Yesterday, @GavinNewsom made the claim California has 50% less COVID-19 mortality than Florida. That is false. Their rate (193 per 100,00) is 34% lower than FL (292). 292-193 = 99 / 292 = 34%
What's more, is the age-adjusted rate as of yesterday is 221 to 231 (4% lower).
The age-adjusted rates are mine, using standardized population rates for 0-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75-84, 85+ from this CDC data as of yesterday and adjusted to 2020 census estimates.
California reported 308,820 cases today for 3 days of data, bringing the 7-day average to 101,129.
The 7d average for NY is 72,900.
The 7d ave for FL actually DROPPED today from 64,507 to 63,965. This is the first drop in 7d average for Florida in 35 days.
I posted this about growth rate in Florida down to 3.4% just a few days ago. Doesn't mean we have peaked yet, this could be a one day aberration, but...
7d new hospital admissions in Florida grew by only eight (8) people today, suggesting that indeed the peak is very near. Perhaps a mere couple of days.
The clip that went viral today by @CDCDirector was specifically referring to a new MMWR report showing 78% of vaccinated deaths with COVID-19 had at least four risk factors. Walensky referred to them by their analogous term "comorbidities."
This study from Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, calls them by risk factors. But all risk factors are also labeled as comorbidities when they are believed to have contributed to death.
Comorbidities can mean existing conditions and specific causes
So a comorbidity can be an existing risk factor (like heart disease) or a condition brought on by disease (like pneumonia). When Walensky says 4+ comorbidities, she was referring to a combination of the two.
But this is not unique to vaccinated individuals.
3/
James is lying (again). Oh, to be fair, in the context of this clip, Walensky is referring to a new study of vaccinated individuals. But the lie by James is one of omission, namely that this actually applies to ALL COVID-19 deaths.
Yes, Walensky was referring to a single study about vaccinated deaths. But that study is actually just corroborating what the data shows for all COVID-19 deaths.
Walensky used the term "comorbidities" today. The CDC table shows the same term. Don't like that comparison or my definition? Well this is the CDC definition.
My real issue with this aside from Pfizer and Moderna not being honest with their obvious motives is that we are purposely misleading people as to what isn’t working. Absolutely none of these studies show a decline in protection against severe illness. It’s all about antibodies.
Vaccines are supposed to trigger an immune response to the virus by preparing the immune system as if it were the actual virus. Antibodies wane, just like after an infection, but the long lasting T cells remember the virus to help protect people against severe illness…
It's really sad how misinformed the justices of the highest court in the land are on this disease. It shouldn't matter, as it should be about the law, but since they're making it about the disease itself, it would help if they weren't citing utterly false statistics.
"Those numbers show that Omicron causes as much severe disease and death in the unvaccinated as Delta did."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you an actual quote just now from a SCOTUS justice.
This is how grossly ignorant they are. There is no data in the world that shows this.
Among the gems so far:
* There are unprecedented levels of people in hospitals (false)
"We do not contest COVID is a grave danger," heard by the counsel in the OSHA hearing.
They should be contesting that. It's certainly a grave danger to some people, but 80% of deaths occur at retirement age. OSHA mandate addresses working age persons under 65.
This is not going well at all. The justices are just up here citing untrue statistics based on faulty perception. They need to be also arguing the grave danger aspect as well as the law.
Justice Breyer out here saying hospitals are the fullest they've ever been. That is utterly false.