

Instead, she looks at some public CDC data and, in part, homes in on a spike in deaths in spring 2020, observing that it does not correspond with an increase in all deaths — such as heart disease, chronic lower respiratory disease, influenza and pneumonia — as was the case during a spike in deaths in early January 2018.

“Our death number increased in 2020 and we have less heart attack than in 2018,” she said. “Where have all the heart attacks gone?”

But she’s misleadingly comparing different points in time for the two years.

Bob Anderson, chief of NCHS’ Mortality Statistics Branch, said in an email statement that the video’s claims are born out of “a fundamental lack of understanding of the seasonal nature of mortality.”

While deaths typically increase in the winter, peaking around the New Year, “[d]eaths then decline in the spring through the summer and then increase again in the fall through the winter,” Anderson said. “But, what we are seeing in 2020 with the COVID-19 pandemic is very different. In the spring of 2020, during a period where we normally should be seeing declining mortality, deaths continued to increase and were at unusually high levels through the spring.”

The comparison of the two time periods used in the video is “not appropriate,” he said.

Anderson added that in 2018, “deaths followed the normal pattern (although at a higher level than normal). In 2020, deaths did not follow the normal pattern … they should have been declining in the spring, but instead increased substantially. In addition, we have an additional peak in deaths in late July/early August that seems to have been completely ignored in this analysis.”

“With regard to heart disease, it is true that heart disease deaths did not increase in April 2020 to the same extent that they did in January 2018,” he said. “But, in January, heart disease deaths are normally at a peak. In April, heart disease deaths are normally on the decline. Even so, the number of heart disease deaths has been largely above normal throughout the pandemic. The same is true for other causes of death, especially diabetes, hypertension, and dementia.”

So far this year, through the week ending Nov. 21, there have been 598,659 reported heart disease deaths in the U.S. — according to incomplete, provisional death count data published by the CDC on Dec. 3. In all of 2018, there were 655,381 deaths from heart disease.

In response to an inquiry about Briand’s claims, Johns Hopkins University spokeswoman Karen Lancaster said in a statement that “[w]hen individuals associated with Johns Hopkins exercise the right of expression, they do not speak on behalf of the institution.”

“As set forth in the Johns Hopkins University Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom, academic freedom ‘is designed to afford members of the community the broadest possible scope for unencumbered expression, investigation, analysis, and discourse,’ all of which must be subject to the scrutiny of peer review,” she said.

Lancaster added: “Johns Hopkins University continues to have grave concerns regarding the extraordinary toll of death and illness wrought by COVID-19 and remains committed to contributing our expertise in responding to this continuously escalating global health crisis.”

factcheck
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 10:55 am
Factcheck is hopelessly bias. The narrative is what they check and anything that disagrees with that narrative is not factual. The fact is they lie too.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 11:12 am
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/alg121820dAPR20201217094518.jpg
The government is not a baby sitter. They need to stop acting like one.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 11:13 am
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/MC_Fauci_Grinch_web20201218012553.jpg
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 11:15 am
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/MC_ConspiracyTheorist_web20201217010000.jpg
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 11:16 am
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv121720dAPR20201217034538.jpg
Rebelofnj
 
  1  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 11:59 am
Pence receives Covid vaccine in televised appearance, hails 'medical miracle'

Quote:
Vice President Mike Pence received the Covid-19 vaccine in a televised appearance Friday morning in an effort to promote its safety and boost public confidence in its effectiveness.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was also given to his wife, Karen Pence, and Surgeon General Jerome Adams in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the the White House by a medical team from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

"I didn't feel a thing. Well done," Pence said in remarks after receiving the shot in his left arm.

Pence called it a "medical miracle," saying that the average vaccine usually takes eight to 12 years to develop, manufacture and distribute. "But we're on track here in the United States to administer millions of doses to the American people in less than one year. It is a miracle indeed," he said.

"Karen and I wanted to step forward and take this vaccine to assure the American people that while we cut red tape, we cut no corners," Pence added. "Thanks to the great work at the National Institutes of Health, and the great and careful work of the FDA and the leadership of our president and Operation Warp Speed, the American people can be confident we have one, and, perhaps within hours, two safe and effective coronavirus vaccines for you and for your family."

Doctors advised the Pences and Adams that they must return in 21 days for the second dose of the vaccine and that they may feel some soreness around the injection site.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/pence-set-receive-covid-vaccine-televised-appearance-n1251655
BillW
 
  2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:01 pm
@revelette3,
rev wrote:

You can read the original article at Business Insider link in the above link. I just find the MSN news very convenient to get news from several sources without to pay for all those subscriptions.

I do to!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:08 pm
@coldjoint,
The post which was unfortunately deleted ...

Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/EunLlqK.jpg
[...]
https://i.imgur.com/tHmOOCf.jpg



... was very interesting.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:19 pm
Quote:
California violated its own election laws

In California state law, the election code is titled “Division 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS.”

In Article 1 of this code we find Election Code 13200, which reads as follows:

“Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

That’s straightforward English. It’s at the 9th-grade reading level, so assuming California’s election officials can understand it, here it is one more time, with emphasis:


“Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

When we read a little further, we find Section 13205. Since we’re talking about the election of the President and Vice President, we’ll look at the applicable subsection:

13205 (b). In elections when electors of President and Vice President of the United States are to be chosen, there shall be placed upon the ballot, in addition to the instructions to voters as provided in this chapter, an instruction as follows:

“To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.”
This Napa County ballot is missing required text from Section 13205 (b). California code 13244 states sample ballots must match actual ballots, including instructions.

In other words, by California law, the paragraph quoted was supposed to appear on all California ballots. And remember, according to Section 13200, “Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

And guess what? According to data collected by the American Independent Party in California, those words did not appear on ballots in 53 of California’s 58 counties.

