Covid Vaccine

[Nurseybl06]

I’m sure you all know about the COVID vaccine and the plan to first vaccinate healthcare workers. How does everyone feel about this vaccine ? I personally do not want it..Where are the long term studies. IDK it’s worrisome to me that it will prob be mandated for us 

[toomuchbaloney]

5 minutes ago, Jack Peace said:

Is this what passes for a citation?

On the retraction of “A closer look at U.S. deaths” and our coverage of COVID-19

Quote

Last week, The News-Letter published, deleted and retracted an article about a Hopkins faculty member’s presentation on COVID-19 data. 

The piece, “A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19,” was published on Nov. 22 and covered a webinar presented by Genevieve Briand, the Assistant Director for the University’s Applied Economics Advanced Academic Program. Briand analyzed COVID-19 death figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the United States. She argued that there had been no increase in U.S. deaths in 2020 compared to previous years. She also claimed that deaths from other causes have been miscategorized as COVID-19 deaths. 

On Thursday, Nov. 26, the Editors-in-Chief learned that the piece was being shared by conspiracy theorists on social media to deny the severity of COVID-19. Additionally, readers contacted The News-Letter stating that there were factual inaccuracies represented in the piece.

The Editors-in-Chief decided to delete the article because of these urgent concerns, explaining on social media that the piece was being taken out of context and used to spread dangerous misinformation. While the article noted the need for further research, this sentiment was not sufficiently emphasized. We failed to clarify that Briand’s analyses have not been published, peer-reviewed or verified by outside experts.

Quote

However, the article should not have been deleted in the first place. Instead of temporarily removing it from our website, The News-Letter should have immediately retracted and provided a detailed explanation of the inaccuracies in Briand’s research. We did not intend to silence Briand; instead, we sought to put her claims in conversation with findings from Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the CDC.

Early Friday afternoon, the Editors-in-Chief wrote an Editor’s Note in consultation with the Managing Editors, which was published with an accompanying PDF link to the original article for the sake of transparency. The Editor’s Note was meant to, albeit belatedly, clarify why the article was retracted and contextualize Briand’s claims with those of leading public health experts. 

Over the last week, our readers have questioned how and why this article was published and whether it should have been retracted or left standing.

We want to clarify that the issues with the article are not the fault of our reporter, and we want to reaffirm our support for her as a member of our staff. All articles undergo a review process, with section editors and copy readers conducting fact checks for each piece. It was an oversight that the piece was published without appropriate fact-checking and context.

The leadership of The News-Letter takes responsibility for this situation. The article shouldn’t have been published without the additional information needed to put Briand’s research into perspective. 

We also want to stress that we are an independent newspaper. Some mistook The News-Letter for an official University publication, while others accused Hopkins of censoring us. However, The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. The University does not control our content and did not influence our decision to retract the piece.

The article and its aftermath have led us to reflect on how we can avoid a similar situation in the future. It is our responsibility to continue reporting on COVID-19, and we must strive to be vigilant in our coverage. Articles about the pandemic can have life or death consequences, especially as cases rise across the country and misinformation spreads across social media.

 

[Jack Peace]

2 minutes ago, Wuzzie said:

I asked you to cite your source not post a picture. 

That's the problem, the report was censored and removed because it goes against the narrative of we should all live in fear of each other forever and ever. The scientific medical technocracy are not people who are open minded and willing to accept other ideas.

[Wuzzie]

1 minute ago, Jack Peace said:

That's the problem, the report was censored and removed because it goes against the narrative of we should all live in fear of each other forever and ever. The scientific medical technocracy are not people who are open minded and willing to accept other ideas.

Well, if it’s true there should be plenty of peer-reviewed, scientific research to support your statement not just one retracted article. Good thing it’s the weekend. Happy hunting. 

[toomuchbaloney]

5 minutes ago, Jack Peace said:

Hey baloney, 

Thank you for calling me stupid. I know you get off to doing that. But this is the John's Hopkins study that was removed /censored. The link below explains how the study was removed. 

https://www.aier.org/article/the-censorship-of-Dr-briand/

You are welcome. I am pretty straight forward but I didn't call you anything.

I'm familiar with this information.  It was removed because of people like you misrepresenting the findings. You must have ignored that part in your cherry picking. 

[toomuchbaloney]

9 minutes ago, Jack Peace said:

That's the problem, the report was censored and removed because it goes against the narrative of we should all live in fear of each other forever and ever. The scientific medical technocracy are not people who are open minded and willing to accept other ideas.

Sure

I shared the explanation for the removal but perhaps conspiracy theory is more titillating?

[MunoRN, RN]

1 hour ago, Jack Peace said:

Hey baloney, 

Thank you for calling me stupid. I know you get off to doing that. But this is the John's Hopkins study that was removed /censored. The link below explains how the study was removed. 

https://www.aier.org/article/the-censorship-of-Dr-briand/

Your article points out that it is neither a study or a product of Johns Hopkins University.  

