Why did we lock down to begin with?

[jfrog]

So back when the U.S. first locked down the justification was to flatten the curve of coronavirus spread so that our hospitals did not get overwhelmed. Well, our hospitals aren't overwhelmed... So why do so many states have such an issue with easing up restrictions?

[jfrog]

I have also noticed another oddity. When the prospect of herd immunity arises, one common refrain against it is that we don't even know if their will be immunity to the coronavirus.

However, if immunity to it doesn't work then why in the very next breath is a vaccine being touted as the only solution. It seems that if herd immunity can't work then a vaccine can't either.

[james34]

I have also noticed another oddity. When the prospect of herd immunity arises, one common refrain against it is that we don't even know if their will be immunity to the coronavirus.

However, if immunity to it doesn't work then why in the very next breath is a vaccine being touted as the only solution. It seems that if herd immunity can't work then a vaccine can't either.

You are asking too many questions, please refrain from spreading discord among the citizens. Failure to comply will result in a loss of points to your social credit score and a possible suspension of privileges.

As a good global citizen ,we must all do our part. We are in this together.

[hometown guy]

I have also noticed another oddity. When the prospect of herd immunity arises, one common refrain against it is that we don't even know if their will be immunity to the coronavirus.

However, if immunity to it doesn't work then why in the very next breath is a vaccine being touted as the only solution. It seems that if herd immunity can't work then a vaccine can't either.

Well if we can’t get immunity to it then even more the reason to open back up because it will still be here tomorrow....

[hometown guy]

So back when the U.S. first locked down the justification was to flatten the curve of coronavirus spread so that our hospitals did not get overwhelmed. Well, our hospitals aren't overwhelmed... So why do so many states have such an issue with easing up restrictions?

Yup that was the original reason for the stay at home order. Somehow it changed to saving lives by stopping the virus and people are dumb enough to think the order can actually do that.

[Scott Pitta]

In Wisconsin, we are waiting for the curve to flatten out before resuming normal social interaction. As of today, our curve is still on the initial upward bend.

Social isolation reduces the spread of the pandemic.

[Steven Avery]

Thank you for common sense, with a little humour, to the first three posters.

[jfrog]

In Wisconsin, we are waiting for the curve to flatten out before resuming normal social interaction. As of today, our curve is still on the initial upward bend.

Social isolation reduces the spread of the pandemic.

You don't need a lockdown to still social distance.

Keep in mind - no one - literally no one expects "normal" social interaction to resume for quite some time.

Also, I see nothing to worry about in Wisconsin stats. Deaths there have leveled off which is the real measure you should be looking at. Number of confirmed cases can increase just by increasing the number of people tested - which presumably is still happening (hard to find data on this). Deaths in Wisconsin due to covid-19 have stayed in the 4 to 19 per day range (average of a little under 10 per day) for the last month.

[Jito463]

Keep in mind - no one - literally no one expects "normal" social interaction to resume for quite some time.

Why not? No seriously, why not? Conservatively, over 95% of people who get this are asymptomatic, potentially 97-99%. As such, why should we be concerned about normal social interactions?

When I go to church, I still shake hands with people who are comfortable doing so. I never did the whole "fist bump" nonsense, so I still don't (or "elbow bump" now, I suppose).

I've started labeling anyone who pushes for "social distancing", as SDW's - Social Distance Warriors. It's like an SJW, but more distant.

[jfrog]

Why not? No seriously, why not? Conservatively, over 95% of people who get this are asymptomatic, potentially 97-99%. As such, why should we be concerned about normal social interactions?

Because if our hospitals get overwhelmed as this virus has proven capable of doing then the deaths we see from it and other medical conditions that can no longer be properly treated shoot way up.

Curious if you have an actual source for your figures above?

When I go to church, I still shake hands with people who are comfortable doing so. I never did the whole "fist bump" nonsense, so I still don't (or "elbow bump" now, I suppose).

If everyone everywhere treated this as you do then would our hospitals get overwhelmed?

I've started labeling anyone who pushes for "social distancing", as SDW's - Social Distance Warriors. It's like an SJW, but more distant.

Maybe it's people like you that are the reason the lockdown won't end quickly. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us!

[jfrog]

Also, I see nothing to worry about in Wisconsin stats. Deaths there have leveled off which is the real measure you should be looking at. Number of confirmed cases can increase just by increasing the number of people tested - which presumably is still happening (hard to find data on this). Deaths in Wisconsin due to covid-19 have stayed in the 4 to 19 per day range (average of a little under 10 per day) for the last month.

Related to Colorado but pertinent nonetheless:

Link (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/republicans-are-reopening-and-so-is-this-state-led-by-a-democrat/ar-BB13x5Ei?ocid=spartanntp)
Although the death toll has been on the decline in the state in recent weeks, Colorado's reopening has not coincided with a 14-day drop in its COVID-19 cases — a federal recommendation for when states can begin to open up — though a recent surge can be attributed to a large backlog of tests finally yielding results, according to the state health department.

[Scott Pitta]

The curve in the Badger state is continuing to climb. It has not levelled off. Social isolation should continue until the curve is within the limits of the president.

[jfrog]

The curve in the Badger state is continuing to climb. It has not levelled off. Social isolation should continue until the curve is within the limits of the president.

In your badger state:

Deaths per day are constant. It's no longer increasing in a way that threatens hospitals

Note that cases per day can be increased by increasing testing which is why it's a poor measure to just look at case per day numbers.

[Scott Pitta]

Numbers of sick and numbers of dead are the only 2 sets of data that exist to measure the pandemic.

The number of sick is increasing.

[Jito463]

Because if our hospitals get overwhelmed as this virus has proven capable of doing then the deaths we see from it and other medical conditions that can no longer be properly treated shoot way up.

The hospitals haven't even been close to overwhelmed, quite the opposite in fact. Hospitals are laying off staff due to lack of work, and new hospitals built solely because they feared the need for them, are laying empty or mostly empty.

Curious if you have an actual source for your figures above?

I'll admit that was a goof on my part. I was trying to convey the number of people who will survive it, rather than the number of asymptomatic people (even that number is extremely high, I just don't have exact figures for it). However, I realized my mistake too late, and was unable to edit my post.

If everyone everywhere treated this as you do then would our hospitals get overwhelmed?

Where's the proof of that? What we do know, is that our hospitals are laying off staff. I'd like some evidence that your fears are founded in reality.

Maybe it's people like you that are the reason the lockdown won't end quickly. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us!

Maybe it's people like you who are extending the lockdowns for no good reason. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us! :heeheehee

I say that last bit rather tongue-in-cheek, but I'm quite serious when I say that we didn't need to lock down the country for months, nor do we need to continue doing so now. The only ones who should be isolated are the high risk people. The rest of us NEED to be exposed, in order to ensure we've got sufficient antibodies spread throughout the population. That's the only way to help protect those high risk people from infection.

Even the WHO is starting to point towards Sweden as a proper model, and they never locked down their economy. Shouldn't we, as inheritors of the independent spirit of America (not to mention, children of the one true God), be unafraid to do the same?

[Scott Pitta]

The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.

[james34]

The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.
How do you know?

[jfrog]

How do you know?

See New York City and Italy numbers and trends pre lockdowns.

[jfrog]

The hospitals haven't even been close to overwhelmed, quite the opposite in fact. Hospitals are laying off staff due to lack of work, and new hospitals built solely because they feared the need for them, are laying empty or mostly empty.

I totally agree. Maybe you missed where I've been suggesting that lockdowns aren't necessary at this time for most of the country. But that doesn't mean that we can just go back to normal either. Voluntary social distancing will still be needed for a while - but likely not to the extent we have seen in our lockdown levels - at least for most of the country. And maybe if we are lucky we will ultimately find that very little social distancing is needed in places without mass transit subways and buses (which I believe has been the biggest vector of spreading the virus).

Personally I believe they locked down rural and small town America down too early and we never really got to see how the virus spread was different in those areas than in the big cities. But that doesn't mean we race to eliminate all distancing after we already have it in place. A gradual step down is good.

In fact, the very premise of this thread was a callout that it doesn't make sense to still be locked down because none of our hospitals are currently overburdened.

I'll admit that was a goof on my part. I was trying to convey the number of people who will survive it, rather than the number of asymptomatic people (even that number is extremely high, I just don't have exact figures for it). However, I realized my mistake too late, and was unable to edit my post.

No problem, it happens.

Where's the proof of that? What we do know, is that our hospitals are laying off staff. I'd like some evidence that your fears are founded in reality.

NYC and Italy happened. It's easy to look up what was happening and then look up what changed when lockdown measures were implemented. That doesn't necessarily translate nationwide - but it does show that hospitals can have issues being overburdened.

Maybe it's people like you who are extending the lockdowns for no good reason. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us! :heeheehee

I'm not for extending lockdowns. I'm for common sense voluntary social distancing.

I say that last bit rather tongue-in-cheek, but I'm quite serious when I say that we didn't need to lock down the country for months, nor do we need to continue doing so now.

I pretty much agree - or at least that we did so prematurely if it was going to be needed (outside NYC)

The only ones who should be isolated are the high risk people. The rest of us NEED to be exposed, in order to ensure we've got sufficient antibodies spread throughout the population. That's the only way to help protect those high risk people from infection.

Of course, but we don't all need exposed at once or there's a risk of overwhelming hospitals again. Voluntary social distancing slows that spread down enough to where we will still all get it and where the hospitals won't be overwhelmed. If the hospitals hold up and there still appears to be no risk of overwhelming them then start acting a little more normal week after week until we star seeing evidence that the hospitals might not keep up without us doing a little more social distancing again.

Even the WHO is starting to point towards Sweden as a proper model, and they never locked down their economy. Shouldn't we, as inheritors of the independent spirit of America (not to mention, children of the one true God), be unafraid to do the same?

Sweden is social distancing though - and doing a great job of it. You seem to be confounding lockdown and social distancing and making them be one and the same. I'm not for lockdowns - except for maybe New York City - they potentially needed one when they did it. I am for social distancing though.

[jfrog]

How do you know?

Look at what was happening pre social isolation?

[jfrog]

Numbers of sick and numbers of dead are the only 2 sets of data that exist to measure the pandemic.

The number of sick is increasing.

Yes, but why is the number of cases per day increasing. Are you testing more? Are you in a situation similar to Colorado where a large backlog of tests are finally yielding results? Are you testing localities in different proportions than you were previously?

In other words, the most incorrect thing you can do is to simply look at the cases per day figure and use that as a basis for what is happening. If it really is more people getting the virus then you are only about a week away from seeing deaths increase (as your cases started increasing over a week ago). The truth will be known soon. Are you ready to accept it when it is?

[james34]

See New York City and Italy numbers and trends pre lockdowns.
That's the problem the way they get the numbers is erroneous to begin with. To many reports of the virus being applied to those who have symptoms but haven't been tested.

Then death by Covid19 being applied to people who have underlying conditions and likely would have died from flu(not because of flu, but because of underlying conditions)

But the biggest factor for me in all of this is the obvious underlying and interwoven NWO agenda in all of this.

[jfrog]

That's the problem the way they get the numbers is erroneous to begin with. To many reports of the virus being applied to those who have symptoms but haven't been tested.

Then death by Covid19 being applied to people who have underlying conditions and likely would have died from flu(not because of flu, but because of underlying conditions)

But the biggest factor for me in all of this is the obvious underlying and interwoven NWO agenda in all of this.

Wait... you don’t actually believe NYC and Italy were bad?

[Jito463]

Wait... you don’t actually believe NYC and Italy were bad?

Italy - assuming their numbers are accurate and true - was because they had a lot of elderly (meaning: high risk) people exposed to it. NYC was not and is not as bad as they've claimed. We know this, because the reported numbers of death from C19 have been woefully over reported; dying with C19, is not the same as dying from C19, and that's when they even bother testing for it to begin with. We know this because emergency "hospitals" have lain empty since they were built. We know this, because the 30,000+ respirators they claimed to need, ended up going mostly unused and were sent elsewhere.

In fact, NY would have been a lot better off, if Cuomo hadn't forced nursing homes to accept patients with C19. Yes, he actually told them they had to take on patients with C19, while they were caring for the most high risk group amongst us.

[jfrog]

Italy - assuming their numbers are accurate and true - was because they had a lot of elderly (meaning: high risk) people exposed to it.

So we are in agreement then that it was very bad in Italy?

NYC was not and is not as bad as they've claimed.

It's not bad now I agree. But was not bad? That's a big stretch. You seem to forget that they did have hospitals getting overwhelmed, that they were sharing ventalitors at some hospitals. Was every hospital in NYC overwhelmed. Thank God no. Were some overwhelmed for a short time. I think that if your honest you'll admit that fact.

We know this, because the reported numbers of death from C19 have been woefully over reported; dying with C19, is not the same as dying from C19, and that's when they even bother testing for it to begin with.

Actually we don't know for sure if deaths are over reported or under reported. You see, the way they are counting them is bound to include some who shouldn't be included but just as importantly it's also bound to exclude some who should be included. I've yet to see anything more than speculation about which number is bigger.

Also important - when a death occurs generally there are multiple factors that led to death - referred to as comorbidity. It's naive to think that everyone who died of a heart attack or stroke or something else while having covid would have died of the same thing without having covid. Thus, at least some of those deaths you wish to discount I think should genuinely be counted - because covid directly led to the heart attack or stroke by forcing the bodies other systems to work harder to overcome the illness.

We know this because emergency "hospitals" have lain empty since they were built.

Which would be evidence that they locked down just in time. Also evidence that those areas should probably have been easing up on restrictions sooner

We know this, because the 30,000+ respirators they claimed to need, ended up going mostly unused and were sent elsewhere.

Which is also more evidence that they locked down just in time to curb it before it was too late.

In fact, NY would have been a lot better off, if Cuomo hadn't forced nursing homes to accept patients with C19. Yes, he actually told them they had to take on patients with C19, while they were caring for the most high risk group amongst us.

You can't say it wasn't bad in one breath and then say it wouldn't have been so bad if X didn't happen. That's some major cognitive dissonance you have going on there.

Keep in mind the goal is to show that we know the following things:

The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.

Those shouldn't be controversial points. I shouldn't have to explain how bad Italy and NYC got at the worst. What are fair points is whether small town and rural america really needed to lockdown at all. Their hospitals were never overburdened and we can't say for sure they would have been. My belief is that cramped mass transportation is the most likely culprit for the super fast and deadly spread in NYC and Italy. Which means to me that it will spread much slower when such elements are removed. Throw in some extra hand washing, going out less, staying a bit further away from people than otherwise. I'm not sure we can yet say how bad it would have been the further from urban you go - on the bright side we are going to find out soon.

[james34]

Wait... you don’t actually believe NYC and Italy were bad?

I dont believe any of this warranted any different reaction than if it were swine flu.
I do think it is purposely being used to further the NWO agenda. The most alarming of things being brought to the table are the proposed " steps for going back to normal". Those steps infringe heavily upon privacy and freedom.

[jfrog]

I dont believe any of this warranted any different reaction than if it were swine flu.
I do think it is purposely being used to further the NWO agenda. The most alarming of things being brought to the table are the proposed " steps for going back to normal". Those steps infringe heavily upon privacy and freedom.

You say that - but you offer no evidence. We have NYC and Italy as examples of how bad it can get before lockdown (with no letup in sight before we acted). Can you at least acknowledge that the lockdown was a legitimate action for those 2 places?

[james34]

You say that - but you offer no evidence. We have NYC and Italy as examples of how bad it can get before lockdown (with no letup in sight before we acted). Can you at least acknowledge that the lockdown was a legitimate action for those 2 places?
There are no honest sources of info. that I can use to do an honest investigation. The first thing I do is investigate the information source , if they have history of honest reporting then I give ear to the reporting. So far all I find in support of this pandemic being what it was reported to be, is politicians and MSM.

[Jito463]

So we are in agreement then that it was very bad in Italy?

Again, I said "assuming the numbers are accurate and true", which is hardly a guarantee. That said, I haven't paid too much attention to Italy. I let them deal with their own situation.

Were some overwhelmed for a short time. I think that if your honest you'll admit that fact.

Perhaps for a time, I couldn't say for certain, but what I do know is that their statistical "models" all predicted it would be far, far worse than it was, and that was after factoring in the whole lock down and "social distancing".

Actually we don't know for sure if deaths are over reported or under reported. You see, the way they are counting them is bound to include some who shouldn't be included but just as importantly it's also bound to exclude some who should be included. I've yet to see anything more than speculation about which number is bigger.

Do you really think their UNDER reporting the number of deaths? Seriously?!

Just as an aside, I have a toll bridge in the Sahara desert I'm interested in moving. Could I tempt you to buy it from me?

Also important - when a death occurs generally there are multiple factors that led to death - referred to as comorbidity. It's naive to think that everyone who died of a heart attack or stroke or something else while having covid would have died of the same thing without having covid. Thus, at least some of those deaths you wish to discount I think should genuinely be counted - because covid directly led to the heart attack or stroke by forcing the bodies other systems to work harder to overcome the illness.

Funny you should mention that. I highly recommend watching the video of the two doctors from California. It's a little over 51 minutes long, but well worth the watch. I even found another copy of the video, and posted the link in Esaias' thread.

You can't say it wasn't bad in one breath and then say it wouldn't have been so bad if X didn't happen. That's some major cognitive dissonance you have going on there.

That's not what I said. I said they would have been better off, I never said "it wouldn't have been so bad". Those do not automatically mean the same thing. You literally quoted me above your comment, and still you misrepresented what I wrote.

