Home
Posted By: kid0917 New York to "ADD" 4,000 DEATHS - 04/15/20
just saw on Fox, didn't catch all of it, but sounds like, if you had issues with the number before, you will have more now. adding cases of death where the dead people were never tested?

we might make 500,000 in the U.S., after all
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!" If Fredo the elder has got his lips moving, he's probably lying!
Jerry
More fake BS
I missed it, is this about the BIG spike in "heart attack" deaths in NYC?

https://moguldom.com/271361/massive...-seen-as-sign-of-undercounting-covid-19/

Quote
The medical examiner’s office is not testing dead bodies for COVID-19, The Gothamist reported. Instead, they’re referring suspected cases to the city’s health department as “probable.” This means that the official death count in NYC is likely far lower than the real coronavirus death toll, according to public health officials.

The counting discrepancy means victims without access to testing are not being counted. There’s a good chance that undiagnosed coronavirus deaths are being treated as cardiac arrests and won’t be included in the official coronavirus death toll.

The New York Fire Department, which operates emergency medical services, confirmed a huge rise in cardiac arrest deaths at home before first responders can transport a person to the hospital.

Between March 20 and April 5, the fire department recorded almost 2,200 such home deaths — about 130 a day — versus 450 for the whole period in 2019, according to data it provided on Friday.

That’s almost a 400 percent increase of cardiac arrest home deaths, according to the FDNY, NBC New York reported.
Don't know anything about that. I do know it's in every county of NYS now and growing daily. We were at 180,000 cases statewide on Easter and up to 202,000 today.
Did a rewind on it.... confirmed deaths 6,840..... "probable" another 4,059.... so, yeah they are going to jump the corona death total to 10,899 for NY City.....
Found it.

https://news.yahoo.com/york-city-revises-coronavirus-death-205328540.html

Quote
On Tuesday, the city's health department released a revised COVID-19 death count that included those who were not tested but were presumed to have died from the disease. That added an additional 3,700 people, bumping the city's total count well over 10,000 coronavirus fatalities.


Quote
The previous death count only included people who had tested positive for COVID-19, but New York City's health department had been recording presumptive cases, the Times reports.
All about the Federal Dollars involved in CV cases.
King Cuomo also passed an Executive Order today beginning Friday, anyone out in public now has to wear some type of face covering over your nose and mouth.
I’m assuming any deaths recorded within the CV19 dates will indeed be attributable to the virus. GSW, auto accidents, domestic disputes et al. Hey trust us...we’re the government and we’re here to help!
Originally Posted by Blackheart
Don't know anything about that. I do know it's in every county of NYS now and growing daily. We were at 180,000 cases statewide on Easter and up to 202,000 today.


Chicken feed, BH, chicken feed. wink
The government ISN'T counting deaths in nursing homes or Veteran's facility's... No one is requiring them to report anything and in fact most are trying to hide information on these deaths.

Personally I believe the administration has hog tied quite a few and in fact the numbers are way under reported throughout the country. The same way that they required the Military to stop reporting numbers or locations.

New York along with a few other states have taken it upon them selves out of necessity to go in and report on the conditions at these places themselves.


If you want to look at things being done wrong... look no further than South Dakota's governor who like trump thinks it will all go away with a wave of the hand and just disappear as if in a miracle.

You'd think news of mass graves within the U.S. would case all this to sink in... but still quite a few figure it cant or won't happen to them or anyone close to them.

Link



Phil
Originally Posted by rong
All about the Federal Dollars involved in CV cases.


^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

Any Democratic politician who can, will be sucking the Federal tit for every last cent, while denouncing DJT every chance he or she gets.
Originally Posted by kid0917
just saw on Fox, didn't catch all of it, but sounds like, if you had issues with the number before, you will have more now. adding cases of death where the dead people were never tested?

we might make 500,000 in the U.S., after all

This is a bunch of pandering bull squat.

Autopsies and viral tests are very seldom performed upon the bodies of those who die of natural causes. The attending physician makes a diagnosis before death and that is listed as COD on the death certificate.

We have heard from several sources that pneumonia caused by C-19 is dissimilar to pneumonia caused by other pathogens. Thus C-19 pneumonia is typically properly diagnosed. What more could we expect from our medical community.

How about just a little bit of thought and some common sense in these discussions?
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by kid0917
just saw on Fox, didn't catch all of it, but sounds like, if you had issues with the number before, you will have more now. adding cases of death where the dead people were never tested?

we might make 500,000 in the U.S., after all

This is a bunch of pandering bull squat.

Autopsies and viral tests are very seldom performed upon the bodies of those who die of natural causes. The attending physician makes a diagnosis before death and that is listed as COD on the death certificate.

We have heard from several sources that pneumonia caused by C-19 is dissimilar to pneumonia caused by other pathogens. Thus C-19 pneumonia is typically properly diagnosed. What more could we expect from our medical community.

How about just a little bit of thought and some common sense in these discussions?


Well, you have to admit that there are very few hard/proven facts about COVID-19, so all sides are free to make claims, or cite data/evidence, that is often more speculative than actual. Add that to the general distrust between conservatives and liberals and you have a fertile ground for extreme positions.

I had hoped that a shared experience would bring us together as a Nation, like the physical attacks on 12/07/41 and 09/11/01 did, but the vitriol spewing and finger-pointing by the Democrats would make the most patient of men angry and POTUS isn't the most patient of men. DJT has been under attack since the moment that the Democrats realized that HRC had lost the 2016 Presidential Election, so the liberal programs initiated by BHO wouldn't be continued Thus began their vile attacks on the POTUS-elect, who they have made it their mission to discredit any way possible.

We didn't know, actually know, the level of threat that COVID-19 posed before Thanksgiving and we still only know a fraction of what we'll learn about it in the next few months. According the USN, the great majority of the sailors who have tested positive for COVID-19 on the USS Theodore Roosevelt have been asymptomatic. The fact that NYC has added over 3,700 people to the list of deaths attributed to COVID-19, despite the fact that they were never tested for the disease is concerning to me. That looks like someone in the NYC Health Department is padding the number of COVID-19 deaths and that sort of behavior corrupts the data and makes it harder for infectious disease experts to make informed recommendations and for leaders to make informed decisions.

