CDC data

[izard]

When CDC was approving Pfizer shots for <5yo, they were using a paper "Covid-19 is a leading cause of death in children and young people ages 0-19 years in the United States by Flaxman et al" to prove the urgency. Few days ago, long after CDC approval, authors changed numbers in the paper. Here is a comparison.



Do you also think that the paper title is a bit misleading?
Upd: this post was shadow-banned in my Facebook.

Comments

[dennisgorelik]

1) What does "<1", "1-4", and "5-9" mean?

2) Does "covid corrected" mean "after CDC approval"?

3) When I see "covid" and "CDC" together - my default assumption is that it is some sort of scam.

[izard]

sorry the legend is a bit misleading. 1. children ages. 2. In first three data points, orange bar is data used by CDC to prove the need of a shot, and orange is the data after paper error was fixed and re-published with a fix. Fourth data point was correct in the paper, so was not fixed. It is just all cause mortality for all children's ages, including covid. 3 :(

[dennisgorelik]

> orange bar is data used by CDC to prove the need of a shot

Do you mean "blue" (not "orange")?

> orange is the data after paper error was fixed and re-published with a fix.

[izard]

right, orange used by CDC, blue is corrected.

[dennisgorelik]

Blue columns look more that 2 times smaller than Orange columns.
Whatever decision CDC made - should be reconsidered based on just that.
It is also important to investigate why the discrepancy is so big.

But, considering that current CDC is run by scammers, such investigation is unlikely to get published.

[izard]

It is exactly 2.0 times difference. Authors claim a trivial arithmetical miscalculation, fixed in a latest revision. Of course CDC won't reconsider.

[chuka_lis]

шаткие у них обоснования для этой группы, да.
но сдс сейчас, э.. бестолковое, пожалуй.

[izard]

Это все потому что Грубер и Краузе уволились в прошлом году.

[chuka_lis]

сомневаюсь, тк бестолковость еще до пандемии лезла наружу.