In fact, NY would have been a lot better off

If anyone is guilty of cognitive dissonance, it's you. Right after you make the claim that the hospital situation was horrible:

that they were sharing ventalitors at some hospitals

You then concede my point that they didn't need all the ventilators they had

Which would be evidence that they locked down just in time.

So which is it? Did they lock down in time, or were they overwhelmed?


Keep in mind the goal is to show that we know the following things:
The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.

I'll grant you the first two as likely true, but not the latter two. Based on the numbers of people who have been tested positive for antibodies, and yet never even knew they had it, the mortality rate is highly over stated. As such, there's no facts to support the claim that we must socially isolate ourselves.

Those shouldn't be controversial points. I shouldn't have to explain how bad Italy and NYC got at the worst.

Again, I would point you to the video of the two immunologists discussing their own situation, as well as the situation in NY. Much of the same points I've been making (and have made pretty much all along) is supported by their research.

[jfrog]

There are no honest sources of info. that I can use to do an honest investigation. The first thing I do is investigate the information source , if they have history of honest reporting then I give ear to the reporting. So far all I find in support of this pandemic being what it was reported to be, is politicians and MSM.

This is the real world in a crisis. You don't have the luxury of waiting for perfectly honest sources of info.

[jfrog]

Again, I said "assuming the numbers are accurate and true", which is hardly a guarantee. That said, I haven't paid too much attention to Italy. I let them deal with their own situation.

You can't say this thing cannot get bad without any knowledge of Italy.

Perhaps for a time, I couldn't say for certain, but what I do know is that their statistical "models" all predicted it would be far, far worse than it was, and that was after factoring in the whole lock down and "social distancing".

To my knowledge there were no statistical models at that time. The important point of NYC is that they literally were growing exponentially. NY - mostly NYC were doubling cases every 2-3 days. Then deaths started growing exponentially every 4-5 days.

I think the problem is that most people don't have a good concept of what exponential growth actually means.

Do you really think their UNDER reporting the number of deaths? Seriously?!

If you mean all-in, no one has any idea. There is a factor that lowers the number of deaths though - people dying at home that are not tested (happens quite a bit) are not typically included in Covid totals.

Just as an aside, I have a toll bridge in the Sahara desert I'm interested in moving. Could I tempt you to buy it from me?

Why are you basing your belief that deaths are only being overcounted on anything except facts. More importantly, how should someone that has covid and dies of a heart attack be counted? How is someone that has the FLU and dies of a heart attack counted? Do you even know?

Funny you should mention that. I highly recommend watching the video of the two doctors from California. It's a little over 51 minutes long, but well worth the watch. I even found another copy of the video, and posted the link in Esaias' thread.

Watched them like a week ago. I agree with them that deathrate is overestimated. I think their math is still off and that they are greatly underestimating the actual deathrate. Their best point which was not something they explicitly stated was that to really understand the deathrate you have to understand how many people actually have it. It's just their calculation on that while the best I'd seen up to that point was crude and bound to overrepresent the actual population of people with the virus.

Speaking of those 2 doctors though - they were for social distancing - just not all out lockdown.

That's not what I said. I said they would have been better off, I never said "it wouldn't have been so bad". Those do not automatically mean the same thing. You literally quoted me above your comment, and still you misrepresented what I wrote.

Okay then how does saying they would have been better off add anything to a discussion about how bad New York City got? Remember the goal is talking about how bad NYC got is to serve as an example that this virus does have the potential to get really bad in reality - not theoretically - and possibly not everywhere - but that in some real locations it actually does get really bad.

If anyone is guilty of cognitive dissonance, it's you. Right after you make the claim that the hospital situation was horrible:

Saying something was really bad and would have been a bit better if X didn't happen isn't cognitivie dissonance - it's simple truth. It's the kind of statement you would accept in any other circumstance without batting an eye.

You then concede my point that they didn't need all the ventilators they had

Sharing ventalitors is not something you ever want to do - it's a measure of desperation that they were doing that.

So which is it? Did they lock down in time, or were they overwhelmed?

Both. Locked down just in time stopped the exponential growth which kept it from overwhelming every hospital in the city. That doesn't change that part of the reason they locked down was that some of their hospitals were starting to get overwhelmed. Those are not incompatible statements.

I'll grant you the first two as likely true, but not the latter two. Based on the numbers of people who have been tested positive for antibodies, and yet never even knew they had it, the mortality rate is highly over stated.

That's a belief we both share - possibly the extent of that overstating is a different story but the mortality rate in pandemics is always overstated at the start as we never have good data early on about the extent of the virus in the broader population. This is well known to epidemiologists - the people that actually study this stuff for a living.

Where we disagree is that while I believe the virus mortality rate is lower than initially speculated - I believe it is still a significantly higher mortality rate than the flu. You see how those 2 things can both be true?

As such, there's no facts to support the claim that we must socially isolate ourselves.

The facts:
1. When left unchecked the virus and corresponding death toll grew exponentially (See NYC, See Italy).
2. Hospitals in Italy were overwhelmed.
3. Some hospitals in NYC were overwhelmed.
4. Exponential growth of cases and deaths stopped after lockdowns were implemented.
5. Sweden - a country that didn't lock down - is still practicing a lot of social distancing and while it's too soon to call it successful, they certainly aren't having the kind of catastrophic results many predicted.
6. Perhaps the most telling fact of all, there is not a single success story of a place that did not social distance at all.



Again, I would point you to the video of the two immunologists discussing their own situation, as well as the situation in NY. Much of the same points I've been making (and have made pretty much all along) is supported by their research.

They support social distancing though. So why don't you?

[james34]

This is the real world in a crisis. You don't have the luxury of waiting for perfectly honest sources of info.

So you dont have an honest source do you?

Actually it's the only choice a christian has.... whosoever loveth or maketh a lie.

[jfrog]

So you dont have an honest source do you?

Actually it's the only choice a christian has.... whosoever loveth or maketh a lie.

By honest you mean 100% accurate. Those don’t exist with real world data.

[n david]

Just wait for the lockdown due to the Murder Hornets ...

Did 5G cause the hornets to mutate into these fearsome pests?
Did China create them?
Is this a new judgment?
What comes next - locusts with helmets?

[diakonos]

Just wait for the lockdown due to the Murder Hornets ...

Did 5G cause the hornets to mutate into these fearsome pests?
Did China create them?
Is this a new judgment?
What comes next - locusts with helmets?

And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

[james34]

By honest you mean 100% accurate. Those don’t exist with real world data.

By honest I mean having a history of not lying and then the truth come out later that proves they were lying.

[james34]

Drug Overdose, Head Trauma Deaths Added To Coronavirus Death Toll

A 37-year-old California man who died of a drug overdose has been added to the novel coronavirus death toll.

Though the death of the unidentified man was caused by a drug overdose, he also tested positive for the novel coronavirus, which was coded as a “significant continuing condition,” according to Ventura County spokeswoman Ashley Bautista, VA Star reported Thursday.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/drug-...source=twitter

[KeptByTheWord]

Just wait for the lockdown due to the Murder Hornets ...

Did 5G cause the hornets to mutate into these fearsome pests?
Did China create them?
Is this a new judgment?
What comes next - locusts with helmets?

We may be seeing biblical prophecy in action before our very eyes.

[jfrog]

Drug Overdose, Head Trauma Deaths Added To Coronavirus Death Toll

A 37-year-old California man who died of a drug overdose has been added to the novel coronavirus death toll.

Though the death of the unidentified man was caused by a drug overdose, he also tested positive for the novel coronavirus, which was coded as a “significant continuing condition,” according to Ventura County spokeswoman Ashley Bautista, VA Star reported Thursday.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/drug-...source=twitter

No doubt there are some deaths being included that shouldn't. Just like there is also no doubt that there are some deaths not being included that should be.

But perhaps more importantly to note - many times cause of death isn't actually as straightforward as we would like to believe. The old guy with bad kidneys that get's covid and dies of kidney failure due to the additional stress on his system caused by the virus - is he a covid death or a kidney failure death? Personally I would think he should count as both. Maybe the bigger issue is how our death records system is set up?

[Esaias]

No doubt there are some deaths being included that shouldn't. Just like there is also no doubt that there are some deaths not being included that should be.

But perhaps more importantly to note - many times cause of death isn't actually as straightforward as we would like to believe. The old guy with bad kidneys that get's covid and dies of kidney failure due to the additional stress on his system caused by the virus - is he a covid death or a kidney failure death? Personally I would think he should count as both. Maybe the bigger issue is how our death records system is set up?

No doubt? The people who supply the numbers have stated that anything and everything is COVID19 with or without tests. The total farcical nature of ALL "coronavirus numbers", rates, etc was documented about a month ago right here on this forum.

Italy? What, some 82% of all "COVID" deaths cannot be demonstrated to have anything to do with COVID?

