Is it possible this is a significant reason why they wanted separate trials?

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2024-02-02 03:40 PM | Reply

Of course. It'll be like the Freddy Grey trial. She'll blame him in her trial and get acquitted, because the jury will blame the husband. Then he'll blame her in his trial and get acquitted, because his jury will blame her. Whereas, if they were tried together, that tactic wouldn't work - the jury would find at least one of them guilty. They'd have to find some other reason why their recklessness didn't make them legally culpable.

The data is indeed the data, but it isn't what Claudio is representing."

STOP THE PRESSES!

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-01-28 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

This wasn't really aimed at you, or even many of the regular posters here. There are, however, at least a few that seem to think what he says makes sense and is backed with data. I'm sure you can think of at least a one regular in that category. Not that I believe he will recognize his delusion just from me pointing this out, but one can always hope.

The data is the DATA - at its peak, excess deaths were 17% higher than under normal circumstances - in Jan 2023 - they were 14% higher

#18 | Posted by Claudio at 2024-01-28 07:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

The data is indeed the data, but it isn't what Claudio is representing.

In case anyone is still confused - the numbers he is quoting are the cumulative number of excess deaths since January 2020. The weekly numbers are much bumpier, but peaked January 3, 2021 at around 46% excess compared to projections, and as of Oct 2023 (the last data in the chart), it's now at 1%.

Let's make a simplifying assumption that all the excess deaths equalled the number of extra hospital admissions. I am definitely no expert in hospital admissions, but a 46% spike in severely ill patients in a week seems like something that would be difficult for any hospital to handle. Maybe those stories weren't fake after all.

If one were wise, they'd treat all of Claudio's assertions with appropriate skepticism given the significant error in his analysis here.

(as note of my own error, the graph I linked to at the end of my previous post was for weekly and monthly numbers, not monthly as I had previously stated.)

#14 | Posted by Claudio at 2024-01-28 04:25 AM | Reply | Flag

Did you read the title of the graph you posted? I don't think it says what you think it says: "Excess mortality: Cumulative deaths from all causes compared to projection based on previous years"

That's a cumulative graph, so of course it didn't drop a lot. If it had, that would mean we would have had to have as many fewer deaths than projected now than we had more than projected during the pandemic.

"However, this has a CRUSHING effect on new business formation."

Annecdote related to me in a conversation on this topic some time ago: