More Numerical Therapy
March 24, 2020
THE GOVERNMENT, if it were honest and not benefiting from engineered hysteria, would deploy an army of statisticians to go into communities and actually teach people how to interpret the deceptive numbers being thrown at them about coronavirus. That’s not to say there isn’t serious illness out there and we shouldn’t take reasonable sanitary measures, far short of closing everything down. But we don’t need the National Guard, we need mathematicians!
Here is William Briggs, “statistician to the stars,” giving free counseling to those who will listen:
How accurate are the numbers in reflecting Reality? It wouldn’t surprise anybody who has worked with medical data over a long period of time to say “not very”. Take Italian reports of deaths caused by coronavirus. It’s become clear that what they are reporting and the true caused numbers of dead bodies are at variance.
One professor said “The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.”
This is that point the pulmonologist Woflgang Wodarg was trying to make (we linked his video last week, but I didn’t do a good job emphasizing it). Having coronavirus and dying of it are different things. Right at the beginning of this we were wondering how many deaths due to flu were being ascribed to coronavirus. We can now say “some”.
Here is an analogy if you don’t understand this: every patient in Italy who died had a sex, male or female. If we ascribed each death to sex, because everybody had it, we would be making a pretty dumb error. The error of ascribing death to coronavirus just because a person has it, when it is not truly the cause of death, is the same kind of error.
The Italian professor said “On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”