Hey did you realise that the CDCs own numbers for influenza make coronavirus LESS OF AN ISSUE THAN FLU?

And did you know that if you dig a little deeper into the CDCs own fine print you'll discover the flu numbers are JUST AS BOGUS? As in only a couple hundred people per year die from influenza?

The medical racket is just that: a RICO-violating organised criminal racket. It's all about $$$ and always has been.

[diakonos]

We may be seeing biblical prophecy in action before our very eyes.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4f441bf5046f92eb511f20fa6195964c/tenor.gif?itemid=12146858

[james34]

No doubt there are some deaths being included that shouldn't. Just like there is also no doubt that there are some deaths not being included that should be.

But perhaps more importantly to note - many times cause of death isn't actually as straightforward as we would like to believe. The old guy with bad kidneys that get's covid and dies of kidney failure due to the additional stress on his system caused by the virus - is he a covid death or a kidney failure death? Personally I would think he should count as both. Maybe the bigger issue is how our death records system is set up?
Ok ,accept discrepancies...i get it, but has this not been a scenario that would have happened during a flu pandemic? Of course, the difference is the Media hype, and if it wasnt for the media most folks would'nt think any more of this pandemic than of the flu....actually they wouldnt even know there was a pandemic!

[james34]

Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan, 55, has criticised the government following news that epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson has resigned from his role as an adviser on coronavirus during the pandemic. Professor Ferguson’s resignation comes after The Telegraph reported that he broke lockdown restrictions when a woman he was said to be in a relationship with visited his home during lockdown
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1278643/Piers-Morgan-Twitter-coronavirus-government-scientists-Neil-Ferguson-news-latest/amp

This is the guy who Faucci worships , the cause just continues its loss of credibility as if it ever had any

[votivesoul]

Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan, 55, has criticised the government following news that epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson has resigned from his role as an adviser on coronavirus during the pandemic. Professor Ferguson’s resignation comes after The Telegraph reported that he broke lockdown restrictions when a woman he was said to be in a relationship with visited his home during lockdown
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1278643/Piers-Morgan-Twitter-coronavirus-government-scientists-Neil-Ferguson-news-latest/amp

This is the guy who Faucci worships , the cause just continues its loss of credibility as if it ever had any

She's married, by the way.

[votivesoul]

No doubt there are some deaths being included that shouldn't. Just like there is also no doubt that there are some deaths not being included that should be.

But perhaps more importantly to note - many times cause of death isn't actually as straightforward as we would like to believe. The old guy with bad kidneys that get's covid and dies of kidney failure due to the additional stress on his system caused by the virus - is he a covid death or a kidney failure death? Personally I would think he should count as both. Maybe the bigger issue is how our death records system is set up?

How many weeks does it take to get a full autopsy, pathology, and toxicology report from a coroner before a final cause of death can be determined and announced?

[jfrog]

How many weeks does it take to get a full autopsy, pathology, and toxicology report from a coroner before a final cause of death can be determined and announced?

No idea. But most deceased don't have an autopsy performed - so not really sure it matters?

[votivesoul]

No idea. But most deceased don't have an autopsy performed - so not really sure it matters?

Preliminary results can be found usually within 24 to 48 hours. Full results can take up to 6 weeks.

Why it matters? We're talking about accurate death counts and rates of nCOVID19. These numbers are "going up" every day without full autopsy analysis.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/things-to-know/autopsy-101.html

[jfrog]

Preliminary results can be found usually within 24 to 48 hours. Full results can take up to 6 weeks.

Why it matters? We're talking about accurate death counts and rates of nCOVID19. These numbers are "going up" every day without full autopsy analysis.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/things-to-know/autopsy-101.html

But they don't do full autopsies on most covid deaths. They don't do full autopsies on most deaths in the country. It's a very small fraction that have an autopsy performed. So I still have no idea why a 6 week delay on less than 1% of the deaths would have a meaningful impact on the numbers.

I mean most people from death to burial isn't even a full week apart...

[jfrog]

Numbers of sick and numbers of dead are the only 2 sets of data that exist to measure the pandemic.

The number of sick is increasing.

I've been watching Wisconsin's numbers more closely.

Starting on 4/22 and finally leveling off again on 4/24 Wisconsin's cases went from around 100-200 a day to around 300-400 today and has maintained that same spread since.

IMO it's looking more and more like something systemically changed in their testing (likely more tests).

Deaths have still seen no increase or spike despite the increase in cases occurring over 2 weeks ago.

We will be much more certain in another week but preliminary results seem to be showing that your confirmed cases are going up for a reason other than more people getting sick with covid-19.

I predict that Wisconsin is going to make a great case study for why rising confirmed case numbers by themselves aren't indicative of more people getting sick.

[votivesoul]

But they don't do full autopsies on most covid deaths. They don't do full autopsies on most deaths in the country. It's a very small fraction that have an autopsy performed. So I still have no idea why a 6 week delay on less than 1% of the deaths would have a meaningful impact on the numbers.

I mean most people from death to burial isn't even a full week apart...

Quantity of autopsies or timeframe from death to burial isn't relevant here. Cause of death signed to certificates of death being nCOVID19 without autopsy means the actual cause of death remains uninvestigated, and therefore, guessed at.

You bring this out when you mention comorbidity. Was it kidney failure or nCOVID19? When comorbidity isn't studied and analyzed through autopsy, and only one cause of death, that being nCOVID19 is given, the statistics are automatically and immediately skewed and therefore unreliable.

[votivesoul]

Quantity of autopsies or timeframe from death to burial isn't relevant here. Cause of death signed to certificates of death being nCOVID19 without autopsy means the actual cause of death remains uninvestigated, and therefore, guessed at.

You bring this out when you mention comorbidity. Was it kidney failure or nCOVID19? When comorbidity isn't studied and analyzed through autopsy, and only one cause of death, that being nCOVID19 is given, the statistics are automatically and immediately skewed and therefore unreliable.

Ever hear of "angel of mercy/death" cases where a hospital worker murders patients and the cause of death is ruled natural due to whatever ailment the patient was suffering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_mercy_(criminology)

I make no claims, but in a completely warded off hospital room with people who are already allegedly dying, you don't suppose anyone is being murdered, do you?

I mean, some people have had their organs harvested before dying, so, put nothing past anyone.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hospital-errors-lead-to-dead-patient-opening-eyes-during-organ-harvesting/

[jfrog]

Quantity of autopsies or timeframe from death to burial isn't relevant here.

Then why did you bring up the 6 week timeframe?

Cause of death signed to certificates of death being nCOVID19 without autopsy means the actual cause of death remains uninvestigated, and therefore, guessed at.

I think you have an unrealistic view of how death reporting actually occurs. I think that's guiding you to claim there's something abnormal about covid-19 death reporting when there really isn't.

Most death certificates are produced without autopsy. The notion that covid-19 death reporting can't be accurate unless accompanied by a full autopsy for every case is absurd. It's neither consistent with how other death reporting is determined nor is it realistic to be able to do that.

Also of note:
You bring this out when you mention comorbidity. Was it kidney failure or nCOVID19? When comorbidity isn't studied and analyzed through autopsy, and only one cause of death, that being nCOVID19 is given, the statistics are automatically and immediately skewed and therefore unreliable.

I think you should read the actual cdc guidelines for reporting death.

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

Quick Summary:
Immediate Cause of Death = pneumonia
Underlying Cause of Death (UCOD) = covid-19

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.

Document also has some very good examples - do you disagree with any of those?

Ultimately, I think you have some bad assumptions about what death reporting actually looks like.

[votivesoul]

Then why did you bring up the 6 week timeframe?

The timeframe issue I said is irrelevant is the death to burial timeframe you brought up, that is, a matter of a few days or week. Needing up to 6 weeks for full autopsy results isn't irrelevant.

I think you have an unrealistic view of how death reporting actually occurs. I think that's guiding you to claim there's something abnormal about covid-19 death reporting when there really isn't.

Most death certificates are produced without autopsy. The notion that covid-19 death reporting can't be accurate unless accompanied by a full autopsy for every case is absurd. It's neither consistent with how other death reporting is determined nor is it realistic to be able to do that.

Also of note:


I think you should read the actual cdc guidelines for reporting death.

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

Quick Summary:
Immediate Cause of Death = pneumonia
Underlying Cause of Death (UCOD) = covid-19



Document also has some very good examples - do you disagree with any of those?

Ultimately, I think you have some bad assumptions about what death reporting actually looks like.

If nothing else was amiss about any of this, I wouldn't bring up death reporting at all, but when you factor in everything else, especially the governmental response, it is crucial that we have as accurate death rates as possible, because global policy is being decided on them and global economic meltdown is occurring because of them.

