Why did we lock down to begin with?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by 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_...y_(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/hospita...an-harvesting/

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

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]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

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?

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.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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.

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]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

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]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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/...ed/2973481001/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/coro...-at-home.htmll

https://whyy.org/articles/why-so-man...er-be-counted/

https://www.silive.com/coronavirus/2...tatistics.html

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

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.

U

ntil 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?