440
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
440 points (96.0% liked)
politics
31342 readers
3202 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
As the article explains, the study in question is actually kind of weak in terms of providing solid proof that the excess deaths were attributable to COVID-19, but it's apparently one in a growing number of studies that all have relatively weak "arrows" pointing in the same direction. So, the reason researchers view these studies as evidence that Republican messaging on vaccines is partially to blame is due to the collective body of evidence, not just this paper.
But that’s the thing about excess mortality during COVID, it was mostly due actual COVID
??? Did you even read the article you posted?
Excess deaths can be anything including say blood clots causing organ damage long after you had covid, because who knows what the long term effects were. So you didn't die directly because of covid, but can easily be caused by covid (and not counted). That's kind of why it's measured. But you can also say excess deaths were from not having random doctors visits and randomly catching issues. So no one is willing to say much. But I think it's pretty apparent that a disease that cause severe health issues is going to cause more than the direct deaths.
Anecdotallly, we saw a LOT of this. I had a dialysis patient who survived Covid, but their quality of life was so poor they chose to stop dialysis. Another week recovered from Covid and collapsed their first day back to work with new onset cardiac problems. Another who had multiple hospitalizations for hypotension after a Covid episode when they had been stable on their cardiac meds for decades.
None of those get counted as Covid deaths. They're all "excess deaths"
Also excess deaths include deaths that likely wouldn't have happened before COVID, but due to factors like overworked health care staff or shortage of supplies/medical beds because of COVID patients, happened anyway.
In other words, people didn't just die from COVID, some died from COVID existing.
Maybe, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case, but the point is the study doesn't actually prove it and it admits that.
It's never going to be provable, that's why it's measured as excess deaths.
I understand the study's basic methodology. It doesn't change my point. And I don't know that it's never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn't, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true.
You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it.
You are missing the entire point of looking at excess deaths.
No, I'm not. Ironically, I think you are. But I'm tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to.
I agree with you, it's in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched
Weak compared to what?
In my experience litigating medicolegal causation, this is the nature of epidemiology.
Like, the standard isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt," in my view, it's "preponderance of the evidence," aka "more likely than not."
More likely than not, the excess deaths were COVID. It's like when the weather forecasts a 20% chance of rain. Weak, right? No. It's a 100% chance of rain in 20% of the forecast area.