Andy Paquette, Mask Science, Big Lie? |523|

You're lying again, blatantly.

Your first link has death rate for 2018 and 2019.
Correct.

Your second link doesn't have anything like what you said it does.
Yes it does. It has the exact same data as the first link, but for 2020. Both links give the mortality rate for each age group for each of the three years I mentioned 2018, 2019, 2020. I also wrote the numbers out for you in my post. It is very easy for you to look at the numbers in the link and the numbers in my post and confirm that they are the same.

I'm not confusing raw number and rates. We were talking about the % of total death accounted for by each group. Even the rate of death for younger age groups, allegedly by covid, is far lower than that of the older groups.
There's a difference between claiming that most of the people who died of COVID were elderly (which is true) and claiming the percent of death accounted for by the elderly should increase as a result (which is false). The first claim depends on changes in the raw numbers, but the second claim depends on changes in the mortality rate.
 
For everyone not Ellis,
Here are the excess death rates, by age, based on CDC figures. As you can see, covid is said to impact the elderly at a much higher rate that those under 65. It is unfortunate that this link doesn't have the under 65 broken out into finer cuts because the difference in rate would be even more pronounced for the younger buckets (as age decreases, rate of covid excess mortality decreases).

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ortality-rate-in-the-us-by-age-and-ethnicity/
The link I provided earlier for the mortality by age for 2020 breaks out the under 65 into finer cuts (i.e. by the decade), if you want to look at that.

That suggests the John Hopkins analysis I linked to up-thread is valid...Covid is said to disproportionately kill the elderly. The link on this comment shows that. Thus, the proportion of all deaths represented by the elderly should have increased under covid. It didn't.
"COVID disproportionately kills the elderly". You keep saying this, so you need to link to something that confirms this. Because the question is "disproportionate to what?" The risk of death from all causes increases steadily with increasing age, so that percent of deaths represented by the elderly is relatively large. The risk of severe illness or death from COVID "increases steadily as you age, and it’s not just those over the age of 65 who are at increased risk for severe illness." All I'm pointing out is that the steady increase in risk as you age, for all cause mortality, is the same as the steady increase in risk as you age for dying from COVID. So COVID shouldn't do anything to the "percent of deaths represented by the elderly" analysis. The rates and proportions are unchanged. All you are changing is the absolute numbers.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0625-update-expands-covid-19.html
 
There's a difference between claiming that most of the people who died of COVID were elderly (which is true) and claiming the percent of death accounted for by the elderly should increase as a result (which is false). The first claim depends on changes in the raw numbers, but the second claim depends on changes in the mortality rate.
You know that a rate and a percent really are the same thing, don't you. Well, maybe you don't.

"Percent" is from the French "pour cent", which translates to "for one hundred". So when you say 25%, you're really stating a rate, 25 out of every hundred. This of course could be expressed as rate per thousand of 2.5, or a rate per 10, 000 of .25, or a rate per 100,000 of .025. It's all the same thing as 25%.

Now, go back and read my example of the jelly beans a few comments back and see why I am right and you are wrong, as usual.
 
The link I provided earlier for the mortality by age for 2020 breaks out the under 65 into finer cuts (i.e. by the decade), if you want to look at that.
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me the hideous human tragedy that unfolded in years 2000 - 2004 when the mortality rate was significantly higher, each year, than 2020.

My god! I feel lucky to have survived! Maybe I was drinking a lot those years, because I don't even recall the devastation that was unfolding around me or stepping over all of the bodies, the smell of rotting flesh in the streets. The hospitals and ICUs shut down. Morgues overflowing! Like in 2020 but worse!

Maybe I have one of those psychological reactions where my mind won't allow me to recall because it was too traumatic. Can you help me remember?
 
I didn't say anything about the change in rate in those years. I said the rate was higher in each of those years than it was in 2020.
So what? What we are interested in are UNEXPECTED changes from one year to the next. The concern about 2020 isn't because we have a list of "bad" mortality rates and a list of "good" mortality rates. It's because there isn't any ordinary way to get a 16% increase in mortality rates within one year. Something really bad must have been going on.

