Category Archives: Statistics

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Reports 35 Percent Increase in Child Pornography From 2020 to 2021

Cassandra Fairbanks
Published March 19, 2022

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has reported a massive increase in child pornography online.

The organization reports finding a 35 percent increase in suspected cases from 2020 to 2021.

“The number of reports went up in categories such as CSAM (possession, manufacture and distribution), child sex tourism, child sex trafficking, child sexual molestation, misleading domain name, online enticement of children for sexual acts and unsolicited obscene material sent to a child,” The Hill reports. “NCMEC sent reports to the police and was able to alert law enforcement to 4,260 potential new victims in 2021.”

In 2021, there were 29.3 million reports of suspected child sexual abuse online, the most ever in a single year.

The Intelligencer reports, “there were also 44,155 reports of suspected online enticement of children for sexual acts, 16,032 reports of suspected child sex trafficking and 12,458 reports of suspected child sexual molestation in 2021, according to NCMEC data, with each category seeing an increase over 2020.”

The report added that “NCMEC data shows that the number of videos of child sexual abuse surpassed still images in 2021, and the nonprofit wrote it expects reports of videos will continue to rise.”

“These reports concern the sexual exploitation of children around the globe. We share this data to continue building awareness of the insidious nature of child sexual exploitation occurring online,” Michelle DeLaune, NCMEC senior vice president and COO, said in a statement.

Reports of suspected child sexual exploitation can be sent to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children at CyberTipline.org or by calling NCMEC at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).

Massachusetts Reports ‘Significant Overcount’ of COVID Deaths

Chris Lisinski 
March 10, 2022

EDITORS NOTE: The following article comes from a local NBC channel.

When state public health officials publish Monday’s report about the latest COVID-19 impacts on Massachusetts, the cumulative death toll through two years of the pandemic will suddenly stand about 15% lower.

The Baker administration will start using a new public health surveillance definition next week, narrowing the window of time between a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and death required for the fatality to get attributed to the highly infectious virus.

Saying the Bay State’s earlier methodology led to a “significant overcount of deaths,” officials said Thursday they will adopt a new system recommended by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

And in a step that could reshape understanding of the pandemic’s impact on Massachusetts, the administration will apply the new method retroactively, resulting in 4,081 deaths once linked to the virus being recategorized as stemming from other causes and roughly 400 others newly being labeled as COVID-19 deaths.

“We think this is an absolutely critical step in improving our understanding of who COVID has impacted most significantly during the pandemic,” said state epidemiologist Dr. Catherine Brown. “We believe that this will provide us a much more accurate picture of who has died associated with a COVID infection in Massachusetts, and it will also improve our ability to compare our data with data from other jurisdictions.”

For the duration of the pandemic, state officials have deemed a fatality COVID-related if it met at least one of three criteria: if a case investigation determined the virus “caused” or “contributed” to the death, if the death certificate listed COVID-19 or an “equivalent term” as the cause, or if state public health surveillance linked a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis to a Bay Stater’s death.

The first two measures remain unchanged since the earliest days of the crisis, but the third has already been updated once and is set to evolve again on Monday.

From March 2020 to March 2021, DPH counted the death of any person who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 as a COVID-related death, regardless of how much time elapsed between those two events.

Even if someone contracted the virus in March and died in a car crash in July, they were added to the ongoing tally of pandemic deaths for that first year.

“This strategy worked well at the beginning of the pandemic, and in fact, a paper was published last summer in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which lauded our efforts here in Massachusetts in counting deaths that occurred during the first wave of the pandemic as opposed to several other jurisdictions,” said Public Health Commissioner Margret Cooke. “But over time, our approach proved to be too expansive and led to a significant overcount of deaths in Massachusetts. People who had gotten COVID earlier in 2020 and died for other reasons ended up still being included in COVID-associated death counts.”

The department updated its approach for the third criterion in April 2021, officials said Thursday, keeping the death investigation and death certificate triggers in place. Under that method, officials counted only those who died within 60 days of a COVID diagnosis as deaths related to the virus, unless their death was clearly linked to another cause such as trauma.

That system remained in place for most of 2021 and will be replaced in Monday’s daily report by the new definition, recommended in December by the national consortium of state public health leaders after months of study.

