"Top Coronavirus Model Predicts 100,000 Americans Dead" Topic

120,000 plus and adding every day.

Oh they are claiming around 123,520 so far.

But with around 7,500 day every day on average so over a 180 day period that would come to around…

1,350,000 give or take a few.

So very easy to inflate COVID numbers when that many die.

Instead of putting down Heart Attack, Renal Failure or Cancer they just claim the individual as dying from COVID.

I would like to know whether the expected number of deaths by:

Heart Attack
Renal Failure
Cancer

Are within the normal amount expected or are they under due to being counted as COVID deaths.

What a timely recommendation to appear as I was perusing some educational research books on Amazon:

Former New York Times reporter and prominent lockdown critic Alex Berenson provides a counterweight to media hysteria about coronavirus in this series of short booklets answering crucial questions about COVID. Drawing on primary sources from all over the world – including state and national-level government data, Centers for Disease Control reports, and papers in prominent scientific journals – Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns offers clear, concise, and measured answers to some of the most important questions around the coronavirus: How are COVID deaths counted? How many Americans are likely to die in a worst-case scenario? What is the evidence that lockdowns do or do not help reduce the spread of the illness? Are masks an effective way to reduce the spread? Why did the forecasts for coronavirus hospitalizations prove so wrong? Are children at serious risk from coronavirus? What has the mental health impact of lockdowns been?Whether you have been skeptical of the media's panicked reporting all along or are just starting to wonder why the predictions of doom from March and April have not come to pass, this guide will provide you with the factual, accurate, and impeccably sourced information you need. Please note: Unreported Truths will be published in multiple sections. Part 1 includes an introduction, an examination of the way COVID deaths are counted, and a forecast for a potential worst-case scenario of coronavirus deaths in the United States.

link

I have not read it myself, but the reviews are high and it is timely.

(*Now, I can just envision those couple of trolls who will appear and not actually discuss the content but make up some type of character attack against the author, or publisher, or Amazon or trees for providing the paper or the font used or something completely and totally unrelated to the content. Of course, they are really just outing themselves with a personal commentary, but I guess that is their choice to make *that* of themselves …)

link

More froth.

And we have a winner!

Read Vanity Fair often, Martin?

Who does this sound like from the article?

But they soon tumble out like cannon fire, complete with charts, graphs, links to epidemiological studies, extended Twitter threads dunking on anybody who dares express concern

That would be those who are claiming that it wasn't made in a Chinese Lab or stating that this is the worst pandemic ever.

Several studies already done long before any studies should have been done.

They are trying very hard to push the above.

link

Bemoaning uneven individual and state compliance with public health recommendations, top U.S. COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci recently blamed the country's ineffective pandemic response on an American "anti-science bias." He called this bias "inconceivable," because "science is truth." Fauci compared those discounting the importance of masks and social distancing to "anti-vaxxers" in their "amazing" refusal to listen to science. It is Fauci's profession of amazement that amazes me. As well-versed as he is in the science of the coronavirus, he's overlooking the well-established science of "anti-science bias," or science denial. Americans increasingly exist in highly polarized, informationally insulated ideological communities occupying their own information universes.

Within segments of the political blogosphere, global warming is dismissed as either a hoax or so uncertain as to be unworthy of response. Within other geographic or online communities, the science of vaccine safety, fluoridated drinking water and genetically modified foods is distorted or ignored. There is a marked gap in expressed concern over the coronavirus depending on political party affiliation, apparently based in part on partisan disagreements over factual issues like the effectiveness of social distancing or the actual COVID-19 death rate.

In theory, resolving factual disputes should be relatively easy: Just present strong evidence, or evidence of a strong expert consensus. This approach succeeds most of the time, when the issue is, say, the atomic weight of hydrogen. But things don't work that way when scientific advice presents a picture that threatens someone's perceived interests or ideological worldview. In practice, it turns out that one's political, religious or ethnic identity quite effectively predicts one's willingness to accept expertise on any given politicized issue.

The ex veep said on tv that 120 MILLION Americans have already died from coved-19. He was only off by about……ahh, 120 million. ;/

In theory, resolving factual disputes should be relatively easy: Just present strong evidence, or evidence of a strong expert consensus. This approach succeeds most of the time, when the issue is, say, the atomic weight of hydrogen. But things don't work that way when scientific advice presents a picture that threatens someone's perceived interests or ideological worldview.

Very true. We have seen that on here enough when someone dares question global warming.