What we are going to see is that mortality rate is going to dip in 2022 and then surge again in 2024. Fauci can invent a new pandemic at that time if he's still around. The mortality rate 1950 to present is mostly driven by demographics, better medical tech and lifestyles. Of those the virus killed (far fewer than alleged by the CDC) the vast majority were going to die soon anyhow. They died in 2020/2021 instead of 2022 or 2023. The mortality rate was always going to increase significantly 2020 - 2040, reversing the downward trend driven by age, medical improvements and lifestyle improvements over the past 50 years.
Do you have any sort of reference for those claims? The SSA Life Tables do not show any of this. Their predictions for the coming years and decades only show steady improvements in life-expectancy/mortality rates.
 
So what? What we are interested in are UNEXPECTED changes from one year to the next. The concern about 2020 isn't because we have a list of "bad" mortality rates and a list of "good" mortality rates. It's because there isn't any ordinary way to get a 16% increase in mortality rates within one year. Something really bad must have been going on.
No Ellis. I can't speak of any of this until you help me recall the early 2000s. My very sanity depends of recalling and dealing with it. Only you can save me with your superior understanding of data and analysis and, well, just about everything.

I know that last year the hospitals were unable to handle all the sick people and bodies were stacking up in morgues. They even had to create makeshift morgues. Death everywhere.....EVERYWHERE! It's all we heard about on the mainstream media.

It must have been the same a few years ago when the mortality rate was significantly higher than 2020. I'm amazed they didn't think about building more morgues and more hospital beds after the tragedy of the early 2000s. Free market failure?????????

What? How was all that illness and death handled then? I need to know, Tell me Ellis, please tell me.

Did they build morgues and hospitals, but then tore them down just a few years later? Yeah, maybe when they saw mortality rates decline they decided they'd always decline because trends NEVER stop once started. They go in the same direction and at the same rate of change, forever.

That's probably it. They knew that given falling mortality rates after the tragedy of the early 2000s, that rates would keep going down for ever. They probably figured - because they're smart like you - that in a few years, like 2030 or 2040 that no one would be dying, ever. Rates would just keep declining since 2006 until death had been erased as a phenomenon. Again, a trend once started, continues - and at the same rate of change - infinitely. No one would have expected a reversal. I personally expected baby boomers to live to be at least 150,000 years old. You did too huh? No one really needs healthcare either, because mortality rates were in decline. So it was cool to shut down access in 2020. Also cool to shoot up lots of fentanyl laced heroin because you can't die if mortality rates are declining.


Help me understand, please Ellis, oh wise and all knowing one. I can't go on without that answer first.
 
Last edited:
You know that a rate and a percent really are the same thing, don't you. Well, maybe you don't.

"Percent" is from the French "pour cent", which translates to "for one hundred". So when you say 25%, you're really stating a rate, 25 out of every hundred. This of course could be expressed as rate per thousand of 2.5, or a rate per 10, 000 of .25, or a rate per 100,000 of .025. It's all the same thing as 25%.

Now, go back and read my example of the jelly beans a few comments back and see why I am right and you are wrong, as usual.
I need to point out that your jelly bean example isn't the same kind of analysis as that done in the Johns Hopkins report. Do you want to go back and fix that?

But regardless...neither the CDC or anybody else is claiming that the new consumer prefers jelly beans DIFFERENTLY from how they are normally preferred. They are claiming that the new consumer has the same preferences, but eats way more jelly beans than normal consumers.
 
No Ellis. I can't speak of any of this until you help me recall the early 2000s. My very sanity depends of recalling and dealing with it. Only you can save me with your superior understanding of data and analysis and, well, just about everything.

I know that last year the hospitals were unable to handle all the sick people and bodies were stacking up in morgues. They even had to create makeshift morgues. Death everywhere.....EVERYWHERE! It's all we heard about on the mainstream media.