So, if most deaths don't receive autopsy, I'm not overly concerned. But with the response being what's it is, I should rather hope we wouldn't just trust a death certificate where the cause of death hasn't even been properly established by a pathologist. How many of these patients, particularly elderly who were already in poor health would have died within this timeframe without nCOVID19? No one knows. How many false negatives, false positives, over-reporting, under-reporting, lies, deceit, and misinformation going around in every direction? Ever-changing models that can't be relied on by anyone? People claiming they are being coerced and pushed into putting nCOVID19 on death certificates, legit medical practitioners, and scientists being censored and denied platform because they don't agree with or contradict the "official narrative"? Research scientist into nCOVID19 murdered the other day?

How many people per year die due to infections and diseases they get from going to the hospital for some other reason or die from malpractice just in the USA? Over 250,000/year, or 9.5% of total reported deaths. How many nCOVID19 deaths are due to malpractice or infectious diseases received in a hospital?

These are the questions no one can begin to answer without full autopsy reporting. I realize the time and cost make it impossible for every suspected death from nCOVID19 to be autopsied. But I also realize a lot of unnecessary action has been taken over the last few months that no one had any idea would actually work, and to this day, no one knows what is or isn't working. They are all guessing. Trying to do as many autopsies as humanly possible as quickly as possible might affect the data and bring about some sanity in all this madness, especially if nCOVID19 can be ruled out as the cause of death.

Until then, the news media just keeps throwing numbers out there, keeping the people enthralled to their terrors, regardless of how inaccurate those numbers actually are, and by definition, have to be, since they aren't being researched properly.

I mean, imagine reporting how many murders there have been in the USA since March 1, 2020, without any autopsies, just preliminary causes of death without any examination of the bodies. It would be unconscionable and no one would rely on those stats. And furthermore, no justice could truly be served.

That's why this matters.

And as far as the CDC website, you will notice that the CDC guidelines are for "provisional" coding, that is, certificates of death that have already been coded as nCOVID19.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

As such, the CDC is admitting that their data is already coming to them in a completed form, but that form is only provisional, that is, believed to be accurate without any way of actually knowing or proving, as far as the CDC is concerned, which may all change later.

[Jito463]

Quantity of autopsies or timeframe from death to burial isn't relevant here. Cause of death signed to certificates of death being nCOVID19 without autopsy means the actual cause of death remains uninvestigated, and therefore, guessed at.

You bring this out when you mention comorbidity. Was it kidney failure or nCOVID19? When comorbidity isn't studied and analyzed through autopsy, and only one cause of death, that being nCOVID19 is given, the statistics are automatically and immediately skewed and therefore unreliable.

If nothing else was amiss about any of this, I wouldn't bring up death reporting at all, but when you factor in everything else, especially the governmental response, it is crucial that we have as accurate death rates as possible, because global policy is being decided on them and global economic meltdown is occurring because of them.

So, if most deaths don't receive autopsy, I'm not overly concerned. But with the response being what's it is, I should rather hope we wouldn't just trust a death certificate where the cause of death hasn't even been properly established by a pathologist. How many of these patients, particularly elderly who were already in poor health would have died within this timeframe without nCOVID19?

:thumbsup

You know, jfrog, you remind me of one of my coworkers. He's absolutely convinced there's nothing untoward about the reporting of deaths from C19, and nothing I can say will sway him. In fact, you've even gone beyond him, by claiming they're potentially under reporting the deaths.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/014788c2a75ff6380650f34ca92e04df/tenor.gif

[jfrog]

:thumbsup

You know, jfrog, you remind me of one of my coworkers. He's absolutely convinced there's nothing untoward about the reporting of deaths from C19, and nothing I can say will sway him. In fact, you've even gone beyond him, by claiming they're potentially under reporting the deaths.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/014788c2a75ff6380650f34ca92e04df/tenor.gif

Everyone that dies at home without a test doesn’t get counted in the death totals whether they have Covid or not. That my friend is the definition of underreportong.

[jfrog]

The timeframe issue I said is irrelevant is the death to burial timeframe you brought up, that is, a matter of a few days or week. Needing up to 6 weeks for full autopsy results isn't irrelevant.

If they are dead and buried in 1 week then you aren’t waiting 6 weeks for an autopsy...

[Jito463]

Everyone that dies at home without a test doesn’t get counted in the death totals whether they have Covid or not. That my friend is the definition of underreportong.

I assume you have some evidence to back that claim up? I've never heard anyone else make that claim.

[jfrog]

I assume you have some evidence to back that claim up? I've never heard anyone else make that claim.

Then you need to expand your news sources.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/17/fact-check-covid-19-death-toll-likely-undercounted-not-overcounted/2973481001/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/coronavirus-new-york-city-struggles-to-get-accurate-fatality-count-as-more-people-die-at-home.htmll

https://whyy.org/articles/why-so-many-covid-19-deaths-in-pa-will-never-be-counted/

https://www.silive.com/coronavirus/2020/04/new-yorkers-dying-at-home-not-counted-in-covid-19-death-statistics.html

[jfrog]

If nothing else was amiss about any of this, I wouldn't bring up death reporting at all, but when you factor in everything else, especially the governmental response, it is crucial that we have as accurate death rates as possible, because global policy is being decided on them and global economic meltdown is occurring because of them.

We do. It's not feasible to do an autopsy on all the deceased. Your solution isn't realistic. I would argue that at this point we could test every person that dies and was probable for covid-19.

So, if most deaths don't receive autopsy, I'm not overly concerned. But with the response being what's it is, I should rather hope we wouldn't just trust a death certificate where the cause of death hasn't even been properly established by a pathologist.

It's weird how you only point to factors that could decrease the deathcounts. There's a better case to be made that there's bigger factors that would increase the deathcounts. That's the biggest problem with your argument.

So do I think some deaths are being counted that shouldn't be. Yes we are overcounting some. Do I think we are not counting some that should be counted. Yes. We are likely counting many more in this category - thus leading to an overall undercounting of covid-19 deaths.

But more importantly - I don't believe we have a vastly more accurate methodology that would be realistic to implement. So you can talk about your perfect world scenarios till the cows come home - but we don't live in a perfect world.

So I think our data is as good as it can be and that overall it's pretty dang good. But I'm actually more concerned with anyone that wants covid-19 to start being counted differently than flu deaths or any other infectious death. I find it more important to have a consistent methodology between the flu and coronavirus deaths - and i actually find that more important than talking about all the ways data is never as perfect as we want it to be. Because if we have at least that then we can actually do apples to apples comparisons between the diseases.

How many of these patients, particularly elderly who were already in poor health would have died within this timeframe without nCOVID19? No one knows.

Exactly, but neither do we know how many died with Covid that were listed as dying of something else. It goes both ways - that's something to often forgotten in this search for factors to accommodate your predisposed worldview.

How many false negatives, false positives, over-reporting, under-reporting, lies, deceit, and misinformation going around in every direction?

I agree, which is precisely why you shouldn't worry as much about whether the methodology is 100% accurate - hint it never will be - but instead start asking yourself if the methodology is the same that's applied to other diseases?

Ever-changing models that can't be relied on by anyone?

Modeling a new disease and expecting perfect accuracy is a fools errand. I applaud them for trying - but you are right that the models themselves at this point are not proving accurate enough to rely on.

People claiming they are being coerced and pushed into putting nCOVID19 on death certificates,

Is that a normal or a one off situation? If it happened then we don't have any evidence it's actually pervasive. In which case the stats would still hold.

legit medical practitioners, and scientists being censored and denied platform because they don't agree with or contradict the "official narrative"?

I don't agree with youtube on that - but they made their stance clear and they currently have the power to make it happen - though I think this is evidence that maybe they shouldn't have that power... different discussion though.

Research scientist into nCOVID19 murdered the other day?

No idea what this is about. You really should post links to the stories you are talking about.

How many people per year die due to infections and diseases they get from going to the hospital for some other reason or die from malpractice just in the USA? Over 250,000/year, or 9.5% of total reported deaths. How many nCOVID19 deaths are due to malpractice or infectious diseases received in a hospital?

You really need to spell out your points better. I'm sure you have one - I'm just not sure what it is.

These are the questions no one can begin to answer without full autopsy reporting. I realize the time and cost make it impossible for every suspected death from nCOVID19 to be autopsied. But I also realize a lot of unnecessary action has been taken over the last few months that no one had any idea would actually work, and to this day, no one knows what is or isn't working.

Some might say that's what leaders do - make decisions with imperfect information. As we start loosening up restrictions we will start to learn what actually works. Judging by the responses and results to date of countries like Sweden - a full on lockdown was probably not neccessary. Or maybe it was - because we Americans tend to be a bit hard headed when it comes to the common good imposing on our individual good.

So you are right - we won't know for sure, but we will know relatively soon just how much social distancing if any is needed to fight this thing outside of the NYC's of the world.

They are all guessing. Trying to do as many autopsies as humanly possible as quickly as possible might affect the data and bring about some sanity in all this madness, especially if nCOVID19 can be ruled out as the cause of death.

