FTR, I am with you on the major points. I may come back to this post later with some tibits about NYC and things I know are the case in my county (in Chicagoland), having spoken with the ME.
Suffice to say, US infant mortality is a beast. IMO, it's almost not worth analyzing without zooming in on the population centers.
Live birth timeseries is helpful if one can get it. Definitions are impt too, as those can differ by state and/or over time. A death certificate for an infant and a cert for a fetus are not the same in many places, AFAIK.
I am sure you already know that WONDER has the infant data broken down into days/months old
Infants should always, always be separated from age 1-4.
EDIT: one more thing - the census issues were spotted among X analysts doing "unvaxed/vaxed" data analysis in 2022. I can try to dig up my threads w/Chicago. Clayton Cobb was flagging NYC
I didn't state any beliefs. Beliefs are subjective and can be argued. A pandemic occurring & a novel virus causing excess mortality are not beliefs but objective facts.
Yes we can debate whether Ethical Skeptic or "no pandemic" conspiracy theorists like Nick Hudson are bigger frauds but we can't debate whether or not they are frauds.
That is akin to debating the earth is flat or water is wet.
Pandemic are socio-politicial phenomena, not objective realities. The word "believe" is simply an expression of what one holds to be true.
Excess is modeled; increase is relatively objective but does not constitute observation in the scientific sense. The closest we can come is the records of the deaths. The numerals are frequiences --or assestions, if you will -- that must be substantiated via release records that govt stewards on the public's behalf
I did not come to debate about anon individuals, or with anon individuals about non-anons besides myself.
The claim that pandemics are only socio-political phenomena and not objective realities misrepresents both epidemiological science and the basis of public health data. Pandemics are defined by measurable biological processes, spread of pathogens, infection rates, morbidity, and mortality, long before political or social interpretation enters the picture.
A pandemic is formally defined by the World Health Organization as the worldwide spread of a new disease that affects large numbers of people across countries or continents. This is not a political declaration but an observational, epidemiological threshold.
Historical pandemics like the 1918 influenza pandemic, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19 are empirically documented with virological evidence (virus isolation, genome sequencing) and clinical data (hospitalizations, deaths). These facts exist independently of any political narrative.
The term may be operationalized by governments for response, but the underlying pathogen and its impact on human bodies are objectively measurable. You or I cannot change these objective facts even if it conflicts with our beliefs (for example the debunked conspiracy theory that there was no novel pathogen or pandemic.)
The argument that "believe" implies only subjective perception confuses epistemology with empirical science. Scientific claims about pandemics are not matters of belief but hypotheses tested against observable data: case counts, PCR-confirmed infections, excess mortality, and seroprevalence.
For instance, one can observe SARS-CoV-2 in electron microscopy, sequence its genome, and compare infection curves across populations. These are not belief systems, but reproducible empirical findings.
The skepticism toward "excess mortality" misunderstands methodology. Excess mortality is calculated by comparing observed deaths during a period to a statistically expected baseline. While models estimate the baseline, the raw observed deaths are direct records, whether in civil registration or hospital records.
This approach is not unique to COVID-19. It is a well-established tool in epidemiology used to measure influenza waves, heatwaves, and natural disasters. It is robust precisely because it relies on observable data points: numbers of recorded deaths.
To dismiss this as "not observation" would mean rejecting the entire field of demography and epidemiology where counts of births and deaths are primary observations.
The suggestion that death counts are mere "assertions" ignores how vital registration systems work. In most countries, death certificates issued by qualified physicians or coroner offices feed into the civil registry. These are verifiable documents, not arbitrary numbers.
Moreover, in the COVID-19 pandemic, independent verification came from multiple sources: hospital admissions, cremation/burial records, and insurance data—all converging on the same picture of elevated mortality during pandemic peaks.
Pandemics are also socio-political phenomena in the sense that their consequences (lockdowns, mandates, economic disruption) involve political choices. But that does not erase the objective biological core. Just as earthquakes are measurable seismological events—though their social impact depends on politics and infrastructure—pandemics are measurable epidemiological events with additional social dimensions.
To reduce pandemics only to politics is an example of social constructivist reductionism—it confuses how society interprets a phenomenon with whether the phenomenon exists.
So it appears every word you wrote and every sentence you completed is objectively false, without exception.
My account being "anon" can't change facts. Nor can you. There was a novel pathogen. There was a pandemic. Excess deaths were driven by the novel pathogen. These are facts you cannot refute no matter how many words you write or how much you believe them to be false.
FTR, I am with you on the major points. I may come back to this post later with some tibits about NYC and things I know are the case in my county (in Chicagoland), having spoken with the ME.