It must have been the same a few years ago when the mortality rate was significantly higher than 2020. I'm amazed they didn't think about building more morgues and more hospital beds after the tragedy of the early 2000s. Free market failure?????????

What? How was all that illness and death handled then? I need to know, Tell me Ellis, please tell me.

Did they build morgues and hospitals, but then tore them down just a few years later? Yeah, maybe when they saw mortality rates decline they decided they'd always decline because trends NEVER stop once started. They go in the same direction and at the same rate of change, forever.

That's probably it. They knew that given falling mortality rates after the tragedy of the early 2000s, that rates would keep going down for ever. They probably figured - because they're smart like you - that in a few years, like 2030 or 2040 that no one would be dying, ever. Rates would just keep declining since 2006 until death had been erased as a phenomenon. Again, a trend once started, continues - and at the same rate of change - infinitely. No one would have expected a reversal.

Help me understand, please Ellis, oh wise and all knowing one. I can't go on without that answer first.
Um, even I know the answer to this. And I'm not an actuary nor am I a bigwig health insurance planner, or whatever else it is that you claim to be.

What are you playing at here? I feel like you're asking me to explain how you get from 2x - y = 0 to 2x = y.
 
I need to point out that your jelly bean example isn't the same kind of analysis as that done in the Johns Hopkins report. Do you want to go back and fix that?

But regardless...neither the CDC or anybody else is claiming that the new consumer prefers jelly beans DIFFERENTLY from how they are normally preferred. They are claiming that the new consumer has the same preferences, but eats way more jelly beans than normal consumers.
No. I need you to tell me about all the death and suffering that I lived through in the early 2000s that I can't remember.

I'm so upset about that repressed recall that I can't do anything else until you save me from the syndrome.
 
Um, even I know the answer to this. And I'm not an actuary nor am I a bigwig health insurance planner, or whatever else it is that you claim to be.

What are you playing at here? I feel like you're asking me to explain how you get from 2x - y = 0 to 2x = y.
Help me Ellis! Oh God, please help me!

How did we live through all that death in the early 2000s? The bodies in the street from overflowing morgues. The sick people stacked in hospitals dying for lack of care because of the overload?

How?

Early 2000s mortality rate was higher than 2020, but then mortality rate declined to lower than 2020. It was on track to be a mortality rate of 0 per 100K!. I get it now that trends go in the same direction and at the same rate of change forever. So death was supposed to be a thing of the past in the near future. Thanks for setting me straight on that one. So if the trend reversed, then it must have been covid! Only covid - mighty covid! - could alter the trajectory of a trend.

I get that healthcare is unnecessary (thanks for clarifying that too!) and that denying access to millions of people with critical health issues would have no effect, like it wouldn't kill them and increase the mortality rate.

The last piece of the puzzle is my repressed memories of mass plague death that happened 2000 - 2004. Please just explain to me what we did? In 2020 the healthcare system and morgues were overwhelmed and the mortality rate was far lower than 2000 - 2004. The news and the government told me so. How did they do it back in the day?

And why were so many dying then? Was there a virus? I can't recall. Getting worried I have Alzheimer's. Please, Ellis, oh please explain this last bit to me!! I beseech you!
 
Last edited:
Ellis?

Elliiiiiiiiiisssssssss! Where are you?

I wasn't feeding you what you like to eat?

I once knew a one trick pony
who's trick was phony
when they found out
they stopped paying the money
poor little pony
out at pasture now
by his loney.
 
That doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy to release covid. It's just points out that a conspiracy isn't necessary to explain a lab leak, despite whatever motives one wishes to impute to shadowy villains like "Big Pharma
It doesn't, but there were some strange preparations preceding the pandemic.

The definition of a pandemic was adjusted.

A pandemic planning meeting was held in late 2019.

The whole machinery of censorship was being fired up on social media.

It is dumb to look for CT's where there is no evidence, but equally, it is dumb to ignore the possibility of a CT - because conspiracies do happen.

