Do you really think that there's been more than 100k suicides in the US in the last 4 months. I can't get over the ignorance on here.
Forget it.
- Thread starter Joe Cobb
- Start date
Open this country up now!!! Protect the elderly and let's get to work.
Last edited:
I might start posting ridiculous shit just to watch your blood pressure go through the roof.
I believe the narrative is health care facilities receive extra Federal funding if covid is related to the death. Some facilities are unfortunately using this to their advantage.
not saying it’s accurate at all.
First, note I said it was skewed. Maybe I'm taking to "legal" of an approach here, but "contributed to the death" is subjective and exactly the point I was making. You clearly agree with that point based on your post. If you have ever had to deal with a death certificate for any reason other than just looking at one, you understand that most death certificates have multiple "causes of death" as primary and then "other significant conditions" listed as well. Further, they are corrected all the time for various reasons. It is far from an exact science. The issue here is that they are counting the death as a COVID death if it is listed on the death certificate as "contributing" with no further analysis as to whether it was the actual cause. That can be impossible, but I would sure like to see a third category added to the charts - "presumed/possible" deaths. Count them as deaths all you want, but that should be factored into the planning scenarios and admitted as significant factor in the error rate of the projections.
Nursing homes get hammered every day because a patient falls and breaks a hip. They die 3-6 months later of end-stage dementia, cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, etc. Does the death certificate say "hip fracture"? No, but medical experts will say the fracture hastened and ultimately led to the patient's death. That's fine for liability purposes and I agree with it. But when you are shutting down the world economy and telling businesses to close based upon these types of classifications, that is scary.
Last edited:
I've already posted facts that show it's not true: Hospitals do not get additional money for a Covid-19 death. They do get additional money if the Covid-19 patient has to be put on a ventilator, but several doctors have noted that the additional care costs more than the additional money. To say a person died from a car crash but was listed as a Covid-19 death is just plain stupid. Did the EMT's give the victim the 5 minute test in the ambulance on the way to the hospital? Give me a break.
Guess that's why the large majority of the healthcare professionals are saying the number of Covid-19 deaths are undercounted? I'll stick with the professionals, rather than the conspiracy theorists.
Meh, most countries are seriously understating their numbers to make things look better than they seem. The US is drastically overstating their numbers for various reasons.
The truth is we are probably right in line with the average, maybe even a little better.
this is based on nothing. how about we figure out what's happening and then start making claims about whats inflated and not.
i still love that nobody understands what a novel virus is. the whole point is that we don't know. that's what makes it concerning.
It makes me sad to see people arguing about this stuff. No way to really know if our strategy worked in terms of saving lives. But we can see the damage done to the economy and that is damage to people's lives. But it is interesting that Sweden's numbers aren't appreciably worse than anyone else's and they didn't really shut down. They just tried to mitigate. They aren't doing much testing so it is really hard to know.
Anyone who thinks they know for sure is fooling themselves. So hard to know what the right choices were. I do think it's abundantly obvious that we need to get moving again the best we can. I'm one who thinks mitigation like Sweden did is the best path but I certainly won't trash anyone who feels differently. I just happen to feel the only way past is through. Eventually, it's going to come to that no matter what we do. I also know the hyperbole from the media was grossly irresponsible and there are a lot of people (especially in the media) who want to use this as an opportunity to re-make our country the way they want. I will never consent to their desires. They are dangerous.
Anyone who thinks they know for sure is fooling themselves. So hard to know what the right choices were. I do think it's abundantly obvious that we need to get moving again the best we can. I'm one who thinks mitigation like Sweden did is the best path but I certainly won't trash anyone who feels differently. I just happen to feel the only way past is through. Eventually, it's going to come to that no matter what we do. I also know the hyperbole from the media was grossly irresponsible and there are a lot of people (especially in the media) who want to use this as an opportunity to re-make our country the way they want. I will never consent to their desires. They are dangerous.
You sure seem confident that you know the right way forward on something that, in the very same post, you acknowledge that no one can really know much about.
Good gracious. What in my post was a conspiracy theory? That reported COVID deaths include cases where COVID "contributed to the death" but didn't necessarily directly cause the death? Or maybe that the reported COVID deaths include cases where they didn't test positive for COVID but the certifying doctor believes they had it? Funny how you post about others being conspiracy theorists and then you post an article for a proposition that doesn't come close to saying what you think it does.
Actually, it says exactly what I thought it did: not what you claimed. You said "If a patient has covid and it is listed on their death certificate, it is recorded as a covid death". And that is simply not true. The CDC guideline clearly says "a cause that contributed to death". If the coroner or doctor doesn't believe it contributed to the person's death, it's not listed as a cause.