Or so it seems to me.
Originally Posted by gkt5450
I’m assuming any deaths recorded within the CV19 dates will indeed be attributable to the virus. GSW, auto accidents, domestic disputes et al. Hey trust us...we’re the government and we’re here to help!


from what I hear, gsw and auto accidents are way down.
Padding the #,s against President Trump for political sensationalism......

Never let a good crisis go to waste....

More deaths means more money from China. At least they are hoping so.
It's interesting that some on here have become propaganda mouthpieces for the left, dutifully repeating every leftist media claim against Trump and common sense, in defense of an increasingly untenable position.
Can we pick some of the names for the extra $4,000 and then make them dead?
Posted By: djs Re: New York to "ADD" 4,000 DEATHS - 04/16/20
People ARE dying - that's a fact. And, people are dying who have NOT been tested - that's a fact. There are NOT enough test kits to test everyone, so we do NOT know the true extent of those infected - that's a fact. There are known symptoms that people have that ARE infected with CV - that's a fact.

Now, if someone dies, who has exhibited the symptoms, they ARE dead, but it IS reasonable to conclude that Covid-19 is the culprit.

And frankly (as erroneously stated above), there is NO Federal money for dead people. And, China is NOT going to pay anything to anyone.
new name for this bug. the hysteria flu 2020
Posted By: djs Re: New York to "ADD" 4,000 DEATHS - 04/16/20
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by kid0917
just saw on Fox, didn't catch all of it, but sounds like, if you had issues with the number before, you will have more now. adding cases of death where the dead people were never tested?

we might make 500,000 in the U.S., after all

This is a bunch of pandering bull squat.

Autopsies and viral tests are very seldom performed upon the bodies of those who die of natural causes. The attending physician makes a diagnosis before death and that is listed as COD on the death certificate.

We have heard from several sources that pneumonia caused by C-19 is dissimilar to pneumonia caused by other pathogens. Thus C-19 pneumonia is typically properly diagnosed. What more could we expect from our medical community.

How about just a little bit of thought and some common sense in these discussions?


Well, you have to admit that there are very few hard/proven facts about COVID-19, so all sides are free to make claims, or cite data/evidence, that is often more speculative than actual. Add that to the general distrust between conservatives and liberals and you have a fertile ground for extreme positions.

I had hoped that a shared experience would bring us together as a Nation, like the physical attacks on 12/07/41 and 09/11/01 did, but the vitriol spewing and finger-pointing by the Democrats would make the most patient of men angry and POTUS isn't the most patient of men. DJT has been under attack since the moment that the Democrats realized that HRC had lost the 2016 Presidential Election, so the liberal programs initiated by BHO wouldn't be continued Thus began their vile attacks on the POTUS-elect, who they have made it their mission to discredit any way possible.

We didn't know, actually know, the level of threat that COVID-19 posed before Thanksgiving and we still only know a fraction of what we'll learn about it in the next few months. According the USN, the great majority of the sailors who have tested positive for COVID-19 on the USS Theodore Roosevelt have been asymptomatic. The fact that NYC has added over 3,700 people to the list of deaths attributed to COVID-19, despite the fact that they were never tested for the disease is concerning to me. That looks like someone in the NYC Health Department is padding the number of COVID-19 deaths and that sort of behavior corrupts the data and makes it harder for infectious disease experts to make informed recommendations and for leaders to make informed decisions.

Or so it seems to me.


I don't believe in conspiracies, but something is happening in New York, the most densely packed place in the US. People are dying in large numbers and the funeral homes can not keep up with the body count. So hospitals are renting freezer trucks to store bodies (will these trucks deliver beef to your local grocery once they are emptied?). So, just maybe, something is going on.

https://gulfnews.com/photos/news/as...ggles-with-covid-19-dead-1.1586248429830

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/new-york-refrigerated-truck-bodies.html

Sure looks like something's going on to me!
Originally Posted by Greyghost
The government ISN'T counting deaths in nursing homes or Veteran's facility's... No one is requiring them to report anything and in fact most are trying to hide information on these deaths.

Personally I believe the administration has hog tied quite a few and in fact the numbers are way under reported throughout the country. The same way that they required the Military to stop reporting numbers or locations.

New York along with a few other states have taken it upon them selves out of necessity to go in and report on the conditions at these places themselves.


If you want to look at things being done wrong... look no further than South Dakota's governor who like trump thinks it will all go away with a wave of the hand and just disappear as if in a miracle.

You'd think news of mass graves within the U.S. would case all this to sink in... but still quite a few figure it cant or won't happen to them or anyone close to them.

Link



Phil


Do a little more research on SD Phil. Let’s research multi generational immigrants and housing and also working in the plant. But even though the sky is falling in your Southern California mind let’s verify that SD has 51 people hospitalized and a total of 6 deaths. Yeah, that’s terrible.
Originally Posted by renegade50
Padding the #,s against President Trump for political sensationalism......
.....and the extra $ the place gets for every death they can (somehow) attribute to c-19...

Quote


Never let a good crisis go to waste....
The Dems mantra...
Originally Posted by djs
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by kid0917
just saw on Fox, didn't catch all of it, but sounds like, if you had issues with the number before, you will have more now. adding cases of death where the dead people were never tested?

we might make 500,000 in the U.S., after all

This is a bunch of pandering bull squat.

Autopsies and viral tests are very seldom performed upon the bodies of those who die of natural causes. The attending physician makes a diagnosis before death and that is listed as COD on the death certificate.

We have heard from several sources that pneumonia caused by C-19 is dissimilar to pneumonia caused by other pathogens. Thus C-19 pneumonia is typically properly diagnosed. What more could we expect from our medical community.

How about just a little bit of thought and some common sense in these discussions?


Well, you have to admit that there are very few hard/proven facts about COVID-19, so all sides are free to make claims, or cite data/evidence, that is often more speculative than actual. Add that to the general distrust between conservatives and liberals and you have a fertile ground for extreme positions.