David
 
"Percent" is from the French "pour cent", which translates to "for one hundred". So when you say 25%, you're really stating a rate, 25 out of every hundred. This of course could be expressed as rate per thousand of 2.5, or a rate per 10, 000 of .25, or a rate per 100,000 of .025. It's all the same thing as 25%.
I hold my hand up -- I never was much good at maths. But doesn't 25% of 100 = 25, 25% of 1000 = 250, 25% of 10,000 = 2,500, and 25% of 100,000 = 25,000?

So, couldn't one say that 25% is a rate of: 25/100, 250/1000, 2500/10,000 or 25,000/100,000?

Maybe I'm just being dense and you can explain why you seem to have kept the numerator the same while increasing the denominator from 100 in multiples of 10, 100, and 1000 successively. That is, why you have evaluated 25/100, 25/1000, 25/10,000 and 25/100,000 successively, and seem to want to say they're all the same thing as 25%. For the life of me, I can't see how.

This has nothing to do with the argument between you and Ellis. It's a pure point of arithmetic. I just want to understand what you've done and why. If you can explain, I'm happy to be corrected.
 
It doesn't, but there were some strange preparations preceding the pandemic.

The definition of a pandemic was adjusted.

A pandemic planning meeting was held in late 2019.

The whole machinery of censorship was being fired up on social media.

It is dumb to look for CT's where there is no evidence, but equally, it is dumb to ignore the possibility of a CT - because conspiracies do happen.

David
Agree. Information-wise, that's the model and that's how things can spiral out of control and take on a life of their own. The amount and speed of information these days is incredible. It's like the tulip bulb craze to the 10th power. Same kind of madness of crowds; just faster and greater scale and scope.

None of that means (or doesn't mean) that the pandemic was hatched as a conspiracy. It could mean that once it began and once initial information was released, that subsequent info had to follow and reinforce the initial. AI and humans then assessed reactions, threats and opportunities and information favorable to stakeholders got replicated and multiplied and that not favorable got censored. I guess, at that point it becomes a conspiracy of sorts, but it's hardly controlled by a small select cartel. Rather it becomes a self-reinforcing story in the market place of ideas.
 
Last edited:
***
Love it, love it. I think "CT" is for conspiracy theory. Whenever 2 or more are gathered in his name = conspiracy. It's not a "conspiracy" if it keeps coming true.
HaHa, my brother(notice, I didn't LOL)!

Whenever two or more gathered in his name......fuck, there is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than that here! Amazing work, fucking love what you do, and have totally enjoyed the latest episodes, just haven't commented yet.
 
I hold my hand up -- I never was much good at maths. But doesn't 25% of 100 = 25, 25% of 1000 = 250, 25% of 10,000 = 2,500, and 25% of 100,000 = 25,000?

So, couldn't one say that 25% is a rate of: 25/100, 250/1000, 2500/10,000 or 25,000/100,000?

Maybe I'm just being dense and you can explain why you seem to have kept the numerator the same while increasing the denominator from 100 in multiples of 10, 100, and 1000 successively. That is, why you have evaluated 25/100, 25/1000, 25/10,000 and 25/100,000 successively, and seem to want to say they're all the same thing as 25%. For the life of me, I can't see how.

This has nothing to do with the argument between you and Ellis. It's a pure point of arithmetic. I just want to understand what you've done and why. If you can explain, I'm happy to be corrected.
No. Not the same thing, though I see what you're saying. I was addressing a specific spurious argument Ellis was making.

25 out of 100 = 25%, but it's also a rate. I'm keeping both the numerator and the denominator the same (same raw number) and expressing them as different rates (per 100, per 1,000, per 10,1000, etc). It was superfluous and confusing now that you got me thinking about it. In the argument I am assuming the population of the US (the denominator) didn't change meaningfully 2019 - 2020. So a change in the percent mortality for an age group would be the same as a change in rate and vice versa. That's all I was saying, albeit in a less than ideal presentation.