I find the observed case-fatality ratio and the deaths per 100,000 population to be interesting statistics. U.S. isn't too bad on that.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Based on what facts? Do you honestly think that China only had 86K cases and less than 9k deaths? Seriously? The numbers from China and India are grossly under reported. As are other countries. Do you think that the medicine in China (where the virus originated from) or India (which for 3rd world country) is that much better?
It is factually correct to state that hospitals do get reimbursed more for Covid patients, and substantially more for ventilator patients.
Now, are some hospitals coding patients Covid who haven’t tested positive, but show symptoms? Especially early on when testing wasn’t widely available?
Now, are some hospitals coding patients Covid who haven’t tested positive, but show symptoms? Especially early on when testing wasn’t widely available?
Post of the year
this thread has been a gold mine for the ignore button. I just saved myself time wasted reading posts from multiple people that I have no interest in talking with.
Open The Country!
If we decide to curb Constitutional freedoms based on guesstimates, then we really don't deserve freedom anyway.
I’d guess China’s true death toll is higher by at least a factor of 10. This article suggests over 40,000 deaths in Wuhan alone.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...han-death-toll-far-higher-official-figure?amp
Just like all the other Covid threads ... a total shitshow. Nothing ever gets resolved. No one ever has their mind changed. I admit I don't have the answers like so many geniuses on this board so I'm just going to go with the flow and follow the guidelines established by my state government.
The medical professionals are the experts and tend to be very conservative on how to proceed forward because lives are at stake. Politicians are all over the board with some concerned about human lives and others concerned about the upcoming elections.
The next 6 months are going to be really crazy!
The medical professionals are the experts and tend to be very conservative on how to proceed forward because lives are at stake. Politicians are all over the board with some concerned about human lives and others concerned about the upcoming elections.
The next 6 months are going to be really crazy!
Another good article on death rates (this from NPR):
Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought
Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.
The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's blood rather than the virus itself.
The tests are finding large numbers of people in the U.S. who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.
"The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
That's in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person's body.
And the revised estimates support an early prediction by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force. In an editorial published in late March in The New England Journal of Medicine, Fauci and colleagues wrote that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 "may be considerably less than 1%."
But even a virus with a fatality rate less than 1% presents a formidable threat, Rivers says. "That is many times more deadly than seasonal influenza," she says.
The new evidence is coming from places such as Indiana, which completed the first phase of a massive testing effort early in May.
Indiana's program began soon after coronavirus cases began appearing in the state. The governor's office contacted Nir Menachemi, who chairs the health policy and management department at Indiana University's Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health.
The governor wanted basic information, such as how many people had been infected, and how many would die.
At the time, "it was really difficult to know for sure," Menachemi says. "And frankly, not just in our state, but in any state."
That was because health officials only knew about people who had been sick enough to get tested for the virus. And that number can be misleading, Menachemi says.
"It doesn't capture the vast number of people out there who might be infected but not seeking medical care," he says.
So starting in late April, Menachemi, working with the Indiana State Department of Health, led a study of more than 4,600 people statewide. Most were selected at random.
Participants got two tests. The first was the standard test that looks for the virus. It shows whether you have an active infection. The second was a test that looks for antibodies to the virus in a person's blood. It detects people who were infected but have recovered.
Preliminary results showed that the coronavirus had infected about 3% of the state's population, or 188,000 people.
"That 188,000 people represented about 11 times more people than conventional selective testing had identified in the state to that point," Menachemi says.
And 45% of the infected people reported having no symptoms at all.
For Menachemi and his team, it was like finally getting a glimpse of the entire coronavirus iceberg, instead of just the part above the water.
And the data allowed them to calculate something called the infection fatality rate — the odds that an infected person will die. Previously, scientists had relied on what's known as the case fatality rate, which calculates the odds that someone who develops symptoms will die.
Indiana's infection fatality rate turned out to be about 0.58%, or roughly one death for every 172 people who got infected.
And the results in Indiana are similar to those suggested by antibody studies in several other areas. In New York, for example, an antibody study indicated the state has an infection fatality rate around 0.5%.
Studies in Florida and California have suggested even lower fatality rates, but the results are less certain, Rivers says.
"They may have enrolled people who are more likely to have been infected than would be ideal," she says, which would lead to an overestimate of infections and an underestimate of the infection fatality rate.
An antibody study in Santa Clara County, Calif., used Facebook ads to find participants — a tactic unlikely to attract a random sample. Also antibody studies become less accurate when conducted in areas where the prevalence of infections is low.
Calculating infection fatality rates in the U.S. is useful for researchers but less so for individuals who have been infected, Rivers says.