I had hoped that a shared experience would bring us together as a Nation, like the physical attacks on 12/07/41 and 09/11/01 did, but the vitriol spewing and finger-pointing by the Democrats would make the most patient of men angry and POTUS isn't the most patient of men. DJT has been under attack since the moment that the Democrats realized that HRC had lost the 2016 Presidential Election, so the liberal programs initiated by BHO wouldn't be continued Thus began their vile attacks on the POTUS-elect, who they have made it their mission to discredit any way possible.

We didn't know, actually know, the level of threat that COVID-19 posed before Thanksgiving and we still only know a fraction of what we'll learn about it in the next few months. According the USN, the great majority of the sailors who have tested positive for COVID-19 on the USS Theodore Roosevelt have been asymptomatic. The fact that NYC has added over 3,700 people to the list of deaths attributed to COVID-19, despite the fact that they were never tested for the disease is concerning to me. That looks like someone in the NYC Health Department is padding the number of COVID-19 deaths and that sort of behavior corrupts the data and makes it harder for infectious disease experts to make informed recommendations and for leaders to make informed decisions.

Or so it seems to me.


I don't believe in conspiracies, but something is happening in New York, the most densely packed place in the US. People are dying in large numbers and the funeral homes can not keep up with the body count. So hospitals are renting freezer trucks to store bodies (will these trucks deliver beef to your local grocery once they are emptied?). So, just maybe, something is going on.

https://gulfnews.com/photos/news/as...ggles-with-covid-19-dead-1.1586248429830

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/new-york-refrigerated-truck-bodies.html

Sure looks like something's going on to me!


Certainly people are dying all across America, but COVID-19 has become a catch-all and it seems that rather than attribute deaths that may not be related to COVID-19, it would be better to add a couple of additional categories, perhaps "suspected" and "unspecified". The output data that will be used to make recommendation and decisions is only as good as the quality/accuracy of the data going into the program. If the data going in is suspect, the data coming out will be equally suspect. There are a lot of frozen goods warehouses across the U.S. that could be pressed into service if the volume of deaths exceeds the capacity for storing people who die in the normal course of life. Lots more room in one frozen goods warehouse than a parking lot full of reefer trucks.

Everybody sees things differently, based on their own personal bias. I don't believe it conspiracy per se, but I do believe that lots of people, including every politician, will manipulate information to serve their own agenda.

Or so it seems to me.
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."
Nothing like a good pandemic to bring out ALL the lefty shills on the Fire. Laughing.
Originally Posted by hanco
More fake BS


PREZACTLY!

Here’s today’s reported casualties reported to date by FOX :

“reported confirmed cases of COVID-19, tallying over 639,664 illnesses and at least 30,985 deaths.”

And NY State is reporting just over 14000 deaths.

Wonder how many of those “reported” NY deaths were just some 90 year old that died of a heart attack.

Remember, the CDC is counting ANY “suspected” CV-19 related death as a “confirmed” CV-19 death.
Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!" If Fredo the elder has got his lips moving, he's probably lying!
Jerry


Yep. He’s a Lying Commie DemoRat POS. It’s what they do 😡
Why don't not take a few moments to read the actual CDC guidance for reporting COVID-19 deaths, instead of getting your information from conspiracy sites?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

Since this is from a PDF, it doesn't format well, so I suggest reading it from the link above

Code
Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19)



