More CDC data manipulation

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"The CDC's own data show that hospitalizations among all groups have plummeted over the past six weeks. It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points – an old trick they've used with mask studies – which coincides with a period of increased hospitalizations among all age groups, including those with high vaccination rates."

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-contagious-lies-cdc-claims-hospitalization-rising-among-unvaccinated-teens--contrary-to-its-own-data

Why is the CDC not being held accountable for their systematic data manipulation?

@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"The CDC's own data show that hospitalizations among all groups have plummeted over the past six weeks. It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points – an old trick they've used with mask studies – which coincides with a period of increased hospitalizations among all age groups, including those with high vaccination rat ...[text shortened]... to-its-own-data

Why is the CDC not being held accountable for their systematic data manipulation?

Huh? What is being manipulated by the CDC?

When you start a thread like this, please post relevant source information. The CDC data is public record, and, if it is being "manipulated" as you suggest, then it doesn't need to be spun by "The Blaze". You know better that the media likes to spin things for clicks.

@wildgrass said
Huh? What is being manipulated by the CDC?

When you start a thread like this, please post relevant source information. The CDC data is public record, and, if it is being "manipulated" as you suggest, then it doesn't need to be spun by "The Blaze". You know better that the media likes to spin things for clicks.

"please post relevant source information."

The article shows their relevant sources of information from the CDC itself. Yes, the CDC data is public record and the link I provided has the links to the CDC as reference.

If you think the sources (the CDC itself) are being spun then simply demonstrate that using the CDC sources provided by The Blaze. You can read, right? Let me guess, you just assumed it was spin instead of reading the CDC websites provided because you are rejecting it because of incredulity instead of proving it with the CDC sources.

Why are you pretending the CDC source was not there all along? Lack of reading? Incredulity? Close minded prejudice? All 3?

@metal-brain said
"please post relevant source information."

The article shows their relevant sources of information from the CDC itself. Yes, the CDC data is public record and the link I provided has the links to the CDC as reference.

If you think the sources (the CDC itself) are being spun then simply demonstrate that using the CDC sources provided by The Blaze. You can read, righ ...[text shortened]... the CDC source was not there all along? Lack of reading? Incredulity? Close minded prejudice? All 3?

It's BS, as you can expect from the Blaze.

Studies can't last forever but the actual one quotes figures from as far back as October 1, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

Ending a study in late April to get it published by June doesn't seem out of line to me.

It's just more craziness from the anti-vaxxers who apparently want people to die for some bizarre reason.

@no1marauder said
It's BS, as you can expect from the Blaze.

Studies can't last forever but the actual one quotes figures from as far back as October 1, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

Ending a study in late April to get it published by June doesn't seem out of line to me.

It's just more craziness from the anti-vaxxers who apparently want people to die for some bizarre reason.

Hmm. I never read the Blaze and just now had to check to see if they are conservative or liberal. And I'm not an anti-vaxer. Just yesterday I had my 15 year old son take his second Covid shot. I kind of see myself as unbaised in this. I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm generally in favor of people getting vaccinated and have got my whole family to do so. If I am biased, it would be more pro-vax.

But I disagree strongly with this: Ending a study in late April to get it published by June doesn't seem out of line to me.

They are not publishing encyclopedias, so they don't really need a month to make solidify their final edits. If a vaccination were found to have a surprise risk a month earlier, they wouldn't neglect to mention that in a new publication. If it is true as it seems that those under 18 saw hospitalization increases less than the elderly and that the trend ended over a month before publication, it sounds kind of weaselly to me.

Again, I'm not anti-vax, just anti-dishonesty. Nevertheless, I'd prefer more teens get vaccinated in spite of this apparent dishonesty.

@no1marauder said
It's BS, as you can expect from the Blaze.

Studies can't last forever but the actual one quotes figures from as far back as October 1, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

Ending a study in late April to get it published by June doesn't seem out of line to me.

It's just more craziness from the anti-vaxxers who apparently want people to die for some bizarre reason.