Suffice to say, US infant mortality is a beast. IMO, it's almost not worth analyzing without zooming in on the population centers.
Live birth timeseries is helpful if one can get it. Definitions are impt too, as those can differ by state and/or over time. A death certificate for an infant and a cert for a fetus are not the same in many places, AFAIK.
I am sure you already know that WONDER has the infant data broken down into days/months old
Infants should always, always be separated from age 1-4.
EDIT: one more thing - the census issues were spotted among X analysts doing "unvaxed/vaxed" data analysis in 2022. I can try to dig up my threads w/Chicago. Clayton Cobb was flagging NYC
Yes, Ethical Skeptic is a proven fraud. Arguably the only bigger frauds out there are the "no pandemic" conspiracy theorists like Nick Hudson.
I didn't name anyone (anon or otherwise) in my reply.
One does not have to believe (as you do) or disbelieve (as I do) that a pandemic occurred in order to discuss infant mortality data.
Be well.
I didn't state any beliefs. Beliefs are subjective and can be argued. A pandemic occurring & a novel virus causing excess mortality are not beliefs but objective facts.
Yes we can debate whether Ethical Skeptic or "no pandemic" conspiracy theorists like Nick Hudson are bigger frauds but we can't debate whether or not they are frauds.
That is akin to debating the earth is flat or water is wet.
Pandemic are socio-politicial phenomena, not objective realities. The word "believe" is simply an expression of what one holds to be true.
Excess is modeled; increase is relatively objective but does not constitute observation in the scientific sense. The closest we can come is the records of the deaths. The numerals are frequiences --or assestions, if you will -- that must be substantiated via release records that govt stewards on the public's behalf
I did not come to debate about anon individuals, or with anon individuals about non-anons besides myself.
Last response. Take care
The claim that pandemics are only socio-political phenomena and not objective realities misrepresents both epidemiological science and the basis of public health data. Pandemics are defined by measurable biological processes, spread of pathogens, infection rates, morbidity, and mortality, long before political or social interpretation enters the picture.
A pandemic is formally defined by the World Health Organization as the worldwide spread of a new disease that affects large numbers of people across countries or continents. This is not a political declaration but an observational, epidemiological threshold.
Historical pandemics like the 1918 influenza pandemic, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19 are empirically documented with virological evidence (virus isolation, genome sequencing) and clinical data (hospitalizations, deaths). These facts exist independently of any political narrative.
The term may be operationalized by governments for response, but the underlying pathogen and its impact on human bodies are objectively measurable. You or I cannot change these objective facts even if it conflicts with our beliefs (for example the debunked conspiracy theory that there was no novel pathogen or pandemic.)
The argument that "believe" implies only subjective perception confuses epistemology with empirical science. Scientific claims about pandemics are not matters of belief but hypotheses tested against observable data: case counts, PCR-confirmed infections, excess mortality, and seroprevalence.
For instance, one can observe SARS-CoV-2 in electron microscopy, sequence its genome, and compare infection curves across populations. These are not belief systems, but reproducible empirical findings.
The skepticism toward "excess mortality" misunderstands methodology. Excess mortality is calculated by comparing observed deaths during a period to a statistically expected baseline. While models estimate the baseline, the raw observed deaths are direct records, whether in civil registration or hospital records.
This approach is not unique to COVID-19. It is a well-established tool in epidemiology used to measure influenza waves, heatwaves, and natural disasters. It is robust precisely because it relies on observable data points: numbers of recorded deaths.
To dismiss this as "not observation" would mean rejecting the entire field of demography and epidemiology where counts of births and deaths are primary observations.
The suggestion that death counts are mere "assertions" ignores how vital registration systems work. In most countries, death certificates issued by qualified physicians or coroner offices feed into the civil registry. These are verifiable documents, not arbitrary numbers.
Moreover, in the COVID-19 pandemic, independent verification came from multiple sources: hospital admissions, cremation/burial records, and insurance data—all converging on the same picture of elevated mortality during pandemic peaks.
Pandemics are also socio-political phenomena in the sense that their consequences (lockdowns, mandates, economic disruption) involve political choices. But that does not erase the objective biological core. Just as earthquakes are measurable seismological events—though their social impact depends on politics and infrastructure—pandemics are measurable epidemiological events with additional social dimensions.
To reduce pandemics only to politics is an example of social constructivist reductionism—it confuses how society interprets a phenomenon with whether the phenomenon exists.
So it appears every word you wrote and every sentence you completed is objectively false, without exception.
My account being "anon" can't change facts. Nor can you. There was a novel pathogen. There was a pandemic. Excess deaths were driven by the novel pathogen. These are facts you cannot refute no matter how many words you write or how much you believe them to be false.
Facts don't care about your feelings!