The article was removed a student newsletter not overseen by JHU because it was based on a poor understanding of how people die from Covid.  The letter assumed, as an example, that if someone has pre-existing heart failure, and then dies of Covid-caused lethal heart failure, that they died of heart failure and not Covid.  This seems to be a common misunderstanding among the lay-public, but this is how Covid kills, through existing mechanisms and processes.  Covid isn't a bacteria, it doesn't eat tissues and then excrete toxins that are negative inotropes, it manipulates your own neurohormonal feedback system to produce high levels of negative inotropes.   It doesn't stick together in clumps and occlude blood vessels, it manipulates ACE-2 endothelial cells to initiate inappropriate coagulation cascades causing heart attacks, strokes, and PEs.   It doesn't coat your lungs and create respiratory failure, it causes the body's own immune system to trigger acute inflammation in the lungs that causes ARDS. 

So in a way, everyone who dies of Covid dies of something else, that doesn't mean Covid doesn't cause deaths.

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

Fact Check: Has COVID-19 Had No Impact on Overall US Deaths This Year?

False reports and claims about COVID-19 cases can cause people to ignore the serious consequences of failing to take precautions that might affect them, their family members and friends...

...   The Claim: In late November, the student-run Johns Hopkins News-Letter published a story, since retracted, about a study claiming that there have been no extra deaths, known as "excess deaths," in the U.S. this year from COVID-19 compared to deaths expected in an otherwise normal year.

The Facts: This year, there have been nearly 300,000 excess deaths attributed to COVID-19, as of early October, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.

The story was published on November 22, then taken down, with a retraction published on November 27... 

 ...   The student-run publication said its decision was made "to stop the spread of misinformation," and it acknowledged that it had inaccurately claimed that there was "no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths" and that number of total deaths were "not above normal death numbers."

The story, titled "COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data," reported on a webinar by Genevieve Briand, assistant director of the master's in Applied Economics program at the Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. The webinar was predicated on Briand's analyses of publicly available data from the CDC. In its retraction, the Johns Hopkins student publication said Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher.

The publication recognized it fell short of "our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. Briand's study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."...

...   The story, illustrated with a graph compiled by Briand, repeated claims that, "These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people's assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States."

But data from the CDC contradict the original story's reporting, as well as Briand's analyses and claims...

https://www.MSN.com/en-us/health/medical/fact-check-has-covid-19-had-no-impact-on-overall-us-deaths-this-year/ar-BB1bDSmJ

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

COVID-19 Results Briefing: the United States of America December 4, 2020 

...   Daily deaths in the last week increased to 1,660 per day on average compared to 1,470 the week before (Figure 2). This makes COVID-19 the number 1 cause of death in the United States of America this week...

...   The daily death rate is greater than 4 per million in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming...

http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects/COVID/briefing_US_20201204.pdf 

[Nurse SMS, MSN, RN]

5 hours ago, Jack Peace said:

Wow really jumbo jets? You do know that on average about 8000 people die in the U.S. EVERY DAY going back several years. Magically, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes have all caused significantly less deaths in last several months, but those deaths were attributed to the China Virus. 

Covid is a NEW source of death. So all those...plus Covid? Yeah. 

Your reference to the "China virus" is another red herring. Well done.

[londonflo]

On 12/5/2020 at 10:52 AM, Wuzzie said:

Well, if it’s true there should be plenty of peer-reviewed, scientific research to support your statement not just one retracted article. Good thing it’s the weekend. Happy hunting. 

To convince your audience of your argument, it is best to follow the top tiers of this 'pyramid" shown below

Usually, the instruction for forming a believable argument is approached in the first college English class - rhetoric to persuade.

Not this:

 

On 12/5/2020 at 10:48 AM, Jack Peace said:

That's the problem, the report was censored and removed because it goes against the narrative of we should all live in fear of each other forever and ever. The scientific medical technocracy are not people who are open minded and willing to accept other ideas.

Who are these elite team of medical technical experts?

Usually, the instruction for forming a believable argument is approached in the first college English class - rhetoric to persuade.

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

I don't remember this "rhetoric to persuade. pyramid" being taught when I took freshman English in 1962.

[londonflo]

31 minutes ago, herring_RN said:

I don't remember this "rhetoric to persuade. pyramid" being taught when I took freshman English in 1962.

We spent time in 1973 reading literature that used these devices but no specific schematic. I kinda wish AN would limit the posters to using the top 3 levels. But I have to admit I have been the recipient of the lowest tier "name calling" here on AN and have used a similar device to my regret. Admin are good at eliminating those posts, for which I am thankful.