Why did we lock down to begin with?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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/nati...-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]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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