To illustrate, if you have 25 out of 100, you have 25% and you have a rate of 25 per 100. If the rate changes to 40 out of 100, you have a new percent of 40%. If the denominator changed, then your point would be relevant.
 
Last edited:
Agree. Information-wise, that's the model and that's how things can spiral out of control and take on a life of their own. The amount and speed of information these days is incredible. It's like the tulip bulb craze to the 10th power. Same kind of madness of crowds; just faster and greater scale and scope.

None of that means (or doesn't mean) that the pandemic was hatched as a conspiracy. It could mean that once it began and once initial information was released, that subsequent info had to follow and reinforce the initial. AI and humans then assessed reactions, threats and opportunities and information favorable to stakeholders got replicated and multiplied and that not favorable got censored. I guess, at that point it becomes a conspiracy of sorts, but it's hardly controlled by a small select cartel. Rather it becomes a self-reinforcing story in the market place of ideas.
Honestly I wish I were as sanguine as you seem to be.

You might ask yourself, why exactly Fauci was arranging contracts with Wuhan for viral research. Do you know anything about that?

I don't have the link to hand to obtain the exact date of the pandemic conference, but I think it was October 2019 - a remarkable coincidence perhaps?

Since July this year, the UK has taken a rather relaxed approach to COVID, and the rates do not seem to be spiralling up as they do in some other countries. Likewise, in the US I believe (please provide better info) that on the whole Republican states have not enforced the severe measures that Democrat ones have - and generally they have less of a problem - comparing, say, Florida vs California.

One possible reason for this is that lockdown is actually counter-productive. For example, people still have to shop for food, and with fewer shops to choose from that may actually increase the viral spread.

David
 
Honestly I wish I were as sanguine as you seem to be.

You might ask yourself, why exactly Fauci was arranging contracts with Wuhan for viral research. Do you know anything about that?
I don't know why. It is odd on it face to someone with no contextual information. Maybe it was forbidden in the USA. Maybe it's something that happens all of the time, like how we share the international space station with Russia, even as we deride the Russians as enemies. I really don't know.

don't have the link to hand to obtain the exact date of the pandemic conference, but I think it was October 2019 - a remarkable coincidence perhaps?
Again, I don't know. It would be a strange coincidence if a one-off event, but maybe such conferences happen all of the time. I think they do, but again, don't know for sure. Not going to leap to conclusions without full knowledge/evidence. Not going to take an event out of context (something CTs are wont to do)
Since July this year, the UK has taken a rather relaxed approach to COVID, and the rates do not seem to be spiralling up as they do in some other countries. Likewise, in the US I believe (please provide better info) that on the whole Republican states have not enforced the severe measures that Democrat ones have - and generally they have less of a problem - comparing, say, Florida vs California.
This is true. This I know about. Masks/distancing don't work. That is proven by the real world data.

possible reason for this is that lockdown is actually counter-productive. For example, people still have to shop for food, and with fewer shops to choose from that may actually increase the viral spread.
David
Agree. The lockdowns and other policies killed a lot of people and damaged the economy massively. I have pointed to that fact in comments above.
 
We Russians have a saying, "it would be funny if it wasn't so scary". This official report from the Public Health Scotland is a fitting example:

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10091/21-11-10-covid19-publication_report.pdf

Read from page 36 and further, where statistics of infections, hospitalisations and deaths in connection with the vaccination status are provided.

See it now? Also look at the PHS's desperate attempts to explain their own data away...

Any questions? Seriously.
 
We Russians have a saying, "it would be funny if it wasn't so scary". This official report from the Public Health Scotland is a fitting example:

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10091/21-11-10-covid19-publication_report.pdf

Read from page 36 and further, where statistics of infections, hospitalisations and deaths in connection with the vaccination status are provided.

See it now? Also look at the PHS's desperate attempts to explain their own data away...

Any questions? Seriously.
Ummm...the hospitalization and death rates (and even the cases) are lower in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. I'm not sure what your point is?
 
Top