The new method suggested by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists calls for counting deaths within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis where “natural causes” is labeled on a death certificate as attributable to the virus, half as long a timeframe as under the most recent definition in Massachusetts.

Brown said the update will “make sure that what we are capturing is the acute impact of COVID.”

“People who are seriously ill and hospitalized for longer and end up dying after that 30 days have almost invariably had COVID listed on their death certificate, so they end up being counted under another method,” Brown said.

As has been the case throughout the pandemic, if an official death investigation determined the virus caused or contributed or if a death certificate lists COVID-19 or an equivalent term, that fatality will add to the pandemic death toll.

Brown said the vast majority of the 4,081 deaths that will no longer be deemed COVID-related, about 95%, occurred between May 2020 and May 2021, covering the tail end of the state’s first surge and its second surge that winter. Most of the roughly 400 deaths that will acquire a COVID label also happened in that span, Brown said.

Taken together, the removals and additions net out to a reduction in the cumulative COVID-19 death toll of about 3,700 people, more than the entire population of Provincetown.

DPH does not expect to have a new tally for the number of COVID-19 deaths in Massachusetts until it publishes new data on its COVID-19 dashboard around 5 p.m. on Monday. Back-end work to merge datasets will take place over the weekend, according to Brown.

It also remains unclear if the change in Massachusetts will send out ripple effects across the country.

Asked if other states planned to adopt the national council’s recommended methodology as well, Brown said that the new definition planned for rollout in Massachusetts is “actually much more consistent with what many other jurisdictions are already using.”

“This is a recommended guidance definition, and it is designed to help improve comparability across jurisdictions, across states. But we have also heard from a few jurisdictions that they are not planning on updating the way they count deaths,” she said. “What’s really important is that this change to the definition will actually increase the ability to compare the counts in Massachusetts with other jurisdictions because it will be more similar to what most other jurisdictions are using.”

The U.S. Center and Disease Control’s online tracker on Thursday listed 959,533 total COVID-19 deaths across the country since Jan. 21, 2020. Massachusetts had the 13th-most total deaths among states and the 11th-highest rate of deaths per 100,000 residents, both of which will likely change when the updated death toll is published next week.

As of 5 p.m. Wednesday, Massachusetts health officials had recorded 23,708 confirmed and probable COVID-19 deaths since the outbreak first began, so that figure is likely to drop to around 20,000 on Monday.

The new methodology will also apply to weekly reporting about COVID-19 cases in vaccinated individuals, the next version of which is set for publication on Tuesday.

Brown added that preliminary analysis did not show any significant changes to the distribution of deaths by age group, sex and race or ethnicity once the new definition was applied.

“While we absolutely acknowledge that we’re moving to a more accurate and appropriate way to count deaths, it doesn’t change our understanding, it does not alter our understanding, of who has died from COVID and where the most disproportionate impacts have been,” Brown said.

The Baker administration appears not to have made as public an announcement about the first change to its statewide COVID-19 death definition as the latest update. Officials said in April 2021 that they would change how deaths were counted specifically in long-term care facilities to align with the CDC’s national definition, but made no mention in that press release of the broader change imposing a 60-day limit on the span between an infection and death to count in some cases.

CNN Hits Historic Lows after Scandal-Filled Year

Hannah Nightingale
February 16th, 2022

CNN has hit yet another low last week, seeing its worst total day viewers in nearly eight years as its conservative counterpart Fox News continues to top the charts.

According to data reported by Fox News, the left-wing cable news network averaged just 444,000 total day viewers from Feb. 7 – 13, which is CNN’s worst performance in the category since November of 2015.

Fox News topped the category, bringing in 1.5 average total day viewers, and was the only basic cable news network to surpass the 1 million mark. The top five was rounded out with USA, MSNBC, HGTV, and Hallmark.

In the primetime slots, CNN didn’t fare much better, averaging just 491,000 primetime viewers. Meanwhile, Fox News brought in 2.4 million viewers for the same slot, topping CNN by 385 percent.

“Tucker Carlson Tonight” finished as the most-watched cable news program of the week, bringing in an average of 3.5 million viewers.

“The Five” finished in second, followed by “Jesse Watters Primetime,” “Hannity,” and “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

Fox News had 81 of the top 100 cable telecasts for the week.

