Look at "Weekly Number of Deaths by Age" and then click "Update Dashboard":
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
It looks like there were essentially NO excess deaths so far this year among those under 25, a VERY small number among those 25-44 and then more significant numbers for the older age groups, and that those spikes corresponded pretty well with the April (northeast) and summer (most other places in the US) "COVID-19 death" spikes.
Well, yeah, pretty much. I imagine the cause of death listed on a death certificate can be "faked" relatively easily (e.g., people dying "with" but not really "from" COVID being listed as "COVID-19 deaths"), but the total number of reported deaths is a statistic that I'd expect to be pretty accurate for most states.
I fully agree that the danger of COVID-19 has been MASSIVELY overstated, but the claim that's it killed roughly zero people seems pretty hard to reconcile with the CDC's excess death data:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
In a blue county, the straight ticket vote could be 80-20 for Biden. Let's say 20 percent of voters are independents and they vote 50/50. This would plot as 20, +30 for Trump.
Hmm, I don't think so. Wouldn't that plot as 20, -6? If Trump got 80% of 80% of the vote and 50% of the remaining 20%, his total vote percentage would be 74%. That minus the 80% of the straight-party vote he got would be -6, no?
Why should independents break the same as the rest of the precinct, or why should they be consistently +5% or -5%. In other words, why should independents break 80-20 in a blue county and 20-80 in a red county? I don't reach that conclusion at all.
I see your point. My gut response is that there are probably fewer true "independents" than you think. If most of the people in a precinct who opt to use the straight-party voting method are "fully Republican" enough to vote straight-party Republican, it seems to me that it's probably also true that most of the people in that same precinct who don't use that method are at least sufficiently "Republican" to vote at least mostly Republican, i.e., in this case, vote for Trump. (And I'd also imagine that at least some of the people who use the individual voting method may actually end up voting straight-party.) So I would expect there to be a reasonably good correlation between the two metrics.
Not only is it linear; it also appears to only "turn on" once the percentage of straight-party Republican voting hits 20%. The logic there may have been that in precincts that are already voting overwhelmingly Democrat, there weren't enough Trump votes to steal to make it worth the risk of detection. And conversely, that the more heavily a precinct was voting Trump, the more Trump votes (in percentage terms) they could safely steal without arousing suspicion.
Can someone answer some questions for me regarding Dr. Shiva's analysis? So in Michigan, you can vote in one of two ways, making a straight party selection or voting individually by race.
And their precincts report not only how many votes Trump (and Biden got), but what form those votes took, i.e., how many votes Trump received via voters making a "straight party Republican selection" vs. voters making an individual selection for Trump in the presidential race? Dr. Shiva's graphs looked at the total Trump vote percentage minus the straight Republican party percentage and graphed that against the Republican percentage of straight-party votes in that precinct? So if there were 200 votes in a precinct, 150 of which were via straight party voting, and Republicans (and thus Trump) got 100 of those votes and Democrats got 50 -- and then an additional 50 votes which were via individual voting and of which Trump and Biden each received 25, that would show up on the graph as a point at 66.7% on the x-axis (i.e., Trump's percentage of straight party voting, i.e., 100*150/200) and negative 4.2% on the y-axis (i.e., 62.5% - 66.7%)? Do I have that right?
The percentage of straight-party ticket votes for Trump is being used as a proxy for the "Republican-ness" of a particular precinct. Presumably you would get a similar result if you used different proxies for that quantity, e.g., the percentage of votes that were cast by voters who are registered as Republicans (or the percentage of total registered voters who are registered as Republicans)?
How well-established is the baseline as far as what this kind of graph "should" look like? They showed that Wayne county didn't have the pattern? Was that true of any other Michigan counties? What about counties in other states? Or the same or different counties in past presidential elections? That seems like a pretty key piece of information in terms of proving that there isn't an innocent / natural explanation for the phenomenon, no?
Can someone answer some questions for me regarding Dr. Shiva's analysis? So in Michigan, you can vote in one of two ways, making a straight party selection or voting individually by race.
And their precincts report not only how many votes Trump (and Biden got), but what form those votes took, i.e., how many votes Trump received via voters making a "straight party Republican selection" vs. voters making an individual selection for Trump in the presidential race? Dr. Shiva's graphs looked at the total Trump vote percentage minus the straight Republican party percentage and graphed that against the Republican percentage of straight-party votes in that precinct? So if there were 200 votes in a precinct, 150 of which were via straight party voting, and Republicans (and thus Trump) got 100 of those votes and Democrats got 50 -- and then an additional 50 votes which were via individual voting and of which Trump and Biden each received 25, that would show up on the graph as a point at 66.7% on the x-axis (i.e., Trump's percentage of straight party voting, i.e., 100*150/200) and negative 4.2% on the y-axis (i.e., 62.5% - 66.7%)? Do I have that right?