Introduction
In December 2019, an outbreak of a respiratory disease
associated with a novel coronavirus was reported in the city of
Wuhan in the Hubei province of the People's Republic of China
(1). The virus has spread worldwide and on March 11, 2020, the
World Health Organization declared Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID–19) a pandemic (2). The first case of COVID–19 in the
United States was reported in January 2020 (3) and the first death
in February 2020 (4), both in Washington State. Since then, the
number of reported cases in the United States has increased and
is expected to continue to rise (5).
In public health emergencies, mortality surveillance provides
crucial information about population-level disease progression,
as well as guides the development of public health interventions
and assessment of their impact. Monitoring and analysis of
mortality data allow dissemination of critical information to
the public and key stakeholders. One of the most important
methods of mortality surveillance is through monitoring causes
of death as reported on death certificates. Death certificates
are registered for every death occurring in the United States,
offering a complete picture of mortality nationwide. The death
certificate provides essential information about the deceased
and the cause(s) and circumstances of death. Appropriate
completion of death certificates yields accurate and reliable data
for use in epidemiologic analyses and public health reporting.
A notable example of the utility of death certificates for public
health surveillance is the ongoing monitoring of pneumonia and
influenza deaths. Accurate and timely death certificate data are
integral to detecting elevated levels of influenza activity in real
time (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm).
Monitoring the emergence of COVID–19 in the United States
and guiding public health response will also require accurate
and timely death reporting. The purpose of this report is to
provide guidance to death certifiers on proper cause-of-death
certification for cases where confirmed or suspected COVID–19
infection resulted in death. As clinical guidance on COVID–19
evolves, this guidance may be updated, if necessary. When
COVID–19 is determined to be a cause of death, it is important
that it be reported on the death certificate to assess accurately the
effects of this pandemic and appropriately direct public health
response.
Cause-of-Death Reporting
When reporting cause of death on a death certificate, use any
information available, such as medical history, medical records,
laboratory tests, an autopsy report, or other sources of relevant
information. Similar to many other diagnoses, a cause-of-death
statement is an informed medical opinion that should be based
on sound medical judgment drawn from clinical training and
experience, as well as knowledge of current disease states and
local trends (6).
Part I
This section on the death certificate is for reporting the sequence
of conditions that led directly to death. The immediate cause of
death, which is the disease or condition that directly preceded
death and is not necessarily the underlying cause of death
(UCOD), should be reported on line a. The conditions that led
to the immediate cause of death should be reported in a logical
sequence in terms of time and etiology below it.
The UCOD, which is “(a) the disease or injury which initiated
the train of morbid events leading directly to death or (b) the
circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the
fatal injury” (7), should be reported on the lowest line used in
Part I.
Approximate interval: Onset to death
For each condition reported in Part I, the time interval between
the presumed onset of the condition, not the diagnosis, and death
should be reported. It is acceptable to approximate the intervals
or use general terms, such as hours, days, weeks, or years.
Part II
Other significant conditions that contributed to the death, but
are not a part of the sequence in Part I, should be reported in
Part II. Not all conditions present at the time of death have to
be reported—only those conditions that actually contributed to
death.
Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • National Center for Health Statistics • National Vital Statistics System
2
Certifying deaths due to COVID–19
If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should
be specified on the death certificate. In many cases, it is
likely that it will be the UCOD, as it can lead to various lifethreatening conditions, such as pneumonia and acute respiratory
distress syndrome (ARDS). In these cases, COVID–19 should
be reported on the lowest line used in Part I with the other
conditions to which it gave rise listed on the lines above it.
Generally, it is best to avoid abbreviations and acronyms, but
COVID–19 is unambiguous, so it is acceptable to report on the
death certificate.
In some cases, survival from COVID–19 can be complicated by
pre-existing chronic conditions, especially those that result in
diminished lung capacity, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD) or asthma. These medical conditions do not
cause COVID–19, but can increase the risk of contracting a
respiratory infection and death, so these conditions should be
reported in Part II and not in Part I.
When determining whether COVID–19 played a role in the
cause of death, follow the CDC clinical criteria for evaluating a
person under investigation for COVID–19 and, where possible,
conduct appropriate laboratory testing using guidance provided
by CDC or local health authorities. More information on CDC
recommendations for reporting, testing, and specimen collection,
including postmortem testing, is available from: https://www.
cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html and
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidancepostmortem-specimens.html. It is important to remember that
death certificate reporting may not meet mandatory reporting
requirements for reportable diseases; contact the local health
department regarding regulations specific to the jurisdiction.
In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot
be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances
are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it
is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as
“probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should
use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19
infection was likely. However, please note that testing for
COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible.
Common problems
Common problems in cause-of-death certification include:
1. reporting intermediate causes as the UCOD (i.e., on the
lowest line used in Part I),
2. lack of specificity, and
3. illogical sequences.
Intermediate causes are those conditions that typically have
multiple possible underlying etiologies and thus, a UCOD must
be specified on a line below in Part I. For example, pneumonia
is an intermediate cause of death since it can be caused by a
variety of infectious agents or by inhaling a liquid or chemical.
Pneumonia is important to report in a cause-of-death statement
but, generally, it is not the UCOD. The cause of pneumonia,
such as COVID–19, needs to be stated on the lowest line used
in Part I.
Additionally, the reported UCOD should be specific enough to
be useful for public health and research purposes. For example,
a “viral infection” can be a UCOD, but it is not specific. A more
specific UCOD in this instance could be “COVID–19.”
All causal sequences reported in Part I should be logical in terms
of time and pathology. For example, reporting “COVID–19” due
to “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” in Part I would be an
illogical sequence as COPD cannot cause an infection, although
it may increase susceptibility to or exacerbate an infection. In
this instance, COVID–19 would be reported in Part I as the
UCOD and the COPD in Part II. While there can be reasonable
differences in medical opinion concerning a sequence that led
to a particular death, the causes should always be provided in a
logical sequence from the immediate cause on line a. back to the
UCOD on the lowest line used in Part I.
Manner of death
The manner of death, sometimes referred to as circumstances of
death, is also reported on death certificates. Natural deaths are
due solely or almost entirely to disease or the aging process (8).
In the case of death due to a COVID–19 infection, the manner of
death will almost always be natural.
When to Refer to a Medical Examiner or
Coroner
Some jurisdictions have requirements for referring deaths
involving threats to public health to the medical examiner
or coroner, so certifiers should follow the regulations in the
jurisdiction in which the death occurred. As always, if a death
involved an injury, poisoning, or complications thereof, then the
case should be referred. The local medical examiner or coroner
should be consulted with questions on referral requirements.
Conclusion
An accurate count of the number of deaths due to COVID–19
infection, which depends in part on proper death certification,
is critical to ongoing public health surveillance and response.
When a death is due to COVID–19, it is likely the UCOD and
thus, it should be reported on the lowest line used in Part I of
the death certificate. Ideally, testing for COVID–19 should be 
Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • National Center for Health Statistics • National Vital Statistics System
3
conducted, but it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death
certificate without this confirmation if the circumstances are
compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.
For more guidance and training on cause-of-death reporting
in general, see the Cause of Death mobile app available
from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mobile-app.htm and the
Improving Cause of Death Reporting online training module
available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/improving_
cause_of_death_reporting.htm (free Continuing Medical
Education credits and Continuing Nursing Education credits
available). For current information on the COVID–19 outbreak,
see the CDC website at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
nCoV/index.html.
References
1. World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus—China.
Geneva, Switzerland. 2020. Available from: https://www.
who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronaviruschina/en/.
2. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s
opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID–19—11
March 2020. Geneva, Switzerland. 2020. Available from:
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-directorgeneral-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-oncovid-19---11-march-2020.
3. Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, Lofy KH, Wiesman
J, Bruce H, et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in
the United States. N Engl J Med. 382(10):929–36. 2020.
Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/
NEJMoa2001191.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC,
Washington state report first COVID–19 death [press
release]. 2020. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/
media/releases/2020/s0229-COVID-19-first-death.html.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC confirms
possible instance of community spread of COVID–19 in
U.S. [press release]. 2020. Available from: https://www.
cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0226-Covid-19-spread.
html.
6. National Center for Health Statistics. Physician’s handbook
on medical certification of death. Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics. 2003.
7. World Health Organization. International statistical
classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th
revision (ICD–10), Volume 2. 5th ed. Geneva, Switzerland.
Yeah, amazing how heart attack, stroke deaths are WAY down in NYC.

Every death is now COVID. Helps with the numbers. I've heard that the hosp codes pay more if it's C-19.

Kinda like schools getting a premium for ADHD kids. So, their numbers are way up. It's just dollars, so go figure.

