Sep 6, 2022·edited Sep 6, 2022Liked by Jessica Hockett
This was my first clue something was amiss, found the all cause mortality data from the CDC[1] and realized weeks 1-11 in NYC were completely normal (average 1139 deaths compared to 1126 deaths the previous year with no notable deviation) and then suddenly jumped to record 1405 deaths (end of 3/21), then 2805 (3/28), before peaking at 6293 and 7862 deaths (4/4, 4/11, respectively) before receding back to baseline average of 305 deaths/week for the remainder of 2020.
If the virus was spreading through the population between Nov 2019-mid March 2020 as we soon realized, and, it was as devastatingly lethal and contagious as predicted, you would expect an ever increasing all cause mortality trend throughout late 2019 and early 2020. Yet there was nothing.
Not a single indication deaths were on the rise.
The virus, which apparently a single super spreader could infect an entire wedding party of 300, somehow lurked in the background amongst a population of 11,000,000 packed in at 30,000-70,000 people per square mile, not triggering a strain on hospitals or morgues in the 5 months prior the lockdowns.
It just happened to wait until we enacted unprecedented disruptions to society and medical care to emerge.
Sure. Makes complete sense.
Never mind that coincidentally, heart attacks also increased nearly 5 fold immediately following the lockdowns. Complete coincidence... in fact, those heart attacks must have been Long Covid deaths!
Great sleuthing but help me understand the argument. Couldn't someone this view this as consistent with the mainstream narrative: the NY lockdowns were timed just at the inflection point when "exponential growth" started to take off. i.e. NY locked down because we saw a small number of cases multiplying and then exponential growth did its thing to create the shape you see. I'm not saying I believe this, I'm trying to understand the counter-argument.
Does seeing a problem with this data rely on believing that covid was in fact circulating widely in the US before March 2020? I believe it was for all the well-established reasons (Michael Senger lists some today) but I'm not sure how widely accepted that is yet?
This was my first clue something was amiss, found the all cause mortality data from the CDC[1] and realized weeks 1-11 in NYC were completely normal (average 1139 deaths compared to 1126 deaths the previous year with no notable deviation) and then suddenly jumped to record 1405 deaths (end of 3/21), then 2805 (3/28), before peaking at 6293 and 7862 deaths (4/4, 4/11, respectively) before receding back to baseline average of 305 deaths/week for the remainder of 2020.
If the virus was spreading through the population between Nov 2019-mid March 2020 as we soon realized, and, it was as devastatingly lethal and contagious as predicted, you would expect an ever increasing all cause mortality trend throughout late 2019 and early 2020. Yet there was nothing.
Not a single indication deaths were on the rise.
The virus, which apparently a single super spreader could infect an entire wedding party of 300, somehow lurked in the background amongst a population of 11,000,000 packed in at 30,000-70,000 people per square mile, not triggering a strain on hospitals or morgues in the 5 months prior the lockdowns.
It just happened to wait until we enacted unprecedented disruptions to society and medical care to emerge.
Sure. Makes complete sense.
Never mind that coincidentally, heart attacks also increased nearly 5 fold immediately following the lockdowns. Complete coincidence... in fact, those heart attacks must have been Long Covid deaths!
You can check my numbers from the CDC:
[1] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-Provisional-Counts-of-Deaths-by-State-and-S/muzy-jte6
Thank you so much for the info. The more we see the more we it is likely that we created this mess by our over-reaction.
Great sleuthing but help me understand the argument. Couldn't someone this view this as consistent with the mainstream narrative: the NY lockdowns were timed just at the inflection point when "exponential growth" started to take off. i.e. NY locked down because we saw a small number of cases multiplying and then exponential growth did its thing to create the shape you see. I'm not saying I believe this, I'm trying to understand the counter-argument.
Does seeing a problem with this data rely on believing that covid was in fact circulating widely in the US before March 2020? I believe it was for all the well-established reasons (Michael Senger lists some today) but I'm not sure how widely accepted that is yet?
The magik number they were spreading was "33"
"33 year or man or woman" died
"3300 cases and rising"
"33% surge"
etc