Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:

On 6/9/2025 12:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 21:40:04 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 6/8/2025 8:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 19:56:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil

>
"Estimated cumulative excess deaths per 100,000 population during
COVID-19, Jun 17, 2024 for USA and Brazil"
<https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/covid?time=latest&mapSelect=USA~BRA&Metric=Excess%20mortality%20(estimates)&Interval=Cumulative&Relative%20to%20population=true&country=USA~BRA~JPN~DEU>
>
Identical rates for excess deaths per 100,000 for USA and Brazil
sounds like someone has been tweaking the data from Brazil to make the
number more believable.
>
Also, notice that the confirmed cumulative (total) deaths per 100,000
population for Brazil is a constant 307 (flat line) from Mar 1, 2022
to May 11, 2025.  This means that either Brazil has successfully
controlled the spread of Covid-19 (unlikely), or that Brazil simply
stopped reporting new cases (more likely).
>
>

>
More poking about shows various totals but not over one
million. I may have missed something more definitive.
>
Maybe 500K
https://www.statista.com/topics/6168/coronavirus-covid-19-in-brazil/#topicOverview
>
Maybe 700K
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
>
Maybe 711K
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/
>
I don't know but 3 million seems high for a 213 million
population.

 The problem with predicting fatalities is that every country had their
own method of counting fatalities.  The WHO tried to define something
resembling standards, which mostly worked in countries where the
government was sufficiently stable that it was unlikely to be
overthrown by a failure to protect its citizens.  I added to the
confusion by providing a graph that showed Excess Mortality numbers,
which are themselves little better than a guess.  Most of the early
trend estimates came from the very rapid rise of new cases in the
early days of Covid-19.  Extrapolating from such data after the
initial panic resulted in wide variations in projected new cases.
Looking at the world graph for cases and deaths, trying to estimate
anything before May 2020 was futile because of the rapid rise. Between
May 2020 and Feb 2022, it might be possible to speculate a trend.
After Feb 2022, it was all over, basically flat line, and fairly
useless for projections.
"Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, United
States"
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-deaths-and-cases-covid-19?country=~USA>
and Brazil"
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-deaths-and-cases-covid-19?country=~BRA>
 Another problem was that the data collection and interpretation was
often performed by those who had a vested interest in the conclusions.
We had some of that in Santa Cruz County.  Initially, every hospital
and public health organization created their own Covid-19 dashboards.
In multiple stages, various governmental organization literally
grabbed control of the data and produced their own dashboards.  It was
amazing how the same data could produce dramatically different
projections.
 Since the slope of the curve was initially very steep, the computer
models produced results that suggested that everyone would soon be
dead or dying.  Later projections were not so pessimistic, but since
they tended to continue using 2020 data (because that was all that was
available for a year or two), the projections continued to predict
that we're all doomed.  That's probably where the 3 million cases came
from.
 Meanwhile, the politicians did their best to interfere and add
additional layers of confusion.  I'm too lazy to provide some examples
but let's say that all sides did their best to "adjust" the numbers to
make themselves look comparatively better than their critics (and fund
their supporting organizations).  Meanwhile, every student, scientist,
and politician was producing "survey" research articles in the belief
that averaging the widely varying data sources would somehow produce
sane projections on the assumption that all the errors would somehow
cancel each other out.  Meanwhile, the only journals worth reading are
those that itemize retractions:
<https://retractionwatch.com>
<https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/>
 

Yes much agreed all around, especially with early predictions from various Cassandras, which did of course not come to be.
I was intrigued by Dr Shadow's '3 million dead in Brasil' comment. I remain skeptical on that point.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971