DF
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?

A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.

Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?

A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.

Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do.

Trained physicians are working in a system, for a system and the system has a say.

So, if the emphasis is on when in doubt, go with the virus, that's what they gonna do.

DF
Posted By: las Re: New York to "ADD" 4,000 DEATHS - 04/16/20
Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!" If Fredo the elder has got his lips moving, he's probably lying!
Jerry


Why the uncertainty?
Posted By: MAC Re: New York to "ADD" 4,000 DEATHS - 04/16/20
Never let a crisis go to waste. It is the DEM/LIB way.
Defeats the whole purpose of not testing
some great sniping and ankle-biting going on here, lol.

not a doctor, but would it be possible to take a tissue sample from a dead person and have it it tested later to confirm covid was even present? I am MORE than fine with keeping a presumptive death list; but not really too fine with adding almost 50% in to the total, before you know for sure. and if you think there is no $ in reporting these as covid, I think you are wrong.
Kid out
sky not falling
dipsticks on ignore, still on ignore.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Why don't not take a few moments to read the actual CDC guidance for reporting COVID-19 deaths, instead of getting your information from conspiracy sites


If you’re talking to me, I did get my info directly from CDC’s web sight.

Here ya go. Plain as day:

“As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statement issued by the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease.”

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?

A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.

Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do.


Except they're not diagnosing -they're guessing from 10 feet away and the GUESS always seems to end up CV19.
We as a country have "screwed the pooch" when it comes to testing for Covid-19.
Posted By: las Re: New York to "ADD" 4,000 DEATHS - 04/16/20
When going with a personal bias or monetary interest is in one's ( or the systems's/organization's) "best interest", "what does it matter?".

Insert sarcasm moji.
All about the money baby!
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.


It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis.

Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do.
"Dead and old" isn't a robust enough data set for me to say someone had CV19 but it seems to be the minimum applied.

Seems many on here want to deny all the dead bodies pilling up in many state. First if a person is in the hospital

for COVID-19 for a week and dies from a heart attack what do you call it? To me the root cause of the death was the COVID-19. The good news today is.

The mayor of Lansing Michigan today said they got the first of the new Abbot Quick tests. Many others have the only have the tester, no kits.

Anyway Lansing got both. They tested there police force and bus drivers. Most of the police force was off work. After the tests. 225 tested positive and

500 + went back to work. He was very happy with the test, yet surprised with how many tested positive.
Originally Posted by teal
"Dead and old" isn't a robust enough data set for me to say someone had CV19 but it seems to be the minimum applied.


PREZACTLY
Right ! The NYC health commissioner was telling everyone to go out and party like normal as late as mid-March. Wouldn’t trust that Affirmative Action Dr. as far as I can throw her.
Originally Posted by teal
"Dead and old" isn't a robust enough data set for me to say someone had CV19 but it seems to be the minimum applied.


Please stop repeating stupid meme's. You are way smarter than that.

Here's the actual reporting criteria, take a few minutes to read them yourself.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by teal
"Dead and old" isn't a robust enough data set for me to say someone had CV19 but it seems to be the minimum applied.


Please stop repeating stupid meme's. You are way smarter than that.

Here's the actual reporting criteria, take a few minutes to read them yourself.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf




I know what DOCTORS and NURSES I know were being told and that is "If you don't know if they had CV19, assume they did and put it down as such"

You many fail to understand is while the CDC can say you need - X - the states like NY are doing what they want and that's what's driving the response. NY did add 3700 to CV19 deaths without any positive test or diagnosis. No test at all.

That doesn't meet spec but it is what's happening.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?

A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.

Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do.


I don't know if I'm a malcontent, but physicians routinely order lab tests to confirm what they think. No physician can see a virus and unless the symptoms of COVID-19 are unique, the physician doesn't really know until the results of the lab tests come back.

During the Vietnam War, it was rumored that many cases of Malaria were officially diagnosed a "FUO", Feaver of Unknown Origin. Doing so kept the official number of Malaria cases down to an acceptable rate. Who reported all of those "massaged" diagnoses? Physicians and only physicians.
The propaganda machine found a new gear on this one. The daily deaths were trending down, so "we" needed to revive the hysteria... Thanks Libtards.
Originally Posted by teal
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by teal
"Dead and old" isn't a robust enough data set for me to say someone had CV19 but it seems to be the minimum applied.


Please stop repeating stupid meme's. You are way smarter than that.

Here's the actual reporting criteria, take a few minutes to read them yourself.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf




I know what DOCTORS and NURSES I know were being told and that is "If you don't know if they had CV19, assume they did and put it down as such"

You many fail to understand is while the CDC can say you need - X - the states like NY are doing what they want and that's what's driving the response. NY did add 3700 to CV19 deaths without any positive test or diagnosis. No test at all.

That doesn't meet spec but it is what's happening.


The 3700's consistent with the statistical modeling of excess deaths, and if anything a little low.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.


It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis.

Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do.


So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information?

You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?

A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.

Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do.


I don't know if I'm a malcontent, but physicians routinely order lab tests to confirm what they think. No physician can see a virus and unless the symptoms of COVID-19 are unique, the physician doesn't really know until the results of the lab tests come back.

That was my point, and was reiterated several times. There are many reports that C 19 pneumonia is unique in that it is typically bilateral, where pneumonia with other causative factors is usually limited to one lobe or to one lung.

No, it's biology. There are no absolutes. But if you are in a busy ward filled with C 19 contagion and one of your nurses succumbs to bilateral pneumonia and dies. You are going to be pretty safe writing Covid 19 on the death certificate. Even more so if the patient lost their sense of smell during their illness.

Save the precious tests for someone you can help.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?

A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.

Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do.


I don't know if I'm a malcontent, but physicians routinely order lab tests to confirm what they think. No physician can see a virus and unless the symptoms of COVID-19 are unique, the physician doesn't really know until the results of the lab tests come back.

That was my point, and was reiterated several times. There are many reports that C 19 pneumonia is unique in that it is typically bilateral, where pneumonia with other causative factors is usually limited to one lobe or to one lung.