IMO that's just a red herring request. It has next to no bearing or meaning. Say we did autopsies and managed to find 10% of the reported deaths weren't covid-19. Does that actually change the scale and magnitude of anything? Whether it's our current death count or 90% of it the numbers are still dirrectionally aligned. The fact is that if you were provided with autopsies you would find something else to demand because the results still wouldn't fit into your preconcevied worldview. You are so invested in it now that nearly no amount of evidence would change your mind.

Until then, the news media just keeps throwing numbers out there, keeping the people enthralled to their terrors, regardless of how inaccurate those numbers actually are, and by definition, have to be, since they aren't being researched properly.

The numbers are as accurate as they can be.

I mean, imagine reporting how many murders there have been in the USA since March 1, 2020, without any autopsies, just preliminary causes of death without any examination of the bodies. It would be unconscionable and no one would rely on those stats. And furthermore, no justice could truly be served.

Autopsies are done for murder cases so that justice can be served. Autopsies aren't done to ensure our murder stats are accurate. LOL. Imagine having to autopsy everyone that died before you would accept death statistics as meaningful. That's what is actually analagous to what you are suggesting and that would be absurd and unrealistic.

And as far as the CDC website, you will notice that the CDC guidelines are for "provisional" coding, that is, certificates of death that have already been coded as nCOVID19.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

As such, the CDC is admitting that their data is already coming to them in a completed form, but that form is only provisional, that is, believed to be accurate without any way of actually knowing or proving, as far as the CDC is concerned, which may all change later.

That's not actually what provisional means though. Provisional means there is the possibility those numbers could be changed later. Contrast that with completed or final. Provisional is true as death certificates can always be updated in light of new evidence - fairly rare though.

[jfrog]

@votivesoul - why didn't you speak you your agreement or disagreement of the cdc examples for UCOD on a death certificate?

[Jito463]

Then you need to expand your news sources.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/17/fact-check-covid-19-death-toll-likely-undercounted-not-overcounted/2973481001/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/coronavirus-new-york-city-struggles-to-get-accurate-fatality-count-as-more-people-die-at-home.htmll

https://whyy.org/articles/why-so-many-covid-19-deaths-in-pa-will-never-be-counted/

https://www.silive.com/coronavirus/2020/04/new-yorkers-dying-at-home-not-counted-in-covid-19-death-statistics.html

Oh, the quotes from the "experts" like this?

For example, she said some people who have died after having a heart attack but also exhibited Covid-19 symptoms might be missed in the official tally.

“Are there potentially cases where someone registered a death as a heart attack because the person hadn’t yet developed symptoms of Covid-19 and truly should have been categorized as a Covid probable?” she said. “I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to answer that question fully, but I think it’s something that still needs to be looked into further.”

People dying of heart attacks shouldn't be labeled as a C19 death. That's a good thing. Of course, that's assuming they're not already reporting them as such.

And what about this?

In New York City, the death toll increased by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday after officials revised counts to include people who were presumed to have had the virus even though the patients never tested positive.

Funny, that's exactly what I was saying all along. I'm glad you posted a link that supports my assertion. Good job. :thumbsup

Let's look at this:

Mocco said it’s possible that people are suffering strokes and staying at home out of fear of catching Covid-19 in the hospital, but they might already have the disease and it could even be a cause of the stroke.

It's possible? Maybe? Could be? Sounds like a lot of guessing and shoulder shrugging. That's not enough to convince me they're "under reporting" the numbers.

Then there's that last link you posted:

“Every person with a lab confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses is counted in the number of fatalities,” Department of Health spokesman Michael Lanza told Gothamist.

Not once in that article did they say that those deaths were not being reported as C19 related, they only said that confirmed cases were being reported. The headline makes it sound like they're not reporting them as such:

New Yorkers dying at home not counted in COVID-19 death statistics

But absolutely nothing in the article backs up that claim. The very first paragraph states:
New Yorkers who die at home are not being tested for COVID-19, even if they had flu- or coronavirus-like symptoms at the time of death, which is likely leading to a massive underreporting of COVID-19 fatalities.

They're not being tested. Okay, we knew that. However, they immediately made the leap in logic that they weren't being reported as C19 deaths. Is that confirmed? Doesn't appear so, based on their use of the word 'likely'. I again point you to the quote from one of your own links:

In New York City, the death toll increased by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday after officials revised counts to include people who were presumed to have had the virus even though the patients never tested positive.

Got any actual facts to back up your claim, or just a bunch of guesses and shrugged shoulders from "experts", who may or may not actually know what they're talking about. Not only can I link to facts like the CDC's own website, which shows their guidelines open the door for massive over reporting, but your own links actually bolster my case, while failing to support yours.

Unless you can show me some actual evidence that there's under reporting of deaths, you may as well give up trying, because you haven't shown me anything to change my opinion.

Now, is it possible that the numbers aren't inflated? Sure, it's possible. However, you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise, given how drunk on power some of these mayors/governors have been. They have a direct stake in keeping people in fear, because it gives them more power and control over We The People.

[jfrog]

Oh, the quotes from the "experts" like this?



People dying of heart attacks shouldn't be labeled as a C19 death. That's a good thing. Of course, that's assuming they're not already reporting them as such.

And what about this?



Funny, that's exactly what I was saying all along. I'm glad you posted a link that supports my assertion. Good job. :thumbsup

Let's look at this:



It's possible? Maybe? Could be? Sounds like a lot of guessing and shoulder shrugging. That's not enough to convince me they're "under reporting" the numbers.

Then there's that last link you posted:



Not once in that article did they say that those deaths were not being reported as C19 related, they only said that confirmed cases were being reported. The headline makes it sound like they're not reporting them as such:



But absolutely nothing in the article backs up that claim. The very first paragraph states:


They're not being tested. Okay, we knew that. However, they immediately made the leap in logic that they weren't being reported as C19 deaths. Is that confirmed? Doesn't appear so, based on their use of the word 'likely'. I again point you to the quote from one of your own links:



Got any actual facts to back up your claim, or just a bunch of guesses and shrugged shoulders from "experts", who may or may not actually know what they're talking about. Not only can I link to facts like the CDC's own website, which shows their guidelines open the door for massive over reporting, but your own links actually bolster my case, while failing to support yours.

Unless you can show me some actual evidence that there's under reporting of deaths, you may as well give up trying, because you haven't shown me anything to change my opinion.

Now, is it possible that the numbers aren't inflated? Sure, it's possible. However, you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise, given how drunk on power some of these mayors/governors have been. They have a direct stake in keeping people in fear, because it gives them more power and control over We The People.

Every single one of those articles talks about people dying in their homes without being tested and not counting in the death totals.

Take these quotes from those articles:

Instead, many experts say the nation is likely amid an undercount of the death toll due to the disease due to factors like false negatives on tests, a lack of testing and people who have died in their homes without receiving a positive test.

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- New Yorkers who die at home are not being tested for COVID-19, even if they had flu- or coronavirus-like symptoms at the time of death, which is likely leading to a massive underreporting of COVID-19 fatalities.

But it's not like I'm trying to convince you as you are so far ingrained that no evidence would suffice. Instead I'm listing this for the more unbiased readers out there.

[jfrog]

Also of particular note from those articles:

However, just because a person has tested positive for COVID-19 doesn’t mean his or her death will be automatically ruled as stemming from the disease, said Dr. Sally Aiken, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners.
For instance, if a woman ingested something poisonous to take her own life and also had tested positive for the disease, her death would not be attributed to the virus.
“If we determine it to be a suicidal ingestion, we would certify the death as an intoxication/suicide,” she said in an email. “COVID would not be on the death certificate.”

Debunks the claim that anyone and everyone that dies having tested positive is being included in the death count.

[Jito463]

Every single one of those articles talks about people dying in their homes without being tested and not counting in the death totals.

No, every one of those articles says that "maybe" they're not being counted. Perhaps you should read the articles, and not just the headlines.

Dr. Jason Farley, a professor of nursing and a nurse practitioner in the division of infectious diseases the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and medicine, said New York's example shows the overall number of COVID-19 deaths is likely an undercount, not an overcount.

Likely. In other words, he doesn't know.

The official count could also be missing patients who suffered from other illnesses.

Could. In other words, they don't know.

Mocco said it’s possible

Possible. In other words, they don't know. They're guessing.

The state makes the final determination about what to count — and officials now say they won’t record deaths as COVID-19 without a test.

Some good news. PA is reportedly no longer counting unconfirmed cases of C19 as if they are, but note what the article says about that.

That puts Pennsylvania out of step with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines, which say that ideally testing for COVID–19 should be conducted, but that 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.”

In other words, they're saying PA is doing it wrong because they're only counting confirmed cases as being caused by C19. Yeah, this guy sounds trustworthy.

“If COVID is on the death certificate, in the best clinical opinion of the person filling that out, that’s a COVID death,” Noymer said. “And they’re just not counting it.”

