Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

They didn't dispute what was righted.

They disputed what people dood--ya know, after.

 

sure, im pretty sure they did not dispute it because It was not worth editing Far right propaganda and rather just remove it completely.

 

https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/09/01/comorbidities-and-coronavirus-deaths-cdc/

According to JHU themselves, there HAS been a spike in overall deaths this year. Many cases with comorbitities, which in most cases do not count towards the covid death total but which the virus greatly contributed to, are important to be looked at.

 

Thanks!

I have a problem with the term excess deaths, which is used everywhere in these articles.

• Number of excess deaths: A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero.

So negative values are set to zero. That will certainly pump numbers up. The article I linked didn't refer to the obfuscation of a term as its foundation for measurements. I still don't think it's unreasonable to expect JHU to explain what was exactly being misrepresented in the context of the article.

I'm having trouble navigating CDC's website to find the data, but https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate shows this:

Year Rate Change
2020 8.880 1.120%
2019 8.782 1.120%
2018 8.685 1.220%
2017 8.580 1.240%
2016 8.475 1.270%

Of course I don't know the facts, but you should be able to see the reason of my skepticism in accepting numbers that were calculated to give only positive results as a design.

So what was factually inaccurate about the article. Are facts far right propaganda? I can see how it would be used to promote the idea that Covid doesn't exist, which is dangerous, but you are saying it was "debunked" and it wasn't.

Genevieve Briand is the Assistant Director for MS in Applied Economics program. She has many years of experience teaching numerous and varied economics and statistics courses. She received her PhD from Washington State University. Top tier propagandist. Almost your level @djpannda

 

Ok you to know the article was created by students not professors
even the link you provided states “Published by the Students of Johns Hopkins” and the article was written by
Yanni Gu sophomore at Johns Hopkins University (who is Majoring in German)
Ok at what point you guys stop grasping at straws to prove you point.. it’s like quoting a article between the lunch menu and prom IN A HIGH SCHOOL paper “

 

No it's not. The newsletter is operated by students. Briand, the professor, is the source. The data is referenced and sourced to CDC. You fail to demonstrate any understanding of what's being said--instead you use the word "debunked" in a moronic way.

 

Sure.. I apologized.. please keep using a article that was disowned by the University who published it... I bet your the type to use old and out of date science text book to prove the earth is 9000 years old and leeches help diseases of the blood

 

The CDC data is still there, and the facts are not disputed. The ones you bring up in your moronic response already have been disputed/debunked. Please stop talking stupidly.

The fallacy in the use of "excess death" as a baseline for calculating pandemic severity.


This is an example to demonstrate the logical fallacy, and aren't based on real statistics:



So even in the event there are less deaths in 2020, we can still report of 350 excess deaths in 2020.

350 excess deaths, which is a 22% increase! Where is all this excess death coming from? Well, we can blame Covid because that's the only thing new in 2020. (Something the NYTimes would probably say--the reputable source who would never mislead you.)

This is not to say that Covid is not dangerous, and that we should not be doing everything we can to prevent spreading it. My only point in sharing this is to point out how the statistics aren't user friendly (or even meaningful, possibly), and they are being used as the reference point to make the pandemic easier to sell--which I personally do not think is helpful in containing it.

 

🚨🚨BREAKING: Third Circuit REJECTS Trump appeal. "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious...Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."https://t.co/tA5ZIymzPz

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) November 27, 2020

LMAO

 

This is a Trump judge smacking them down hard, mind you. Now they're on to the Supreme Court, which will refuse to hear the case and let the appeals court ruling stand. Supreme Court justices can still be impeached, and Trump appointees are all about self-preservation, even more so than your typical politician. Not to mention: the Trump team is basically fighting for table scraps at this point. Even if boofboy Kavanaugh and handmaid Barrett risked their hides to vote to overturn PA, along with the other conservative justices, Biden would still have well over the 270 EC votes needed to win.

 

It appears it wasn't even a fraud case. It was just a case charging that PA wasn't following its own laws and the judge saying,"we are allowed to do that."

 

Milwaukee County presidential recount wraps up with Biden adding to his margin
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...-wraps-up-biden-adding-his-margin/6428186002/

Congrats to President Trump for paying $1.5M for a recount in Milwaukee County, only to ADD 132 votes to Biden's lead there.

 

They should just start playing this every time trump loses a case in court at this point.

 

I wish that played every time you die in a Soulsborne game, too.

 

How many recounts has there been, that only gave Biden even more votes?

 

Trump and the people who filed lawsuits over the election sure seem to be losing according to the leftist media. Leave it to the liberals to try to gloat over this situation when all the Conservatives want to know is if there was a fair election or not. I think that would be something both sides could agree upon.

 

Somebody tell this dingus that all the states having their vote certified in a timely manner and with minimal fuss is how you know the election was fair. The only holdup has been Trump's ego, every Republican elections expert has said this was one of the most transparent and secure elections in modern history.

 

Calling the most contentious election of American's recent history the most transparent and secure elections in modern history? "Minimal fuss" over vote certifications. Lol. Minimal fuss is no fuss, and this election cycle has had the most fuss. It's still being "fussed". I don't know if everyone in America agrees with you (probably not), but over here nobody is really sure about the US election.

 

Again: it was only contentious because Trump is an egomaniacal wannabe-despot with a cult of personality backing him. There was never any actual evidence of fraud presented by his team, just a whole lot of grasping at straws. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

He wanted the count to stop in certain states when he was ahead, and continue in others where he might have a shot at a comeback. In other words: Trump and his cult were never interested in free and fair elections to begin with, they just wanted to be sure they'd be the beneficiaries of any cheating, if any was going to occur at all.

 

That's besides the point. Even if it is only Trump causing it, he has done a fine job muddying up the clarity all by himself.

Evidence "presented by his team". There is enough evidence to cause doubt in a significant amount of people. So far, we have seen the people on the opposing side of the aisle of those claims resist an open investigation. I understand, that's not their job/burden. Doesn't mean that the optics have no reach.

I can't remember a single thing Trump has done that he hasn't used as leverage for something else. A little premature to make such a claim, on your part.