CNN’s most popular show, “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” brought in an average audience of 663,000 viewers, with shows like “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel, and Bravo’s “The Real Housewives of Orange County” receiving more viewers.

As for morning shows, CNN’s “New Day” brought in just 363,000 viewers, and MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” saw 763,000 viewers. For comparison, “FOX & Friends” averaged 1.4 million viewers, more than doubling the other two shows combined.

CNN saw another historic low with its weekend lineup, with just 57,000 viewers in the coveted marketing demographic of 25 – 54, marking the lowest viewership in the category in 25 years, according to Fox News data.

CNN has seen its viewership tank since the last two months of 2021, and into this year, have been embroiled in a number of scandals.

In early December, popular host Chris Cuomo was fired from his position after it was revealed that he had a larger part to play in defending his brother, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, amidst allegations of sexual harassment.

Two producers for CNN shows were fired last year amidst allegations of sexual abuse of minors and soliciting photos from underaged girls.

Most recently, CNN president Jeff Zucker resigned from his post after he failed to disclose a romantic relationship with CNN’s executive vice president and chief marketing officer Allison Gollust.

In the wake of Zucker’s resignations, reports came out that Cuomo still intends to engage in a legal battle with his former network, reportedly intending to demand upwards of $60 million.

Last Week the “Experts” Admitted Lockdowns Did Not Reduce Mortality Rates — NOW They Admit Masking Was Mostly Worthless

Jim Hoft
February 12th, 2022

Last week Johns Hopkins revealed Dr. Fauci’s “ill-founded” lockdowns were entirely ineffective in reducing US mortality rates by only 0.2%

Now, we find out the mask mandates didn’t make much of a difference during the pandemic.
We already knew this.
But the elites are finally admitting what we already knew.

Screaming Karens hurt the most.

Bloomberg reported:

Masks have been the most visible part of America’s pandemic response, but one of the least consequential. The fact that 500,000 people worldwide died during the omicron surge means it’s time to change tactics, and focus on what went wrong that led to so many hospitalizations and deaths…

…The benefits of universal masking have been difficult to quantify. One controlled study in Bangladesh showed a small but statistically significant benefit — among people who consistently used masks, 7.6% got symptomatic infections compared to 8.6% in the control group. Other studies have been inconclusive

…The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota have laid out a more complex analysisGiven the current understanding that the virus is transmitted in fine aerosol particles, it’s likely an infectious dose could easily get through and around loose-fitting cloth or surgical masks.

For the record… The Gateway Pundit reported on this nearly a year ago.

Another Fauci Failure: Johns Hopkins Study Finds Fauci’s “Ill-Founded” Lockdowns Only Reduced Mortality Rates by 0.2%

Jim Hoft
February 2nd, 2022 

The latest study from Johns Hopkins found that the initial Fauci economic shutdowns did little to reduce mortalities during the COVID pandemic in 2020. They were very disruptive to the economy and society at large.

Maybe it’s time to bring Fauci up on charges?

The Daily Mail reported:

The original coronavirus lockdowns had ‘little to no’ effect on pandemic death tolls in the US, UK and Europe, a controversial report suggests.

Economists who carried out a meta-analysis estimated that draconian restrictions first imposed in spring 2020 — including stay-at-home orders, compulsory masks and social distancing — only reduced Covid mortality by 0.2 percent.

They warned that lockdowns caused ‘enormous economic and social costs’ and concluded they were ‘ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument’ going forward.

The review, led by a Johns Hopkins University professor, argued that border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality, reducing deaths by just 0.1 per cent.

Here are important takeaways from the study:

An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality…

Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission…

In Edmonton, Canada, isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed; and business hours were restricted without obvious impact on the epidemic.” Our findings are also in line with Allen’s (2021) conclusion: “The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid 19 deaths.”

The Economic Winners And Losers Of The Pandemic

While the coronavirus pandemic is still ongoing, the economies of most OECD countries have started to bounce back from the effects of 2020.

As Statista’s Florian Zandt notes, according to data accumulated by The EconomistIreland is the nation with the highest GDP uptick between Q4 2019 and Q3 2021, increasing its domestic product by 22.3 percent. While impressive, this result is the exception rather than the norm as Statista’s chart indicates.

