Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:24 am
That's as good a thumbnail as I've seen.
DWill wrote:Children's Health Defense is a pseudo-science anti-vax organization. It's not surprising that its claims in the "paper" it published on its website are bullcrap. It's those pesky excess deaths. How are they best explained--by a sudden surge in pneumonia, by a bumper year for seasonal flu? No, the trail leads right to the door of a novel coronavirus with a vicious community spread.KindaSkolarly wrote:I think I've found the stake to put through the heart of the Covid scam. I'll repeat the headline:
CDC inflates Covid deaths TEN TIMES over actual numbers
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news ... reopening/
They say that Wuhan deaths in the U.S. will reach 300,000 by December. So, by TRUE reckoning, actual deaths will be 30,000. That's less than seasonal flu, but we don't put on masks each year for that. And they're not masks, they're muzzles, to silence you. The masks are filthy disease incubators. Throw them away. Shout down those who say you have to wear them.
Much to the contrary of what CHD and you claim, the excess death numbers support an undercount of covid deaths. Over the three month period of Mr. 1-May 30, there were 122,000 deaths above what would be expected. That is 28% higher than the reported covid-19 deaths over the same period. Conclusion: some covid deaths were not recorded as such.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2767980
Question:To estimate the mortality burden of a new infectious agent when there is a lack of comprehensive testing, it is common to assess increases in rates of death beyond what would be expected if the pathogen had not circulated.
The “excess death” approach can be applied to specific causes of death directly related to the pathogen (eg, pneumonia or other respiratory conditions),
Data lag is understandable and cannot be helped. What I want to know is where is the COVID19 positive data as it directly relates to the provisional data tallies.Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes
Syndromic end points, such as deaths due to pneumonia/influenza/COVID-19, outpatient visits for influenza-like illness, and emergency department visits for fever, can provide a crude but informative measure of the progression of the outbreak.18 These measures themselves can be biased by changes in health-seeking behavior and how conditions are recorded
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 000638001/Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators - True
Even in situations of ample testing, deaths due to viral pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, can occur indirectly via secondary bacterial infections or exacerbation of comorbidities.
ant wrote:Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators - True
ant wrote:What might cause biased reporting as it relates to COVID19 positive numbers reported though
ant wrote:Data lag is understandable and cannot be helped. What I want to know is where is the COVID19 positive data as it directly relates to the provisional data tallies.
For the sake of argument, let's say that Coronavirus deaths have been exaggerated. (You're completely ignoring the possibility that Coronavirus deaths are actually undercounted, but that's fine.) Are we talking about a few thousand . . . ten thousand . . . a hundred thousand?ant wrote:Even patients that died WITH COVID19 likely could have died die to exacerbation of pre-existing conditions.
No, i am not ignoring, as you say, any possibility deaths have been undercounted, my friend. I am pointing out that the methodology to calculate undercounting itself is worthy of critical scrutiny.For the sake of argument, let's say that Coronavirus deaths have been exaggerated. (You're completely ignoring the possibility that Coronavirus deaths are actually undercounted, but that's fine.) Are we talking about a few thousand . . . ten thousand . . . a hundred thousand?
Irrelevant question.As such, is the economic fallout from Coronoavirus based entirely on media hype?
Are we surprised that the methodology used to measure data from Coronoavirus is sometimes flawed and not completely, one hundred percent accurate? Is it possible that some people may be fudging some of the numbers some of the time? I'd say absolutely yes. But none of this should come as a surprise. As always, any enterprise by human beings is prone to error and misjudgment and bias. Anyone who expects otherwise is foolish.
Pandemic - yes.But the basic gist is this: the coronovirus is a global pandemic that has caused untold economic devastation for millions, has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths
For once, you've omitted a source for your claim. Ins. cos. don't sea rising seas as a problem? Do you also claim that these companies aren't concerned about increasing violent weather on the coasts? Everything I see indicates very high concern on the part of that industry. Perhaps it's true that ins. cos. don't point a finger at sea level rise, vs. more violent storms on the coast. They're not in the science business; they're concerned with effects, not causes,KindaSkolarly wrote:
It's amazing that people are still going along with the scam. Like with the "manmade climate change" scam. The core of that fearmongering campaign is "rising sea levels." But if you go to people who view the world realistically, insurance companies, they say there's no rising sea level. They've studied it because they might have to make payouts. And what they've found is subsidence. 80% of the world's population lives along coastlines...sandy soils, islands built out of landfill and dredgings. Trillions of tons of development pushing down on soft ground, so the ground is sinking. And shameless Al Gore with his gaggle of carbon credit bankers tries to make you think that you're going to drown because you exhale carbon. The climate freaks are driving children to suicide with scary lies. I'd hate to have that on me.
But are you saying that the 100s of thousands of deaths could be either fictional or nothing above the ordinary level of death?ant wrote: Caused hundreds of thousands of deaths - IN QUESTION for several reasons, including the methodology of determining total deaths, the way deaths are being reported, the unknown number of positive cases both prior to the pandemic declaration, and the numbers the current numbers that are in a constant state of flux, hospital insurance incentives (humans will be humans) and political goals - "Hey, Trump is responsible for not micro-managing a pandemic! Therefore, all these deaths are on him! VOTE DEMOCRAT!"
I need to restate my only reason for challenging the CHD study that KS believes supports a 90% reduction in the covid-19 death count. I start with the premise that excess deaths is a valid concept in epidemiology. The number of excess deaths gives us a good way to discern when a new death cause has entered the picture. The excess death figures in 2020 show that something has caused significantly more deaths than would be expected. What has happened? I'm attributing the cause to a new disease, rather than to an unexplained rise in other causes of death such as heart disease, diabetes, or bacterial pneumonia. The CHD study would have us believe that worldwide, there is really no pandemic of covid-19 at all. My concern isn't that counts of covid-19 deaths may be marginally too high or low due to methodologies; it's that misinformation may have people doubting the reality of what they see happening before their eyes around the world.ant wrote:I am not wired for bubble thinking.
I am wired for reasonable skepticism.
I am within reason to point out the methodology in question is hampered by substantial gap-filing and itself has been "rushed science"
Not sure I understand you....but ok, I've fixed it.ant wrote:You need to attribute the quote to the person who said it..
At the start is fine just once if it's a response to just that one person.
Stop mixing without identifying who is who, DWill
No, I'm saying there are issues with how the data is being tallied..likely not just in the USA.But are you saying that the 100s of thousands of deaths could be either fictional or nothing above the ordinary level of death?
The conclusions of the investigation, which was ordered by Health Secretary Matt Hancock after it emerged officials were "exaggerating" virus deaths, are expected this week, the newspaper said.
Non sequitur.What has happened? I'm attributing the cause to a new disease, rather than to an unexplained rise in other causes of death such as heart disease, diabetes, or bacterial pneumonia.
We've experienced many more than the expected number of deaths. That's a fact that I haven't seen anyone challenge. For covid-19 deaths to be radically lower than various governments report, we'd have to posit another cause of death becoming much more prevalent just in the past half-year. Only flu is a good candidate, since the disease needs to be contagious. But we're well out of flu season, and anyway while flu was frequent it wasn't reported to be killing us at an exceptional rate. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing ... flu-update. It's hard to see what that other cause of our excess deaths might be.ant wrote:DWill wrote:But are you saying that the 100s of thousands of deaths could be either fictional or nothing above the ordinary level of death?
No, I'm saying there are issues with how the data is being tallied..likely not just in the USA.