The percentage of straight-party ticket votes for Trump is being used as a proxy for the "Republican-ness" of a particular precinct. Presumably you would get a similar result if you used different proxies for that quantity, e.g., the percentage of votes that were cast by voters who are registered as Republicans (or the percentage of total registered voters who are registered as Republicans)?
How well-established is the baseline as far as what this kind of graph "should" look like? They showed that Wayne county didn't have the pattern? But what about counties in other states? Or the same or different counties in past presidential elections? That seems like a pretty key piece of information in terms of proving that there isn't an innocent / natural explanation for the phenomenon, no?
Thanks for that info! Yeah, my hunch was (and still is) that we'll have far fewer "defections" among R voters than among D voters. (I'd been thinking maybe 15-20% of D voters would cross over but only 10%-ish of R voters, but it sounds like both of those numbers could be higher.) Any idea about how independent voters in Florida or nationally have split historically?
Looking at https://joeisdone.github.io/florida/ right now:
What are typical / optimistic / pessimistic numbers for % of registered Republicans / Democrats that will cross-over and vote for the other party's candidate, and same question as far as expected split for unaffiliated voters?
Do we have those numbers for 2016?
What are typical / optimistic / pessimistic numbers for % of registered Republicans / Democrats that will cross-over and vote for the other party's candidate, and same question as far as expected split for unaffiliated voters?
Meaning 116,000 more votes from registered Republicans than registered Democrats? How many independent / no-party-affiliation votes have been reported? And how many counties of significance are not reporting any of these numbers? Miami-Dade? Others? Just trying to get a sense for how significant this is. Thanks!
"I think they gotta remember, remind me guys" meanwhile the camera or someone close is whispering. I can't make it out,
Yeah, to me, it sounded something like "you gotta remember, remind me, that it's really important..." But either way, just a hot rambling mess of nothing.
Yes, it's really pretty brilliant. Also, showing Obama being embarrassed by his association with Biden is great because it captures something obviously true. Obama waited a weirdly long time to endorse the guy he previously selected as his Vice President. In fact, he waited until he essentially had no other choice. And his endorsement was pretty tepid. Why? Probably because Obama knows that Biden is senile and creepy as fuck, and that his campaign will be a disaster. This is highlighting that fact in a very funny and effective way.
But I agree that the racial (and class) angle is also genius. Obama looks ridiculous in that scene even before Biden starts talking because the fact is you can't picture him just hanging out and watching the game, with a bunch of regular, "authentically black" working-class guys. Being biracial and having been raised by white family members, Obama has always had issues with black "authenticity." He's also a scrawny, goofy-looking, and somewhat effeminate individual (notwithstanding desperate media efforts to present him as "cool"). This video sends the following subliminal message to black men: "Obama is not really one of you. And he's not really on your team. He's on the team of this demented, child-sniffing old white dude. You don't want to be on that team."
Not just a senile idiot, a creepy-as-fuck, possible pedo senile idiot. We've seen this incredibly bizarre and disturbing footage of Biden, but most normies haven't. The President just put it on blast to the whole world.
Plus, Obama being shown as embarrassed by Biden is brilliant. Because it captures something obviously true. Obama waited a weirdly long time to endorse the guy he previously selected as his Vice President. In fact, he waited until he essentially had no other choice. And his endorsement was pretty tepid. Why? Probably because Obama knows that Biden is senile and creepy as fuck, and that his campaign will be a disaster. This is highlighting that fact in a very funny and effective way.
I'm honestly baffled as to how anyone can continue to maintain the pretense that this pandemic has been anything more than a MASSIVE nothingburger when every day that passes makes that more and more clear. Using the official (likely very inflated) numbers, this virus is on track to cause about as many US deaths as occur each year from a typical flu season. And as with the flu, the very old and the very sick will make up the overwhelming majority of those deaths. Not only should we "reopen the country" immediately, we should acknowledge that closing it in the first was place was an insane 100-fold overreaction. Seriously, what the absolute fuck?! How does anyone not see that? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Predictions for 'indirect' coronavirus deaths could surpass those of COVID-19
The pandemic is expected to have a knock-on effect on people's health
Those deaths won't be "indirect coronavirus deaths" nor will they have been caused by "the pandemic." They'll be the direct result of the political and media class' hysterical and insane 20-fold-plus overreaction.
Yep. Looks like she glances at it again (possibly twice) as she's standing up and then walking away.