"Thankfully, children and young adults are at low risk of severe illness and death," she says. "But older adults are at quite high risk."
Studies suggest a healthy young person's chance of dying from an infection is less than 1 in 1,000. But for someone in poor health in their 90s, it can be greater than 1 in 10.
And that means different states in the U.S. should expect different infection fatality rates, says Juliette Unwin, a research fellow at Imperial College London.
"Places like Maine and Florida, we find that the infection fatality ratio is higher than in other places where the demographic is younger," she says.
Unwin is part of a large team in the United Kingdom that is monitoring both infection and mortality from the coronavirus in the United States. The team puts the infection fatality rate for the U.S. at somewhere between 0.7% and 1.2%.
"That will be subject to change and revision, as is everything in science," says Samir Bhatt, a senior lecturer at Imperial College London. "But I don't think we have it an order of magnitude out."
To get a more precise estimate of infections and the infection fatality rate nationwide, the National Institutes of Health has launched an antibody study that will test 10,000 people. Results will be released on a rolling basis. The study is expected to wrap up in early 2022.
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.
Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought
Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.
The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's blood rather than the virus itself.
The tests are finding large numbers of people in the U.S. who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.
"The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
That's in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person's body.
And the revised estimates support an early prediction by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force. In an editorial published in late March in The New England Journal of Medicine, Fauci and colleagues wrote that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 "may be considerably less than 1%."
But even a virus with a fatality rate less than 1% presents a formidable threat, Rivers says. "That is many times more deadly than seasonal influenza," she says.
The new evidence is coming from places such as Indiana, which completed the first phase of a massive testing effort early in May.
Indiana's program began soon after coronavirus cases began appearing in the state. The governor's office contacted Nir Menachemi, who chairs the health policy and management department at Indiana University's Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health.
The governor wanted basic information, such as how many people had been infected, and how many would die.
At the time, "it was really difficult to know for sure," Menachemi says. "And frankly, not just in our state, but in any state."
That was because health officials only knew about people who had been sick enough to get tested for the virus. And that number can be misleading, Menachemi says.
"It doesn't capture the vast number of people out there who might be infected but not seeking medical care," he says.
So starting in late April, Menachemi, working with the Indiana State Department of Health, led a study of more than 4,600 people statewide. Most were selected at random.
Participants got two tests. The first was the standard test that looks for the virus. It shows whether you have an active infection. The second was a test that looks for antibodies to the virus in a person's blood. It detects people who were infected but have recovered.
Preliminary results showed that the coronavirus had infected about 3% of the state's population, or 188,000 people.
"That 188,000 people represented about 11 times more people than conventional selective testing had identified in the state to that point," Menachemi says.
And 45% of the infected people reported having no symptoms at all.
For Menachemi and his team, it was like finally getting a glimpse of the entire coronavirus iceberg, instead of just the part above the water.
And the data allowed them to calculate something called the infection fatality rate — the odds that an infected person will die. Previously, scientists had relied on what's known as the case fatality rate, which calculates the odds that someone who develops symptoms will die.
Indiana's infection fatality rate turned out to be about 0.58%, or roughly one death for every 172 people who got infected.
And the results in Indiana are similar to those suggested by antibody studies in several other areas. In New York, for example, an antibody study indicated the state has an infection fatality rate around 0.5%.
Studies in Florida and California have suggested even lower fatality rates, but the results are less certain, Rivers says.
"They may have enrolled people who are more likely to have been infected than would be ideal," she says, which would lead to an overestimate of infections and an underestimate of the infection fatality rate.
An antibody study in Santa Clara County, Calif., used Facebook ads to find participants — a tactic unlikely to attract a random sample. Also antibody studies become less accurate when conducted in areas where the prevalence of infections is low.
Calculating infection fatality rates in the U.S. is useful for researchers but less so for individuals who have been infected, Rivers says.
"Thankfully, children and young adults are at low risk of severe illness and death," she says. "But older adults are at quite high risk."
Studies suggest a healthy young person's chance of dying from an infection is less than 1 in 1,000. But for someone in poor health in their 90s, it can be greater than 1 in 10.
And that means different states in the U.S. should expect different infection fatality rates, says Juliette Unwin, a research fellow at Imperial College London.
"Places like Maine and Florida, we find that the infection fatality ratio is higher than in other places where the demographic is younger," she says.
Unwin is part of a large team in the United Kingdom that is monitoring both infection and mortality from the coronavirus in the United States. The team puts the infection fatality rate for the U.S. at somewhere between 0.7% and 1.2%.
"That will be subject to change and revision, as is everything in science," says Samir Bhatt, a senior lecturer at Imperial College London. "But I don't think we have it an order of magnitude out."