This guy is upset because PA is restricting reporting to only lab confirmed cases. Boo hoo. And this despite the state still recording them as "probable" cases.

That is the category of patients being removed from the state’s official death tally and being placed into the “probable” category.

Now, on to the final article

which is likely leading to a massive underreporting of COVID-19 fatalities.

Likely. In other words, they don't know.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said he believes many of the citywide at-home deaths are COVID-19-related

So the mayor is a professional doctor? He believes it, so it must be true. That, or he's just guessing. I'm going with the latter.

Again, let me know if someone comes up with some proof, or at least a little bit more concrete than "I guess".

[Jito463]

Also of particular note from those articles:



Debunks the claim that anyone and everyone that dies having tested positive is being included in the death count.

I didn't say "anyone and everyone", you're once again twisting my words. Obviously, a guy who dies in a car accident with C19, isn't going to be reported as a C19 death. But what about someone who's dying from cancer and gets C19? How do you think they're going to report that death? Death from cancer, or death from C19?

[jfrog]

People dying of heart attacks shouldn't be labeled as a C19 death. That's a good thing. Of course, that's assuming they're not already reporting them as such.

Actually it's not a good thing. If Covid-19 led to the heart attack or stroke then they should be counted as Covid-19 deaths.

[jfrog]

But what about someone who's dying from cancer and gets C19? How do you think they're going to report that death? Death from cancer, or death from C19?

It would depend on the specific case.

It will be a pretty high bar to climb to rule it as cancer if the death followed one of the normal progressions of Covid-19. In that case it would and should be ruled Covid-19.

[jfrog]

I didn't say "anyone and everyone", you're once again twisting my words.

Did I quote you? Why do you presume I'm talking about you?

[jfrog]

No, every one of those articles says that "maybe" they're not being counted. Perhaps you should read the articles, and not just the headlines.

It was pretty common knowledge that only those with confirmed tests were being counted. Let me give you an article to show you when it changed.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/melanie-arter/cdc-now-counts-probable-covid-19-cases-have-not-been-confirmed-its

A probable case or death is defined as “meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing” for the coronavirus or “meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence or “meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed.”

“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,” the CDC website stated.

Let's go a little more in depth
“A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19,”

Do you believe people that die at home will be able to meet those criteria even when they die from Covid-19? Maybe in some cases, but not in many?

Essentially no one dying at home before this change in guidance in mid April got counted as a Covid-19 death (because they weren't testing dead people due to limited tests)

[jfrog]

Not only can I link to facts like the CDC's own website, which shows their guidelines open the door for massive over reporting

No you can't

[Esaias]

I didn't say "anyone and everyone", you're once again twisting my words. Obviously, a guy who dies in a car accident with C19, isn't going to be reported as a C19 death. But what about someone who's dying from cancer and gets C19? How do you think they're going to report that death? Death from cancer, or death from C19?

What about the drug overdose reported as COVID19?

The CDC guidelines for coding essentially encourages massive fraud. There is $$$$ in coding COVID19 deaths, $$$$ in sticking people on ventilators, $$$$ in claiming someone is "positive".

Speaking of which, the tests literally mean NOTHING. We've got goats and paw-paw fruits testing positive. 80% false negative rates. The inventor of the PCR was telling everyone for YEARS that it CANNOT DIAGNOSE INFECTION. Antibody positive tests results always meant you HAD it and beat it - until AIDS, Fauci, and Birx came along. Then science was jettisoned for $$$$ and now antibody positive means you are infected and a threat.

Total clown world, gene and brain damaging vaccine shots and GMO food poisoning have eradicated people's ability to think. Forget about critical thinking.

[Jito463]

No you can't

Well, then I guess I'll quote your own words back at you and we'll leave it at that.

But it's not like I'm trying to convince you as you are so far ingrained that no evidence would suffice. Instead I'm listing this for the more unbiased readers out there.

[Jito463]

There is $$$$ in coding COVID19 deaths, $$$$ in sticking people on ventilators, $$$$ in claiming someone is "positive".

:highfive

And therein lies a core reason I don't accept the "guesses" that we're under reporting. And not only is there money in it, but for would-be despots, there's power as well.

[jfrog]

Well, then I guess I'll quote your own words back at you and we'll leave it at that.

Nice deflection. I gave you a chance to support your claim and all you do is deflect. Nice try.

[Jito463]

Nice deflection. I gave you a chance to support your claim and all you do is deflect. Nice try.

You didn't request any information, you just shut down conversation with an absolute statement.

No you can't

You just can't stop twisting and manipulating the conversation to make yourself seem like the morally superior person, can you? :blah

You can post again and have the last word if you wish, but I think it's time this conversation dies. It's going nowhere fast.

[jfrog]

You didn't request any information, you just shut down conversation with an absolute statement.



You just can't stop twisting and manipulating the conversation to make yourself seem like the morally superior person, can you? :blah

You can post again and have the last word if you wish, but I think it's time this conversation dies. It's going nowhere fast.

You say: "Not only can I link to facts like the CDC's own website, which shows their guidelines open the door for massive over reporting"

I challenge you on that. Instead of providing the evidence you shut down the conversation.

Typical behavior of someone that can't back up their claims.

[jfrog]

Just an update on Wisconsin stats - still higher cases but still no more deaths.

[votivesoul]

Also of particular note from those articles:



Debunks the claim that anyone and everyone that dies having tested positive is being included in the death count.

But that would require one of those wait for up to six weeks toxicology autopsy reports. :hmmm

[jfrog]

But that would require one of those wait for up to six weeks toxicology autopsy reports. :hmmm

No idea what you are going on about.

[james34]

Here is a little more reason the media is referred to as Fake news,
https://www.foxnews.com/media/chuck-todd-meet-the-press-barr-flynn-edit

[mfblume]

From a Canadian up here who is sick of this socialism in my country, is it true that during Obama's admin that a law was passed allowing media to do whatever to allegedly protect patriotism, and that's when TWISTED news started out on steroids?

[Scott Pitta]

What specific law was that ??

[diakonos]

From a Canadian up here who is sick of this socialism in my country, is it true that during Obama's admin that a law was passed allowing media to do whatever to allegedly protect patriotism, and that's when TWISTED news started out on steroids?

No

[james34]

The Smith-Mundt Act was the main one, but it was neutered by the NDAA of 2013.

[mfblume]

The Smith-Mundt Act was the main one, but it was neutered by the NDAA of 2013.

ahhh

[Esaias]

From a Canadian up here who is sick of this socialism in my country, is it true that during Obama's admin that a law was passed allowing media to do whatever to allegedly protect patriotism, and that's when TWISTED news started out on steroids?

Our government was prohibited from running propaganda within the US directed at US citizens until the National Defense Authorization Act of I believe 2013 eliminated most of those protections. However, the government was running propaganda inside the US long before that. This even came up during Bush Jr's presidency at a press conference when he was questioned about.

It's not to "protect patriotism", it's to manage the population in the direction the government wants. The scope was laid out in Colonel Michael Aquino's paper titled "Mindwar" which presented a proposed new form and strategy for military propaganda. This was back in the 80s or early 90s I believe. The paper can be found on the internet, by the way. Under various NDAA's and executive orders and laws the continental US was declared part of the operational battlespace of the Global War On Terror. This created US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). Military doctrine requires the use of propaganda in the battlespace, so it naturally follows that such operations would be legalized (they obviously were).

[Scott Pitta]

Journalism is protected by the First Amendment and due to international journalism, any attempts at silencing journalists is impossible.

[Monterrey]

We had 2 services Sunday, had 1 new convert receive the Holy Ghost. AWESOME church.

[hometown guy]

We had 2 services Sunday, had 1 new convert receive the Holy Ghost. AWESOME church.

Praise God!!!

[mfblume]

It's not to "protect patriotism", it's to manage the population in the direction the government wants.

Exactly. But I heard that was the title they were using, or something to that effect.

The scope was laid out in Colonel Michael Aquino's

MICHAEL AQUINO????? Is not that same Aquino guy a satanist in the military??? I recall Geraldo Rivera interviewing him in the 70's and he was a chaplain for the temple of Set (Satan), or similar?


paper titled "Mindwar" which presented a proposed new form and strategy for military propaganda.

[Esaias]

Exactly. But I heard that was the title they were using, or something to that effect.



MICHAEL AQUINO????? Is not that same Aquino guy a satanist in the military??? I recall Geraldo Rivera interviewing him in the 70's and he was a chaplain for the temple of Set (Satan), or similar?

Yes, the very same Michael Aquino who was also involved in a child abuse scandal that involved a lot of weird things like underground tunnels, a day care center, and a bunch of other government spooks. He led a splinter group out of LaVey's Church of Satan.

And he provided direction for the development of psychological operations doctrine for the
Pentagon.

