The OWID website is one of the worst. After almost a 2 years, there still aren't any age de-confounded ASMR, and the coverage time series only include misleading aggregated figures. OWID delivers one Simpson's paradox after another.
2/ Here some input for @redouad. OWID likes to fear porn with unadjusted death figures. Even better with cumulated "total deaths" (sounds scary right?) over several years.
8/ For the "Our Age Confounded Useless Data" at OWID "experts".
I here explain what is really going on without using age confounded "sum of all deaths".
9/ Doing this by flu season (July-June) instead of calendar year (which you are doing) we get an even clearer picture.
The eternal lockdowns aren't that healthy at the end, or are they?
Can you see how lockdowns saved lives. "Our Age Confounded Useless Data" OWID is co-responsible for fuelling this lockdown mass hysteria. Is it the flavour of your money source? Gates and WHO?
Vaccine or obesity? What do you think fits better.
15/ Now ASMR for more countries with 2021 included. The grey countries have no data yet in ec.europa.eu/eurostat/datab… up to week 47, therefore not shown.
Orwell2022 age de-confounded data
...or...
@redouad "Our Age Confounded Useless Data" (OWID).
What is better?
16/ Why is OWID doing this? They seem to have more urgent issues like the use of political correct(?) "colour blind" colour codes.
I recommend the comments section where @redouad engaged (showing his irritation):
1/ Let's revisit this result from AIRS satellite measurements over 17 years, showing a +0.36W increase in forcing alongside a 40 ppm rise in CO2 concentration.
Does this align with the "observed" (questionable) increase in global temperature anomaly (+0.6C)?
2/The IPCC reports a calculated CO2 forcing of +0.5W, as detailed on the NOAA AGGI page, which you can find here:
The SW calculation overestimates by 40% compared to the +0.36W derived by the AIRS satellite, marking the first significant discrepancy. gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html
3/ Now we return to Happer's paper, showing that doubling CO2 from 400 --> 800 ppm results in +3W of forcing.
This is consistent with +3.5W reported by the NOAA AGGI (+3.5W).
Imagine claiming the trial was correct, deploying it to 95% in NZ/AUT, and then—boom!—the incidence explodes instead of the virus being eliminated which should already happen at ~70% rate, and was calculated mathematically to happen based on that very promise. False. Study ➡️🚮
Moreover, mortality rises instead of falling. Who are these people still lying about its mortality effectiveness? It’s a failure, and rightfully, Pfizer's stock is plummeting. Keep grieving; won’t help. We want the money back. Those who wanted it can still buy it with own money.
They think that they will get out of this? Desperation. Or did he just admit that everybody (including the CEO Fauci CDC…) were involved in deceptive advertising claims? I doubt that it is going to have a better outcome. Keep digging the hole 👍
1/ Important. ERA5 is a weather model, not a measurement. This summer field tests revealed: rural areas suffer heat bias due to urban heat pollution, making models/interpolations heat biased.
Here a demo that ERA5 is wrong on the tested location.
2/ This implies that all temperature aggregations in climate aggregations incorporate the heat bias prevalent in rural areas. This outcome is hardly surprising given that the majority of weather stations are situated in urban or airport environments.
2/Context: When aiming to determine the Age-Standardized Mortality Rate (ASMR) rather than Life Expectancy (LE), we employ a straightforward relationship:
ASMR = 90 - LE
(valid for ESP2013 population)
However, for those who find it more relevant, we can maintain the LE-CO2
3/ It's important to mention that money is an abstraction of promised future work (energy future). This is why the US dollar is linked to oil; US have grasped this concept.
Rather than $ inflation adjustments, you can express your wealth / income as tons CO2 (or MWh) instead.
1/ Thanks to the Simpson’s paradox (alle age vaxx rates + all age excess) + spurious correlation (ecological fallacy), the Professor is resurfacing the manipulative fallacy from 2021.
Let’s demonstrate on pre-vaxx year 2020.
@MartinKulldorff
2/ Just to highlight further: the vaccination rate in the age group 65+ where 99% of mortality comes from, is equivalent in almost all European countries and higher than 90%.
3/ He’s furthermore using the ecological fallacy, which we can use to make a time machine (called spurious correlation) and have the vaccine given 2021 working in 2019 or earlier.