Infographic: The Economic Winners and Losers of the Pandemic | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Source: ZeroHedge

The Atlantic Claims ‘More People Carrying Guns Tends to Result in More Shootings.’ Decades of Data Show They’re Wrong

Jon Miltimore
December 22, 2021

Editors Note: This article contains the author’s opinion.

A couple of months ago, The Atlantic published an article written by staff writer David A. Graham that explores the surge of violence the United States experienced in 2020.

Overall the article, which analyzes findings from the FBI’s “Uniform Crime Report,” is quite good. It effectively breaks down what we know and—more importantly—what we don’t know about the latest crime trends in America, which in 2020 saw a record surge in the murder rate amid a broader rise of violence.

On one particular point, however, Graham is simply wrong.

Graham notes that sales of firearms jumped in 2020, as did police confiscation of illegal guns, and he attempts to tie this to the surge in violence.

“You can ask law-abiding people or you can ask people who do not abide by the law, ‘Why are you armed with a firearm?’ ‘I need to protect myself,’” Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, tells Graham.

Precisely what Rosenfeld meant by this statement is unclear, but Graham’s next sentence is clear.

“That creates a vicious cycle: More people carrying guns tends to result in more shootings, which in turn heightens the desire to carry a weapon for protection,” Graham writes. “When crime is decreasing, this dynamic helps it continue to fall, but once it begins to rise, the feedback loop turns ugly.”

Whether this claim is Graham’s or Rosenfield’s is unclear. No link or citation is offered to support the assertion. What we do know is the claim that “more people carrying guns tends to result in more shootings” is simply untrue.

As economist Mark Perry pointed out several years ago, the US saw gun violence steadily decrease over multiple decades as gun ownership surged.

“According to data retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993 (see light blue line in chart),” Perry wrote. “By 2013…the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50% to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population. ”

This decline, Perry points out, occurred as the number of privately owned firearms in America surged from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

And in case you’re wondering, non-fatal shootings followed a similar decline as fatal shootings, as Vox reported at the time. This is part of a larger decline in gun violence that saw “a 39 percent decline in gun homicides between 1993 and 2011 and a staggering 69 percent decline in non-fatal firearms crimes.”

Mr. Graham, who has also reported for Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal, is no doubt a fine writer and reporter. (Many of his points in the article on the FBI’s recent crime report are insightful.) But he’s simply wrong that more people possessing guns “tends to result in more shootings.” The data simply do not support this claim. During this “staggering” decades-long trend of falling firearms crimes, gun ownership steadily increased the entire time.

None of this is to say that gun ownership caused the decline in gun violence. It very well may have, but that’s a more difficult question to answer. For instance, Max Ehrenfreund, a Harvard scientist, has posited that the decline in gun violence may have stemmed from a decline in alcoholism, more police working the streets, the bullish economy of the Reagan years, and even less lead exposure.

Ehrenfreund says researchers don’t really know for certain why the decline in violence happened, but he said one thing is clear: “America has become a much less violent place.”

The decline in gun violence was no doubt linked to many factors, but it’s certainly possible the rise of gun ownership was one of them.

As Lawrence Reed has pointed out, compelling research shows guns prevent some 2.5 million crimes a year in America—6,849 every day—nearly a half million of which are of a life-threatening nature. And it’s not exactly hard to see why. After all, 60 percent of convicted felons told researchers that they avoided committing such crimes when they suspected the target was armed.

If you’re suspicious of these statistics, it’s worth noting that the Centers for Disease Control, in a report commissioned by President Obama following the 2012 Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that crimes prevented by guns may be even higher: up to 3 million annually (8,200 per day).

Again, we don’t know for certain. These are estimates. What we do know is that guns aren’t just used to commit crimes; they are also used to stop and deter crimes.

In his famous essay That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, the great economist Frédéric Bastiat noted there is a pervasive tendency for people to focus on the visible effects of a given policy or action and miss the unseen consequences.

Gun control proponents often make this mistake. They focus on crimes committed with guns (the seen)—some of which are truly the things of nightmares—but ignore all the unseen, all of the crimes prevented by firearms.

Some may not be prepared to accept the idea that guns prevent thousands of crimes in America every single day. That’s ok.

But The Atlantic should correct its claim that “more people carrying guns tends to result in more shootings.” It’s pure fiction.