Thanks for these clarifying points Jessica. Even those of us who are educated and follow this stuff daily can have trouble teasing out exactly what points are being made, and are not.
I'm hoping Mr. Rancourt will look more seriously at your work since everything you say makes perfect logical sense (given that there is a lot of unavailable information, as you point out, that makes it unclear to what extent the data is wrongly applied/exaggerated/fraudulent). It really is stunning that almost everyone takes the NY event as legitimate, and/or doesn't think the effort to investigate it is worthwhile.
You're welcome and thanks. The New York event is very complex and it can be difficult to convey the systematic nature of the event and all the pieces in one place. In truth, it requires a book with a narrative/metaphorical thread. Substack is insufficient, but I've used it as a place to document the inquiry itself.
What's interesting to me is that even Denis Rancourt seemed to question the veracity of the NYC data in his June 2020 paper (which I was very late in reading and had already come to a similar conclusion):
"The NYC data makes no epidemiological sense whatsoever. The 'COVID peak; here, on its face, cannot be interpreted as a normal viral respiratory disease process in a susceptible population. Local effects, such as importing patients from other jurisdictions or high densities of institutionalized or housed vulnerable people, must be in play, at least."
Literally importing patients from other jurisdictions would mean differences in county of Occurrence vs County Residence data that are HIGHER in the county of Occurrence side in Hospitals.
We see some suggestion of that by looking hospital deaths weeks 12-22 for the 5 boroughs. No substantive difference in the 5-borough total, or for Staten Island (Richmond County) or the Bronx. Staten Island is an island so we would expect there to be very little difference.
Brooklyn (Kings Co), Manhattan (New York Co), and Queens are a different story.
Manhattan is also an island, albeit more connected via bridges, tunnels, etc., The more affluent parts of Manhattan experienced a residential exodus in these weeks but appears to have taken in patients (before or during the event) who were Queens and Brooklyn residents. I would love to know how many nursing home residents in Queens and Brooklyn were sent to hospitals in Manhattan and never left.
But what I'm showing here would still be WITHIN New York City.
If we are talking digital legerdemain, all things are possible (and easier).
A point I've made that relates to Rancourt's conjecture about higher densities of institutionalized people is that we need to know what proportion of hospital deaths were people already admitted before the emergency was declared -- and were effectively used to stage sudden spread of a "new" disease.
Rancourt is easily agitated if you don't "believe" what he concludes (similar elementary school spat with Dr. Tracy Hoeg), after all, he has unparalleled statistical skills--just ask him! Rancourt states: "We don’t see what Jessica believes," and therefore disregard Jessica's questions/analysis. Problem is, Rancourt does not have unparalleled statistical skills--far from it--i'e. Ms. Hockett's skills
I'm not confident Dr. Rancourt has read or taken in much of what I've written about New York. That's fine, as his interests are bigger picture, but it would be nice to know that he at least read the 11 Serious Problems article before reacting to Mike Yeadon's comment about it.
Earlier this year, when asked about my work, Rancourt said,
"Well, I would have to look at the data and look at what she's doing and how she's starting to interpret it to really have a good discussion with her. I can already see lots of pitfalls and caveats when you try to do what she's trying to do. So I can foresee a lot of problems, you know, but I haven't had time to really look into detail at what she's doing. But I mean, it's great that she's digging into the data and representing it in different ways and trying to find out more information as well. It's great that she's doing all of that because New York was a very special place and in many ways, the state of New York, but also the major centers, hospitals, and so on, and how they were behaving. So it was a — pretty special events there that were occurring, yes. Extraordinary, I don't know what to say." https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/denis-rancourt-on-the-nyc-spring
I'm not sure what he meant by "special place" and "pretty special events" but would like to know.
Thanks for these clarifying points Jessica. Even those of us who are educated and follow this stuff daily can have trouble teasing out exactly what points are being made, and are not.