[mfblume]

Yes, the very same Michael Aquino who was also involved in a child abuse scandal that involved a lot of weird things like underground tunnels, a day care center, and a bunch of other government spooks. He led a splinter group out of LaVey's Church of Satan.

And he provided direction for the development of psychological operations doctrine for the
Pentagon.

Absolute insanity!

[votivesoul]

No idea what you are going on about.

Gaslight someone else, dude.

[jfrog]

Gaslight someone else, dude.

I wasn't. You weren't making any sense.

[votivesoul]

I wasn't. You weren't making any sense.

Then the memory of your own postings must be pretty short.

You posted a quote from a source indicating that if someone ingested a poison or drug of some kind, their death would not be listed as a nCOVID19 death. Prior to that, you and I went back and forth about the need for autopsy results to generate more accurate death counts.

But there is no way to determine if someone ingested a poison or drug of some sort and died from it unless and until an autopsy is performed, and the typical six-weeks to complete toxicology report is generated, meaning, that for that amount of time, the cause of death is undetermined. So, how can the person in your source quote say they wouldn't list nCOVID19 as the cause of death if they don't even know the cause and wouldn't know the cause for up to six weeks?

Hence my comment.

[votivesoul]

Here's what I mean. In the following post:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1587811&postcount=63

You quote a source stating:

For instance, if a woman ingested something poisonous to take her own life and also had tested positive for the disease, her death would not be attributed to the virus.
“If we determine it to be a suicidal ingestion, we would certify the death as an intoxication/suicide,” she said in an email. “COVID would not be on the death certificate.”

You even put the quote in bold text. In order to certify the death was due to suicidal ingestion, it would require an autopsy with a full toxicology report. But in the meantime, if the person in question had tested positive for the virus, what do you suppose is going to go on the death certificate while they don't bother doing an autopsy?

[Esaias]

"For instance, if a woman ingested something poisonous to take her own life and also had tested positive for the disease, her death would not be attributed to the virus.
“If we determine it to be a suicidal ingestion, we would certify the death as an intoxication/suicide,” she said in an email. “COVID would not be on the death certificate.” "

Problem, such things have in fact happened, as I have posted the news articles already. Not to mention the DOCTORS THEMSELVES that have have come forward stating they are being TOLD to list COVID19 as cause of death even when such is not warranted. I already posted the new revised CDC coding guidelines that reflect this.

The stats are literally completely meaningless. Might as well just use state lottery numbers to determine how many cases, deaths, etc there are.

[Esaias]

Yeah... It's all about a terrible virus that threatens the world, and all they want to do is save da chirrenz...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnCuJZM4_xc

[Esaias]

150 doctors agree 2nd wave is planned in order to bring in forced vaccinations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O7GeYHYZQg

[jfrog]

Here's what I mean. In the following post:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1587811&postcount=63

You quote a source stating:



You even put the quote in bold text. In order to certify the death was due to suicidal ingestion, it would require an autopsy with a full toxicology report.

I agree so far.

But in the meantime, if the person in question had tested positive for the virus, what do you suppose is going to go on the death certificate while they don't bother doing an autopsy?

Unless there's a preliminary reason to believe it may have been poisonous ingestion or something else that requires an autopsy then why would they do an autopsy?

If someone has tested positive for the virus and died in a manner consistent with the virus while no evidence exists that it was something other than the virus then it should be marked as covid-19 with no autopsy needed. That's the consistent handling for every other type of death.

Instead what you are advocating for is a bunch of criteria that are either very difficult to impossible to implement (autopsy every death) and/or that will not be consistent between covid-19 deaths and other deaths (other deaths from diseases don't get automatic autopsy confirmation). The issue is that both of these stances will result in covid-19 deaths that will be lower in comparison to other diseases than the proper statistics would otherwise show.

The only way your stance makes sense is if you've already accepted the conspiracy theory that covid-19 deaths are being artificially inflated on a mass scale that will be significant enough to matter. (Consider this: For example a 10% inflation for whatever reason really doesn't change anything. a 90% inflation would move the needle. But even a 50% inflation isn't really going to change the overall story.) Also, as soon as one abandons the premise of vastly overinflated covid-19 death counts for conspiracy reasons then it's pretty obvious that what they are doing is a good way of getting the numbers - even if it's not 100% perfect (nothing ever is).

[votivesoul]

I agree so far.



Unless there's a preliminary reason to believe it may have been poisonous ingestion or something else that requires an autopsy then why would they do an autopsy?

If someone has tested positive for the virus and died in a manner consistent with the virus while no evidence exists that it was something other than the virus then it should be marked as covid-19 with no autopsy needed. That's the consistent handling for every other type of death.

Instead what you are advocating for is a bunch of criteria that are either very difficult to impossible to implement (autopsy every death) and/or that will not be consistent between covid-19 deaths and other deaths (other deaths from diseases don't get automatic autopsy confirmation). The issue is that both of these stances will result in covid-19 deaths that will be lower in comparison to other diseases than the proper statistics would otherwise show.

The only way your stance makes sense is if you've already accepted the conspiracy theory that covid-19 deaths are being artificially inflated on a mass scale that will be significant enough to matter. (Consider this: For example a 10% inflation for whatever reason really doesn't change anything. a 90% inflation would move the needle. But even a 50% inflation isn't really going to change the overall story.) Also, as soon as one abandons the premise of vastly overinflated covid-19 death counts for conspiracy reasons then it's pretty obvious that what they are doing is a good way of getting the numbers - even if it's not 100% perfect (nothing ever is).

Here's an article worth checking out:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdc-test-counting-error-leaves-141242313.html

Local and state officials have apparently conflated nCOVID19 diagnostic test results with serology test result numbers and sent them off to the CDC and epidemiologists are just finding this out. Nice.

[Esaias]

Washington officials admit to counting gunshot victims as COVID-19 deaths

https://disrn.com/news/washington-officials-admit-to-counting-gunshot-victims-as-covid-19-deaths

[Jito463]

Washington officials admit to counting gunshot victims as COVID-19 deaths

https://disrn.com/news/washington-officials-admit-to-counting-gunshot-victims-as-covid-19-deaths

So they admit this:
"We currently do have some deaths that are being reported that are clearly from other causes. We have about 5 deaths less than 5 deaths that we know of that are related to obvious other causes. In this case, they are from gunshot wounds," said Dr. Katie Hutchison, Health Statistics Manager for the Washington State Department of Health.
And they admit this:
The state is currently reviewing between 20 and 30 similar cases to understand what role — if any — coronavirus played in the deaths, Hutchison said, adding the process will take between six and 12 months
And they even admit this:
The state is currently counting anyone that dies with COVID-19 in its death toll.
And yet they still have the audacity to claim this:
"We suspect that we are actually more likely to be undercounting deaths than overcounting them," Hutchison said.
Unbelievable.
https://www.chartingyourfinancialfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/giphy-wiz-oz.gif

[Jito463]

Picture this:
During the lull of a pandemic, sweeping the globe and killing 100's of thousands of people worldwide, a large group of people decide to get together - with no social distancing, no masks and no quarantines - and hold a party. They're playing music, drinking and just generally enjoying themselves, with barely any room to move because there's so many of them bunched up together.

And what's worse, this is all an entirely true story.

Is this a right wing rally in defiance of lockdowns? No, it's Woodstock during the 1969 Honk Kong Flu (H3N2) pandemic, that killed over 100,000 Americans and more than 1 million worldwide.

Funny how we didn't lockdown then, despite the severity of the disease. In fact, in many ways it almost directly mirrors what's transpiring today, only with less government intrusion into our lives. But let's all don our masks and keep away from one another.

You know, for safety.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8320761/Woodstock-occurred-Hong-Kong-flu-pandemic-killed-1-million-people-worldwide-100-000-Americans.html

[Jito463]

A Nobel laureate from Stanford, has come out against the lockdowns, stating that they were a complete waste of time and caused more issues (and deaths) than they solved.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351649/Lockdown-waste-time-kill-saved-claims-Nobel-laureate.html

Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial scale of the pandemic, suggested the decision to keep people indoors was motivated by 'panic' rather than the best science.

Professor Levitt also said the modelling that caused the government to bring in the lockdown - carried out by Professor Neil Ferguson - over-estimated the death toll by '10 or 12 times'.

His claims echo those in a JP Morgan report that said lockdowns failed to alter the course of the pandemic but have instead 'destroyed millions of livelihoods'.

[Esaias]

Haha! April fool's! It was all a big "oopsie"!

"The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning."

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-coronavirus-death-rate-media/

[Steven Avery]

No, it's Woodstock during the 1969 Honk Kong Flu (H3N2) pandemic Healthy young people were barely affected, at least not to the leave of mortality, even less likely if given good, robust, non-hospital treatment. Personally, I never heard of one person who died from the Hong Kong Flu.

The same is largely true today. There are many more weakened and immunocompromised individuals today, due to the massive vaccination programs. (And junk, sugar-foods.)