To get a more precise estimate of infections and the infection fatality rate nationwide, the National Institutes of Health has launched an antibody study that will test 10,000 people. Results will be released on a rolling basis. The study is expected to wrap up in early 2022.
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.
This is the thing that has driven me crazy with some of the posts (here and elsewhere) over the last 10-12 weeks. Different countries have different reporting protocols. In the US, it may vary widely from state-to-state, from hospital system to hospital system.
That little factoid seems lost on many.
It was a helluva effort, @Joe Cobb. Darn shame that more aren't 'wired' like you.
I'll end up sorry for involving myself, because this is a common occurrence.
The reality is Trump did everything correctly based on a fluid(on steroids) crisis. This is a crisis territory NEVER previously traveled in world history. Coulda, woulda fvcking shoulda. I'll say this....the Feds should never have appeased the Progressive voting Congress by handing out ridiculous $$$ for unemployment. It's created a negative for hourly or low salaried workers to return to their former jobs....or ANY job for that matter. JMO.
I wish you'd read what I said. I said that was my opinion and what I believe and I also said that I would never trash anyone who believes differently. I'm not a doctor and I'm not an expert. But I do read a lot and I do have a good friend who's an epidemiologist and those of the basis for my opinion. We've tried to use computer models for something that I don't think you can really model because it is so unpredictable. If you want to shoot down what I have to say that's fine, but don't put words in my mouth or think you can get away with misinterpreting what I said.
Last edited:
no sir, it's not. my wife is responsible for gathering data and generating COVID numbers for the largest county in the US and i can say without doubt you're full of shit.
You completely ignored my post. The article you linked saying the majority of health professionals agree doesn't say that at all. It talks about Fauci's testimony and then provides the opinion of a few "medical statisticians" and a public health research scientist. I would agree there is significant debate about the accuracy of the death counts and I don't know who may be right. But there is no question the reported numbers are projections and are incorrect (i.e., skewed). I actually went into a short, but fairly detailed analysis of the difference between "contributed to death" and "caused death". You must have missed that part. Maybe this quote from my post will help: "The issue here is that they are counting the death as a COVID death if it is listed on the death certificate as "contributing"". I will certainly and always defer to the certifying physician, but if a patient is diagnosed with COVID and they die, it will absolutely be listed as an underlying cause of death and that is confirmed by multiple physicians who have certified those patients and DHEC, because they are told to list it if it is even "assumed" it contributed. For purposes of clarity, here is the language for S.C. physicians from DHEC-Vital records:
Guidance for Certifying Coronavirus Disease 2019
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. The preferred term to use in the cause of death is COVID-19.
Otherwise, I then asked you two questions and asked which one's were conspiracy theories. You didn't answer.
You also gonna dispute this? Crawl back in your hole and watch Don Lemmon tell u when its ok to come out. Hint....its when/if Biden gets elected.
Last edited:
Here is a long article (too long to paste) on information and view points in this thread. Suggest taking few minutes to read:
https://apple.news/AaznIbGgPRmu2HB6kMA6Kpw
https://apple.news/AaznIbGgPRmu2HB6kMA6Kpw
Japan didn’t shut down and their numbers are great.
Has anyone seen the number of influenza deaths this year? Incredibly low. Suspiciously low.
Original projections were millions of deaths in the US. I’d say this administration did a great job if that is the metric we use.
I Have asked every doctor I know if they have ever seen anyone die from a heart attack, stroke, cancer, ect, and then tested posthumously for the flu and counted as a flu death. Not a single one of them has ever seen it happen, and they all say if we did that stupid shit, we would have over 300,000 every year. They way we are counting COVID deaths is absolutely criminal and it prevents us from understanding this virus and from preventing others. This is an absolute joke and what the Libs have done in the name of partisanship here should scare the phuck out of everyone. Big government is back for good now because the sheep rolled over and they took notice. Complete joke.
I pray that you are wrong but I wonder the same these days. The really sad part is that we're not nearly as divided as people think we are. Both sides have been sold a bill of goods somehow those in opposition are evil in their humanity has been stripped from them by the hyperbole and ridiculous attacks.
@Joe Cobb ....if you even attempt to sully the name of big greasy, outrageously tasting burgers, I will find you guilty and you'll be ostracized from all burgers and pulled pork BBQ for life. Sorry.
I feel your pain brother!
you could say the same thing about the economy.
Hard to feel sorry for undisciplined people (or businesses) that can’t go a few months without income.
They are the reason our economy is broken to begin with.
lol. It was the liberals who introduced the trumps 30 days to slow the spread? It was the liberals who shut down the southern gop controlled states? It was the liberals who stood at the front of trumps virus task force and criticized gov Kemp for reopening too soon?