Prove it is BS. You have not done that.
This is classic cherry picking of data and you are making lame excuses to justify cherry picking data.

Studies can and do last forever. What the heck are you babbling about now? You talk as if studies have expiration dates. Prove your assertions instead of obfuscating. The data is there and it is from the CDC itself. If you cannot prove your assertion with the CDC data you are just putting forth BS.

Global warming alarmists cherry pick data in the same way. Why do you think the sea level rise thread on the science forum has a peer reviewed study stating one measurement and a Nasa study stating another? One of them clearly cherry picked data to get a different measurement.

You might want to actually read the article and observe the data. Then ask yourself why they started at the highest point when the data goes back farther than that. It is not a trivial question and you darn well know that!

@techsouth said
Hmm. I never read the Blaze and just now had to check to see if they are conservative or liberal. And I'm not an anti-vaxer. Just yesterday I had my 15 year old son take his second Covid shot. I kind of see myself as unbaised in this. I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm generally in favor of people getting vaccinated and have got my whole family to do so. If I am bi ...[text shortened]... ishonesty. Nevertheless, I'd prefer more teens get vaccinated in spite of this apparent dishonesty.

The Blaze is Glenn Beck's website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaze_Media

I think that should answer if it is "conservative or liberal".

Sorry, but the CDC has to collate data from the entire US and then have any publications reviewed by a board. The type of info in the article i.e. a breakdown of hospitalizations by age isn't generally available in day to day State health publications. The CDC itself is often well behind State figures in deaths and hospitalizations.

So, no, I don't see anything nefarious going on, just a typical muck up caused by our lack of timely centralized data due to an excessive devotion to "federalism".

@techsouth said
Hmm. I never read the Blaze and just now had to check to see if they are conservative or liberal. And I'm not an anti-vaxer. Just yesterday I had my 15 year old son take his second Covid shot. I kind of see myself as unbaised in this. I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm generally in favor of people getting vaccinated and have got my whole family to do so. If I am bi ...[text shortened]... ishonesty. Nevertheless, I'd prefer more teens get vaccinated in spite of this apparent dishonesty.

"Again, I'm not anti-vax, just anti-dishonesty. Nevertheless, I'd prefer more teens get vaccinated in spite of this apparent dishonesty."

So it seems that you are condoning the dishonesty. Is it because you believe it is necessary to lie to people for their own good? You do realize that the dishonesty is why so many people are refusing the vaccines, right?

What is wrong with honesty? Isn't that how trust is gained? Isn't lying how trust is lost? Correct me if I am wrong, but honesty is the best policy, right? If not, explain why.

@no1marauder said
The Blaze is Glenn Beck's website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaze_Media

I think that should answer if it is "conservative or liberal".

Sorry, but the CDC has to collate data from the entire US and then have any publications reviewed by a board. The type of info in the article i.e. a breakdown of hospitalizations by age isn't generally available in day to day St ...[text shortened]... muck up caused by our lack of timely centralized data due to an excessive devotion to "federalism".

That is a lot of jargon that explains nothing.
Why did the CDC cherry pick a recent high spike to start instead of including data that goes back farther before that high spike? Unless you can prove they threw a dart at it at random to decide where to start it must have been intentional to mislead. Even if you could prove they threw a dart that is not very scientific, is it?

@metal-brain said
That is a lot of jargon that explains nothing.
Why did the CDC cherry pick a recent high spike to start instead of including data that goes back farther before that high spike? Unless you can prove they threw a dart at it at random to decide where to start it must have been intentional to mislead. Even if you could prove they threw a dart that is not very scientific, is it?

You obviously didn't bother to actually look at the CDC study which included data back to October 2020.

No, you can't publish a study without giving the data some kind of end point. Your claim otherwise doesn't make any sense.


EDIT: Actually, I'm wrong - they included data from March 1, 2020 onward:

"CDC examined COVID-19–associated hospitalizations among adolescents aged 12–17 years, including demographic and clinical characteristics of adolescents admitted during January 1–March 31, 2021, and hospitalization rates (hospitalizations per 100,000 persons) among adolescents during March 1, 2020–April 24, 2021. "

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

@no1marauder said
You obviously didn't bother to actually look at the CDC study which included data back to October 2020.