No, it's biology. There are no absolutes. But if you are in a busy ward filled with C 19 contagion and one of your nurses succumbs to bilateral pneumonia and dies. You are going to be pretty safe writing Covid 19 on the death certificate. Even more so if the patient lost their sense of smell during their illness.

Save the precious tests for someone you can help.


You trust in the honesty and integrity of people who have something to gain from a massaged diagnosis. The more COVID-19 cases you report, the more Federal aid your facility will probably get. You can't count on honesty and integrity when the people reporting the data have an interest in the outcome. Care providers aren't disinterested third parties.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information?

You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out.

So, are suspicious because you have actual knowledge of data falsification?

Are you suspicious because you disagree with the predominant politics of the affected region?

Or, are suspicious because you wish the reports to be untrue?

As far as I could see from the CDC link previously provided, the 4000? additional deaths recently reported from NY City were cases where the attending physician had already gone on record and reported Covid 19 on the death certificate.

There are lots of diagnostic tools to confirm a diagnosis without resorting to DNA and other lab tests. Until very recently, those other tools are all the Medical Community had available for the last 4000 years. Some Physicians still know how to apply such diagnostics.
I don't trust people to report truthfully if it is to their advantage to do otherwise and it is easy for them to justify doing so.

I don't care for NYC, but I don't think that liberals are more likely to fudge the numbers than conservative if they believe that there is something to be gained by fudging the numbers.

Data is only useful if it is accurate and I think that data is being corrupted in NYC and probably in other places as well.

Physicians aren't infallible, humans, not Gods. Well, I've known a surgeon or two who thought that they were Gods. One of those surgeons killed himself because of his arrogance. He left a wife and six kids without any life insurance. Gods don't die, therefore no need for life insurance. He was a condescending prick, so I'm sure that a lot of people pissed on his grave.


Do you really think Doctors and Nurses are going to stand there and try and figure out any other

Diagnosis when the have dead people all over the place from COVID-19, get real. All they want to do is get to someone they might save,

that is the way it should be. These hospital have been working at 150% of capacity they have no time for fancy diagnosis like you are proposing. Or

any kind of other games you are proposing.
Originally Posted by GunTruck50


Do you really think Doctors and Nurses are going to stand there and try and figure out any other

Diagnosis when the have dead people all over the place from COVID-19, get real. .


I live "Out West". Where are all these dead people lying around you've seen?


Oregon: 64 total deaths attributed to Covid19.

64÷ 4,200,000 (population of the State) x 100 = 0.00152.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?

A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.

Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do.


I don't know if I'm a malcontent, but physicians routinely order lab tests to confirm what they think. No physician can see a virus and unless the symptoms of COVID-19 are unique, the physician doesn't really know until the results of the lab tests come back.

That was my point, and was reiterated several times. There are many reports that C 19 pneumonia is unique in that it is typically bilateral, where pneumonia with other causative factors is usually limited to one lobe or to one lung.

No, it's biology. There are no absolutes. But if you are in a busy ward filled with C 19 contagion and one of your nurses succumbs to bilateral pneumonia and dies. You are going to be pretty safe writing Covid 19 on the death certificate. Even more so if the patient lost their sense of smell during their illness.

Save the precious tests for someone you can help.


The permanent lung damage specific to C-19 shows up on chest x-rays, and ultra-sounds as well. Remember the upward revision in China? That was due to the inclusion of the consideration of chest x-rays in the diagnosis.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.


It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis.

Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do.


So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information?

You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out.


I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are.

The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition.

Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results.

Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data.
Originally Posted by GunTruck50


Do you really think Doctors and Nurses are going to stand there and try and figure out any other

Diagnosis when the have dead people all over the place from COVID-19, get real. All they want to do is get to someone they might save,

that is the way it should be. These hospital have been working at 150% of capacity they have no time for fancy diagnosis like you are proposing. Or

any kind of other games you are proposing.


I'm not hearing about hospitals working at over 100% capacity in many places.

How long does it take a reasonably skilled phlebotomist to draw a vile of blood? I've never seen a physician draw blood anywhere and I've only seen nurses do it in ERs or in physician offices.

Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.
When I first read this headline I had the text book reaction, OMG!!!!!!!

Then I caught my senses & thought about the population density up there.

My search of how many people die per month in NY?

The answer was over 7,000 per day in 2017. I looked more, that's what I kept reading. If so?????? The headline means..................?
I am far from typical. But it takes the best hospital phlebotomist an average of fifteen minutes and six sticks to catch a vein.

I will not even let the nurses at the Dr. office try anymore. I am no masochist. Once, at the Dr. Office, the girls gave up and tapped an artery in my wrist. The two of them were minus about a pound of boneless rump each when Dr got done with them. I was embarrassed to overhear that conversation, even though they were outside the room.

Then the Dr refused to let me leave for about forty five minutes. Afraid I was going to spring a leak.

I go straight to the hospital lab and let the lady there get my blood whenever Dr wants lab work.

No, I do not donate blood anymore either.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.


It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis.

Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do.


So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information?

You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out.


I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are.

The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition.

Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results.

Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data.


If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available.

Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"?

The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool.

I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.


If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better.

I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash.

That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by GunTruck50


Do you really think Doctors and Nurses are going to stand there and try and figure out any other

Diagnosis when the have dead people all over the place from COVID-19, get real. All they want to do is get to someone they might save,

that is the way it should be. These hospital have been working at 150% of capacity they have no time for fancy diagnosis like you are proposing. Or

any kind of other games you are proposing.


I'm not hearing about hospitals working at over 100% capacity in many places.

How long does it take a reasonably skilled phlebotomist to draw a vile of blood? I've never seen a physician draw blood anywhere and I've only seen nurses do it in ERs or in physician offices.

Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.


Active C-19's not tested for via a blood draw. They use a nasal swap to scrape the back of you sinuses, and that's only the first part of the process. Then the lab work begins. Draw too small a sample, or it doesn't replicate in the test environment, and you get a false negative.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.


It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis.

Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do.


So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information?

You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out.


I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are.

The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition.

Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results.

Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data.


If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available.

Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"?

The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool.

I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living.


Here's one:

https://www.healthline.com/health-n...9-tests-symptoms-assume-you-have-illness

There's 100 more if you took 30 seconds to look.

You must not have ever done any real work in your life, or at least none in a crisis with limited resources because you seem to have no idea how the real work functions under adverse conditions.

There's a shortage of test kits, not a surplus.
The initial costs were $1000.00 to $1500.00 each.

If you got a little sick would you spend $4500.00 of your own money for the 99% certainty, or just get the one, quarantine for 14 days, watch for additional symptoms and indicators, and escalate treatment and testing as conditions warranted?

What about lab space? Do you think labs are inhabited by pixies that just sprinkle a little dust on the swap in order to get a result?

Have you ever heard of an Opportunity cost?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

In case that's too complex for you, here's a simpler explination:

https://kids.kiddle.co/Opportunity_cost

Overall, you reasoning suffers from a heavy dose of the Nirvana Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Well, Nirvana is not for this world. We live in a world of limited resources and imperfect solutions. Often, especially in adverse conditions, the choices are not among the "best solutions", but among the "least bad" solutions. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the better.

In conditions like these, it often means drawing the most reasonable conclusion possible, as quick as possible, using the minimum resources possible, so you can develop and begin execution of a "C" plan today, instead of waiting until you have the perfect "A" plan three weeks from now when either the patients already dead, or has infected another 20 people.
Covtards again provin they're nothin but liberals.

Used ta be, you couldn't have it unless you was tested, or the Covtards went nuts.

Now, with the Covid hysteria on a ventilator, everbody's got it, and ya don't even need a test.
Testing is going to be a game changer, take some of the hysteria and fear out of this thing.

A test has to be consistent, negative predictive values and positive predictive values are key. A high PPV is like precision in our shooting game, which is not exactly the same as accuracy. But that’s another story.

NPV deals with false negatives, too many and the test confidence isn’t good.

It takes time to develop and evaluate a new test.

Big bucks and lots of pressure to roll them out. But it still takes time to know if and when you have a good one that can be trusted and counted on.

DF
Posted By: krp Re: New York to "ADD" 4,000 DEATHS - 04/17/20
NY/NJ community have 19,700 claimed virus deaths... the rest of the country have 15,000. Obviously that's not possible.

Corona is a medical miracle... it's reduced cancer, heart, stroke, diabetes, emphysema, dementia deaths across the board.

Kent
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.


It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis.

Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do.


So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information?

You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out.


I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are.

The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition.

Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results.

Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data.


If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available.

Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"?

The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool.

I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living.


Here's one:

https://www.healthline.com/health-n...9-tests-symptoms-assume-you-have-illness

There's 100 more if you took 30 seconds to look.

You must not have ever done any real work in your life, or at least none in a crisis with limited resources because you seem to have no idea how the real work functions under adverse conditions.

There's a shortage of test kits, not a surplus.
The initial costs were $1000.00 to $1500.00 each.

If you got a little sick would you spend $4500.00 of your own money for the 99% certainty, or just get the one, quarantine for 14 days, watch for additional symptoms and indicators, and escalate treatment and testing as conditions warranted?

What about lab space? Do you think labs are inhabited by pixies that just sprinkle a little dust on the swap in order to get a result?

Have you ever heard of an Opportunity cost?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

In case that's too complex for you, here's a simpler explination:

https://kids.kiddle.co/Opportunity_cost

Overall, you reasoning suffers from a heavy dose of the Nirvana Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Well, Nirvana is not for this world. We live in a world of limited resources and imperfect solutions. Often, especially in adverse conditions, the choices are not among the "best solutions", but among the "least bad" solutions. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the better.

In conditions like these, it often means drawing the most reasonable conclusion possible, as quick as possible, using the minimum resources possible, so you can develop and begin execution of a "C" plan today, instead of waiting until you have the perfect "A" plan three weeks from now when either the patients already dead, or has infected another 20 people.



I try to approach things from a pragmatic perspective, as I believe that people generally make sub-optimal choices when they let themselves get emotionally attached.

From what I can glean from the available information, the great majority of people who become infected are going to be asymptomatic and they are going to live.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down."


The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc.

My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia.

If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes.


It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis.

Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do.


So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information?

You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out.


I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are.

The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition.

Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results.

Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data.


If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available.

Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"?

The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool.

I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living.


Here's one:

https://www.healthline.com/health-n...9-tests-symptoms-assume-you-have-illness

There's 100 more if you took 30 seconds to look.

You must not have ever done any real work in your life, or at least none in a crisis with limited resources because you seem to have no idea how the real work functions under adverse conditions.

There's a shortage of test kits, not a surplus.
The initial costs were $1000.00 to $1500.00 each.

If you got a little sick would you spend $4500.00 of your own money for the 99% certainty, or just get the one, quarantine for 14 days, watch for additional symptoms and indicators, and escalate treatment and testing as conditions warranted?

What about lab space? Do you think labs are inhabited by pixies that just sprinkle a little dust on the swap in order to get a result?

Have you ever heard of an Opportunity cost?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

In case that's too complex for you, here's a simpler explination:

https://kids.kiddle.co/Opportunity_cost

Overall, you reasoning suffers from a heavy dose of the Nirvana Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Well, Nirvana is not for this world. We live in a world of limited resources and imperfect solutions. Often, especially in adverse conditions, the choices are not among the "best solutions", but among the "least bad" solutions. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the better.

In conditions like these, it often means drawing the most reasonable conclusion possible, as quick as possible, using the minimum resources possible, so you can develop and begin execution of a "C" plan today, instead of waiting until you have the perfect "A" plan three weeks from now when either the patients already dead, or has infected another 20 people.



I try to approach things from a pragmatic perspective, as I believe that people generally make sub-optimal choices when they let themselves get emotionally attached.

From what I can glean from the available information, the great majority of people who become infected are going to be asymptomatic and they are going to live. Some relatively small portion of the herd will get sick and some relatively small portion of the sick will die.

