Johns Hopkins article on actual Covid death rate deleted

[Syne]

Johns Hopkins student newspaper deletes, then retracts, article on faculty member’s presentation about COVID-19 deaths

But nothing on the web is truly deleted:

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.

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 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.

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.
https://web.archive.org/web/202011222140...o-covid-19

[confused2]

As the student newspaper later points out - the reason for retraction is that paper contradicts data like:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/exces...gion=World

---

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.

[Syne]

As the student newspaper later points out - the reason for retraction is that paper contradicts data like:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/exces...gion=World

Really? Instead of citing the CDC data, which is what she was using, the editor's note cites The Human Mortality Database, UK Office for National Statistics?
Pretty suspect to be citing UK numbers instead of US CDC numbers.
And failing to look at deaths by age completely dodges the point of her paper.

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.

Too bad they didn't manage to refute anything in that article. As usual with these sorts of things, they refute straw men and only pretend they've refuted the actual claims made.

[confused2]

There's a CDC graph of excess deaths here:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid...deaths.htm

 Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.

Is that actually true? Try for yes or no.

Edit: CDC allow for a 5% margin in what they regard as 'excess' deaths

[Syne]

There's a CDC graph of excess deaths here:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid...deaths.htm

My point is that we don't really know how many excess deaths are due to Covid or knock-on effects of lock downs and hospital avoidance.

 Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.

Is that actually true? Try for yes or no.

No, it does look like there is an increase in the total number of deaths, but we won't really know the final tally until the end of the year or further, as we may have only seen a temporary increase in premature deaths.

And even the original article said:

“At the end of the day, it’s still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant,” Dharmasena said.

When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.
https://web.archive.org/web/202011222140...o-covid-19

I agree with that last sentence 100%, regardless of what the final tally may end up being.