No, you can't publish a study without giving the data some kind of end point. Your claim otherwise doesn't make any sense.


EDIT: Actually, I'm wrong - they included data from March 1, 2020 onward:

"CDC examined COVID-19–associated hospitalizations among adole ...[text shortened]... , 2020[/b]–April 24, 2021. "

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

You first said study and didn't say data. Now you are saying data. Be more careful how you word things. Studies last forever, data doesn't necessarily last forever. Know the difference.

Here is an excerpt from the article in my OP:

"Most of that mini increase (after the major winter spread) was due to the final spring spread in the northeast and upper Midwest. Based on the CDC's headlines, one would think that childhood hospitalizations are spreading now and that they are rising relative to other age groups. In reality, they have plummeted and only rose slightly from a near-zero baseline earlier this year along with other groups."

Here is a graph showing the data:

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

Now show me how the statement above is wrong.

@metal-brain said
You first said study and didn't say data. Now you are saying data. Be more careful how you word things. Studies last forever, data doesn't necessarily last forever. Know the difference.

Here is an excerpt from the article in my OP:

"Most of that mini increase (after the major winter spread) was due to the final spring spread in the northeast and upper Midwest. Based ...[text shortened]...
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

Now show me how the statement above is wrong.

My wording was just fine yours doesn't make any sense.

You're making the same mistake you always do; assuming the most recent figures are up to date. They are not; read the two sentences right under the graph (it won't copy for some reason).

EDIT: That chart also uses hospitalizations for children 5 to 17 rather than the 12 to 17 the study focuses on. Thus, they are not strictly comparable.

@no1marauder said
My wording was just fine yours doesn't make any sense.

You're making the same mistake you always do; assuming the most recent figures are up to date. They are not; read the two sentences right under the graph (it won't copy for some reason).

EDIT: That chart also uses hospitalizations for children 5 to 17 rather than the 12 to 17 the study focuses on. Thus, they are not strictly comparable.

Stop accusing others of what you do. You said study, not data. Say what you mean.

I don't think you know how to read a graph. Do you realize the different colors are different age groups? The 5-17 (green) is nearly flat though the whole graph. If you think you can prove that 12-17 is much different I disagree. It isn't much different than 0-4 (tan).

Also, if you are counting the data before the pandemic started it will always be higher subsequent to then. Is that what you are proving? That hospitalizations are higher than before the pandemic?

Okay, captain obvious.

@metal-brain said
Stop accusing others of what you do. You said study, not data. Say what you mean.

I don't think you know how to read a graph. Do you realize the different colors are different age groups? Also, if you are counting the data before the pandemic started it will always be higher subsequent to then. Is that what you are proving? That hospitalizations are higher than before the pandemic?

Okay, captain obvious.

There's no sense talking to you if you can't understand the study presented data over a specific time period (as all scientific studies do).

No, idiot, I'm saying what looks like a deep drop in May and the first week of June is almost certainly the result of incomplete data as the sentences under the graph indicate. And maybe you didn't look closely at the graph, but for any date if gives the hospitalization rates for the various age groups. You don't have to rely on guessing what they are by looking at the lines.

@no1marauder said
There's no sense talking to you if you can't understand the study presented data over a specific time period (as all scientific studies do).

No, idiot, I'm saying what looks like a deep drop in May and the first week of June is almost certainly the result of incomplete data as the sentences under the graph indicate. And maybe you didn't look closely at the graph, but f ...[text shortened]... or the various age groups. You don't have to rely on guessing what they are by looking at the lines.

Then don't count May or June. It doesn't change much to make a significant difference.

I don't think you know how to read a graph. Do you realize the different colors are different age groups? The 5-17 (green) is nearly flat though the whole graph. If you think you can prove that 12-17 is much different I disagree. It isn't much different than 0-4 (tan).