In the remaining five counties, ballots required additional wording that is outlined in California Election Code 12305 (c). Some of those county’s ballots included the wording from section (b), but ballots in all five of those counties were still missing the required wording from section (c).

This means 100 percent of California’s voting was conducted in complete violation of its state election laws.
Alpin
This Alpine County’s ballot has the required text for section 13205 (b) but not the text for section (c) which was required for Alpine County.

If the United States is to be a country governed by laws, none of the ballots from California should have been cast nor counted. It’s right there in California state code. Thus, all of California’s ballots are invalid, they cannot be officially counted in the state’s vote totals, and California’s electoral college votes must be invalidated.

306 -55 = 251. Rule of law, I hear it all the time. I say we do it, not talk about it. Invalidate those electors.
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/17/california-clearly-violated-election-law-votes-are-invalid/
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:21 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

The post which was unfortunately deleted ...

Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/EunLlqK.jpg
[...]
https://i.imgur.com/tHmOOCf.jpg



... was very interesting.

Why was it deleted? The truth bothers someone?
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:27 pm
Supreme Court throws out challenge to Trump's plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from census count
CNN Digital Expansion 2018 Veronica Stracqualursi
By Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN

Updated 11:23 AM ET, Fri December 18, 2020

(CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday threw out a challenge for now to President Donald Trump's bid to exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted when seats in Congress are divvied up between the states next year, but left open the possibility the issue could be revisited at the nation's highest court.

Friday's ruling is a narrow victory for Trump as it wipes away a lower court opinion that went against him, but the President still has upcoming hurdles should he try to push through his policy based on census data in his final days in office.

The court said the challengers, a coalition of states led by New York and immigrant rights groups, did not have the legal injury necessary to bring the case because the government has not yet announced which individuals it seeks to exclude from the count.

Census officials have indicated they're facing difficulties processing census responses in time to produce the final count by an end of the year deadline.

If the census numbers are produced after January 20, President-elect Joe Biden has already suggested he would work to reverse Trump's memorandum signed in July.

The court stressed that it "expressed no view" on the merits of the case, but concluded that the dispute is currently "premature" because of the procedural issues surrounding whether the case was properly before the justices.

The court also knocked the case as being "riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review."

Liberals dissent

The three liberal justices dissented from the opinion.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, criticized the court's decision to throw out the case based on the "uncertainty" on how Commerce Department officials would attempt to implement Trump's directive.

Breyer wrote that the "question is ripe for resolution" and that the court should have reached the merits of the dispute and ruled against the President.

"The plain meaning of the governing statutes, decades of historical practice, and uniform interpretations from all three branches of Government demonstrate that aliens without lawful status cannot be excluded from the decennial census solely on account of that status," Breyer wrote. "The Government's effort to remove them from the apportionment base is unlawful, and I believe this Court should say so."

Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and a law professor at the University of Texas, called Friday's decision "a bit of a mixed bag."
"On one hand, the court has thrown out efforts by a number of different plaintiffs to prevent the Trump administration from excluding undocumented immigrants from next year's apportionment. On the other hand, part of why is because it isn't at all clear that the government is going to be able to implement its controversial policy before the Biden administration takes over on January 20," he told CNN.

"So even though today's ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, it may only be a temporary one -- with both the merits of the policy and whether it will actually be implemented in time still to be decided," Vladeck added.

The American Civil Liberties Union said that the Supreme Court decision is "only about timing, not the merits" -- and that if Trump's policy were to be implemented, they would challenge it again in court.

"This ruling does not authorize President Trump's goal of excluding undocumented immigrants from the census count used to apportion the House of Representatives," Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project who had argued the case, said in a statement Friday. "The legal mandate is clear -- every single person counts in the census, and every single person is represented in Congress. If this policy is ever actually implemented, we'll be right back in court challenging it."

The Constitution provides that House representatives "shall be apportioned" among the states counting the "whole number of persons in each State" every 10 years.

Congress directed the Commerce secretary to conduct the census and submit the tabulation to the President by December 31. The President, in turn, transmits the number to Congress usually around the first week or so of January.

Trump issued a memo in July outlining a new policy mandating that undocumented immigrants be excluded from the apportionment base. The memo directed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to provide the President with a count of the entire population and a second tally that excludes "aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status."

A three-judge court in the Southern District of New York blocked the White House policy in September.

"Throughout the Nation's history, the figures used to determine the apportionment of Congress have included every person residing in the United States at the time of the census, whether citizen or non-citizen and whether living here with legal status or without," the court held.
Trump's memo, the court stressed, violates "Congress's mandate to use the results of the census -- and only the results of the census -- in connection with the apportionment process."

Trump has long sought to use the US census as a way to advance his immigration priorities. Last year, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to ask respondents if they are US citizens.

This story has been updated with additional details.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:31 pm
Quote:
Needed: A Vaccine for Leftism

Quote:
The New York Times naturally gives us a thumb-sucker of a “news” story today wringing their white-guilt-ridden hands about the scene, including such gems as:

Historically, the [CDC] committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well, noted Lisa A. Prosser, a professor of health policy and decision sciences at the University of Michigan. . .

Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter,” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

Chaser: Did you know that Helen Keller was just “another privileged white woman”? Time magazine just discovered this, after all this time:

Article mentioned is hightor approved, I would think. That probably goes for Helen too.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/12/needed-a-vaccine-for-leftism.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+powerlineblog/livefeed+(Power+Line)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:32 pm
@coldjoint,
I only posted that screenshot to have a source showing what charcter you are.

Sancta Corona, ora pro coldjoint.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.51 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 05:47:01