The last really hard work that I did as a civilian was as a mason's tender when over 50 years ago. I was an officer and as any enlisted person will tell you, officers don't work, they sit around thinking of ways to make easy jobs harder than necessary. I prefer to work smart and outsource the hard work to someone who specializes in hard work.



Then I suggest you approach this problem less like a mason, and more like an officer. But not like an officer spending an unlimited amount of tax payer money, but his own money.

This will lead toward more viable solutions.
We're spending money from a budget that is only limited by the imaginations of the politicians who are trying to figure out how to get a bigger share of the pie for the constituents who they are pandering to, so if we take a little from here and a little from there and there'll be enough to pay for all those additional over-price under-performing test kits.

Since I wasn't given a choice about whether or not to buy a ticket on this out of control express train that we all seem to suddenly find ourselves on, I'm going to let it take me wherever it takes me and expect that I'll come out clean and fresh and ready to go when the ride is over. From my perspective a 99.7% survival rate is like playing cards with house money, you can hardly lose. I know that people are going to die, but people die all of the time and it seldom effects me, so why should this be any different? When it is all over, I'll either read the book or wait for the movie to come out.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.


If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better.

I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash.

That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective.


If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it.

Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.


If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better.

I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash.

That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective.


If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it.

Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads.


I too would like to know how Idaho Shooter plans on avoiding the "covid" for the rest of his life?
Seems he places that responsibility on others.
Some aren't getting the "SLOW the spread" mantra the powers have taken......still.
Originally Posted by cfran
Originally Posted by Greyghost
The government ISN'T counting deaths in nursing homes or Veteran's facility's... No one is requiring them to report anything and in fact most are trying to hide information on these deaths.

Personally I believe the administration has hog tied quite a few and in fact the numbers are way under reported throughout the country. The same way that they required the Military to stop reporting numbers or locations.

New York along with a few other states have taken it upon them selves out of necessity to go in and report on the conditions at these places themselves.


If you want to look at things being done wrong... look no further than South Dakota's governor who like trump thinks it will all go away with a wave of the hand and just disappear as if in a miracle.

You'd think news of mass graves within the U.S. would case all this to sink in... but still quite a few figure it cant or won't happen to them or anyone close to them.

Link



Phil


Do a little more research on SD Phil. Let’s research multi generational immigrants and housing and also working in the plant. But even though the sky is falling in your Southern California mind let’s verify that SD has 51 people hospitalized and a total of 6 deaths. Yeah, that’s terrible.

And they haven't shut down. Maybe New York should have followed SD's example.
Originally Posted by Raeford
Some aren't getting the "SLOW the spread" mantra the powers have taken......still.


They are making a list.... for who to round up for the re-education camps.... it will be nice to finally meet you Raeford.... who knows maybe will will share a cell? ...... umm I mean dorm room... hahahahahh
Originally Posted by Greyghost

If you want to look at things being done wrong... look no further than South Dakota's governor who like trump thinks it will all go away with a wave of the hand and just disappear as if in a miracle.

Phil



Great point. I remember hearing both of them say just that in an interview. In fact, they released it in print as well.

Great work you are doing here.

It sucks when people overpoliticize and release or parrot BS lies. Thanks for setting us straight.
Originally Posted by irfubar
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.


If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better.

I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash.

That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective.


If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it.

Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads.


I too would like to know how Idaho Shooter plans on avoiding the "covid" for the rest of his life?
Seems he places that responsibility on others.

So far his plan is to have the government lock everyone else in their homes.
Originally Posted by irfubar
Originally Posted by Raeford
Some aren't getting the "SLOW the spread" mantra the powers have taken......still.


They are making a list.... for who to round up for the re-education camps.... it will be nice to finally meet you Raeford.... who knows maybe will will share a cell? ...... umm I mean dorm room... hahahahahh


I'll be doing my best to slip some bourbon in!
Originally Posted by irfubar
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.


If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better.

I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash.

That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective.


If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it.

Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads.


I too would like to know how Idaho Shooter plans on avoiding the "covid" for the rest of his life?
Seems he places that responsibility on others.


He doesn't need to avoid it for the rest of his life. Just until we have effective treatments, a vaccine, or both.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it.

Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads.

Apparently (according to many here), I have managed to avoid contact with the virus for six months. Only have eighteen months more till we have a vaccine. Right?

My workplace is only fifty people in total, and I still have over ten months of accrued vacation to use. My odds are not bad.

No, can not control the asswholes on the road. But I can control my reactions to them. I have driven around more than one head on collision when an oncoming driver was in my lane. And I often give another the right of way, even when it is mine.

It's called defensive driving.
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by irfubar

Seems he places that responsibility on others.

So far his plan is to have the government lock everyone else in their homes.


Your prose would be more palatable, were it to originate from your mouth and brain rather than your rectal orifice.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by irfubar

Seems he places that responsibility on others.

So far his plan is to have the government lock everyone else in their homes.


Your prose would be more palatable, were it to originate from your mouth and brain rather than your rectal orifice.


I have been generously nice to you considering the dumbfuckery you have been spewing lately..... could you please reciprocate in kind?..... wink
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by 260Remguy


If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it.

Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads.

Apparently (according to many here), I have managed to avoid contact with the virus for six months. Only have eighteen months more till we have a vaccine. Right?

My workplace is only fifty people in total, and I still have over ten months of accrued vacation to use. My odds are not bad.

No, can not control the asswholes on the road. But I can control my reactions to them. I have driven around more than one head on collision when an oncoming driver was in my lane. And I often give another the right of way, even when it is mine.

It's called defensive driving.


If most people who are infected with COVID-19 are asymptomatic, until you're tested for it, you have no way of knowing if you've been exposed or not. The same goes for all of us and everyone who we come into contact with.

Defensive driving skills are important and useful, but the guy who you don't see coming can be as deadly as the bullet that you don't hear.
Interesting thread.
The padded #,s for benjamins I bet by now are 30 to 40% of the total nation wide once all the Liberal Socialist Democrat Cities got in on the game ever since New York got away with it.
© 24hourcampfire