I'm hoping Mr. Rancourt will look more seriously at your work since everything you say makes perfect logical sense (given that there is a lot of unavailable information, as you point out, that makes it unclear to what extent the data is wrongly applied/exaggerated/fraudulent). It really is stunning that almost everyone takes the NY event as legitimate, and/or doesn't think the effort to investigate it is worthwhile.
You're welcome and thanks. The New York event is very complex and it can be difficult to convey the systematic nature of the event and all the pieces in one place. In truth, it requires a book with a narrative/metaphorical thread. Substack is insufficient, but I've used it as a place to document the inquiry itself.
What's interesting to me is that even Denis Rancourt seemed to question the veracity of the NYC data in his June 2020 paper (which I was very late in reading and had already come to a similar conclusion):
"The NYC data makes no epidemiological sense whatsoever. The 'COVID peak; here, on its face, cannot be interpreted as a normal viral respiratory disease process in a susceptible population. Local effects, such as importing patients from other jurisdictions or high densities of institutionalized or housed vulnerable people, must be in play, at least."
Literally importing patients from other jurisdictions would mean differences in county of Occurrence vs County Residence data that are HIGHER in the county of Occurrence side in Hospitals.
We see some suggestion of that by looking hospital deaths weeks 12-22 for the 5 boroughs. No substantive difference in the 5-borough total, or for Staten Island (Richmond County) or the Bronx. Staten Island is an island so we would expect there to be very little difference.
Brooklyn (Kings Co), Manhattan (New York Co), and Queens are a different story.
https://substack.com/@jessicahockett/note/c-71114035?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=jjay2
Manhattan is also an island, albeit more connected via bridges, tunnels, etc., The more affluent parts of Manhattan experienced a residential exodus in these weeks but appears to have taken in patients (before or during the event) who were Queens and Brooklyn residents. I would love to know how many nursing home residents in Queens and Brooklyn were sent to hospitals in Manhattan and never left.
But what I'm showing here would still be WITHIN New York City.
If we are talking digital legerdemain, all things are possible (and easier).
A point I've made that relates to Rancourt's conjecture about higher densities of institutionalized people is that we need to know what proportion of hospital deaths were people already admitted before the emergency was declared -- and were effectively used to stage sudden spread of a "new" disease.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/when-were-new-yorkers-who-died-as
Tremendous Riposte! Do not yield!
Rancourt is easily agitated if you don't "believe" what he concludes (similar elementary school spat with Dr. Tracy Hoeg), after all, he has unparalleled statistical skills--just ask him! Rancourt states: "We don’t see what Jessica believes," and therefore disregard Jessica's questions/analysis. Problem is, Rancourt does not have unparalleled statistical skills--far from it--i'e. Ms. Hockett's skills
No one is unparalleled - not me, not him.
I'm not confident Dr. Rancourt has read or taken in much of what I've written about New York. That's fine, as his interests are bigger picture, but it would be nice to know that he at least read the 11 Serious Problems article before reacting to Mike Yeadon's comment about it.
Earlier this year, when asked about my work, Rancourt said,
"Well, I would have to look at the data and look at what she's doing and how she's starting to interpret it to really have a good discussion with her. I can already see lots of pitfalls and caveats when you try to do what she's trying to do. So I can foresee a lot of problems, you know, but I haven't had time to really look into detail at what she's doing. But I mean, it's great that she's digging into the data and representing it in different ways and trying to find out more information as well. It's great that she's doing all of that because New York was a very special place and in many ways, the state of New York, but also the major centers, hospitals, and so on, and how they were behaving. So it was a — pretty special events there that were occurring, yes. Extraordinary, I don't know what to say." https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/denis-rancourt-on-the-nyc-spring
I'm not sure what he meant by "special place" and "pretty special events" but would like to know.
Jessica - Do you have a chart that shows the ages or age groups, of those died in NYC during March and April 2020 by chance?
Hi. Yes. See figures 2-5 in this article https://pandata.org/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any-sense/, the graph in this post: https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1835315061042123018
I recommend reading this article for an overview if you haven't already: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/eleven-serious-problems-with-the