Coronainsanity

[byco42]

I don't know why they are still adding to this

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm

It starts the week of 1/4/2020 and goes through the week of 1/16/2021, so it's a little more than a year now. The total over that period (and the last 8 weeks will creep up in time) is 3,365,489.

Thanks. I see that the telling stat is "percent of expected deaths" There's still a 150,000-death discrepancy between COVID-related deaths and the total difference of 500,000. I wonder where that comes from. Or who died of COVID and who did with COVID.

And, the CDC is not clear on this, and is contradictory, IMO (bolded and underlined)

COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.​

Certifiers are asked to use their best medical judgment based on the available information and their expertise. When a definitive diagnosis cannot be made, but the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty, certifiers may include the terms “probable” or “presumed” in the cause-of-death statement.

Cause of Death and COVID-19

When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death.

Things to Know About Cause-of-Death Data Quality

Getting high quality cause-of-death information can be challenging, especially during emergencies. Certifiers may be faced with heavy workloads, may not have access to complete information about the death, or may not be well trained in how to prepare quality cause-of-death statements.

The quality of cause-of-death data depends on death certificates being complete and accurate.

Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific.

Accurate means reporting the correct conditions as causes of death.

Cause-of-death information is not perfect, but it is very useful. Current estimates indicate that about 20%-30% of death certificates have issues with completeness. This does not mean they are inaccurate. However, higher quality information can provide an even better picture of what is happening.​

A Venn Diagram would be useful here.

 

[Spartanmack]

The government has the power to pretty much destroy me any time they want, listen to all my communications, freeze my accounts on flimsy allegations of criminal behavior, arrest me pretty much whenever, and the police can shoot me and get away with it unless there's video evidence of them doing that... all these things have been true for years. But passing a "mask mandate" during a pandemic?

NOOOOOO!!!!! FREEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

Maybe you're new to DSF or you haven't been paying attention, but I don't recall anyone saying they're OK with the items on your list (at least the ones that are real), and only draw the line at mask wearing. Also, you realize they're not just mandating mask wearing, right? It's about a lot of other restrictions like curfews, lockdowns, shuttering businesses, etc. that also don't work.

 

[Michchamp]

Thanks. I see that the telling stat is "percent of expected deaths" There's still a 150,000-death discrepancy between COVID-related deaths and the total difference of 500,000. I wonder where that comes from. Or who died of COVID and who did with COVID.

And, the CDC is not clear on this, and is contradictory, IMO (bolded and underlined)

COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD?10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death ? or when it is listed as a ?probable? or ?presumed? cause ? the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.​

Certifiers are asked to use their best medical judgment based on the available information and their expertise. When a definitive diagnosis cannot be made, but the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty, certifiers may include the terms ?probable? or ?presumed? in the cause-of-death statement.

Cause of Death and COVID-19

When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death.

Things to Know About Cause-of-Death Data Quality

Getting high quality cause-of-death information can be challenging, especially during emergencies. Certifiers may be faced with heavy workloads, may not have access to complete information about the death, or may not be well trained in how to prepare quality cause-of-death statements.

The quality of cause-of-death data depends on death certificates being complete and accurate.

Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific.

Accurate means reporting the correct conditions as causes of death.

Cause-of-death information is not perfect, but it is very useful. Current estimates indicate that about 20%-30% of death certificates have issues with completeness. This does not mean they are inaccurate. However, higher quality information can provide an even better picture of what is happening.​

A Venn Diagram would be useful here.

Is any of this different from how they operated before COVID-19? I suppose that would be helpful to know.

I imagine diagnosing an illness, or cause of death, is somewhat subjective, and always has been.

Hell, I've had flu-like symptoms a couple times over the last couple years. Each time the test came back negative, and the doctor said "I am going to assume you have the flu."

Was this a huge conspiracy?

 

[Michchamp]

Maybe you're new to DSF or you haven't been paying attention, but I don't recall anyone saying they're OK with the items on your list (at least the ones that are real), and draw the line at mask wearing. By the way, you realize they're not just mandating mask wearing, right? It's about a lot of other restrictions like curfews, lockdowns, shuttering businesses, etc. that also don't work.

These restrictions "don't work" in the same way locking your front door doesn't work when you leave the window next to it wide open.


And regardless, I don't view them as the huge threat to "my freedom" that you do, since there's a fucking pandemic going on and they are measures intended to mitigate it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Thanks. I see that the telling stat is "percent of expected deaths" There's still a 150,000-death discrepancy between COVID-related deaths and the total difference of 500,000. I wonder where that comes from. Or who died of COVID and who did with COVID.

A Venn Diagram would be useful here.

When I posted about the 3.3 million the 1st time, I thought the remaining difference to explain was more like 70,000. But it's going to be way more complicated than that and it's going to involve papers with models and probability. I expect deaths from flu and auto accidents to be down and suicide to be up. I think there will be effects all over the place due to the crazy shifts resulting from lockdowns and behavior changes. Desparate people commit more crime too. But one point I don't find to be valid is the comparison of how many did die of covid compared to how many died due to our reaction to covid. That's not a trade off where we can compare one to the other directly. If we had not changed our behavior (theoretically saving however many additional people committed suicide), covid would have killed more. Alternately, if we had masked up earlier and/or locked down more aggressively, it would have killed less, but maybe they would have been positive impacts elsewhere. Estimating what those trade offs might have been is difficult and probably not persuasive to people that don't even believe the way things are counted to begin with.

 

[Spartanmack]

my guess is there have probably been some cases where someone old died and they blamed it on COVID. I do believe that some hospitals might be lazy and put COVID on the death certificate because...well, they are overwhelmed with COVID patients. So, the "official" death count is 408K. Let's say that 20% aren't really from COVID...that's still 325K. That still seems like a real problem to me.

I also think that COVID cases are significantly under reported. Last I heard it was 23M people in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if there were up to double that number that have been infected but most didn't have any signs or symptoms.

not just overwhelmed - financially incentivized to put COVID on the death certificate.

My understanding is the overwhelming majority of the people who died were both elderly and infirmed, followed by the elderly or infirmed. I agree and think most would that 325k is a real problem but it's important to have both an accurate count and an analysis of that count. So how much of this is due to mismanagement - like governors forcing nursing homes to take COVID positive patients and exposing the most vulnerable of our population. And how much of this was "demand pull" for lack of a better term - how many of those people were dying a slow death and COVID cut their life short by 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? I'm not saying that to be cruel or indifferent to elderly infirmed people but it's important to know when evaluating the actions taken. Did we need to lock everyone down instead of quarantining the sick and the vulnerable (elderly sick people)? The unintended consequences of these actions are significant - increased suicide, did people with potentially greater life expectencies and quality of life die because they were denied treatments? Did we need to destroy the economy?

 

[Gulo Blue]

We are still learning what the long term effects of covid in healthy people are. We definitely didn't know back when these decisions were being made. It's kind of obvious to try to at the very least, do your best allowing and restricting things according to risk/reward - meaning covid caution/economic activity - while you figure things out. But we couldn't even do that without crybabies complaining about how they shouldn't even be restricted from doing things that barely contribute to the economy.

How much does it hurt the economy if you wear a mask?

 

[Spartanmack]

These restrictions "don't work" in the same way locking your front door doesn't work when you leave the window next to it wide open.

According to you but not according to the results or a recently released study

And regardless, I don't view them as the huge threat to "my freedom" that you do, since there's a fucking pandemic going on and they are measures intended to mitigate it.

yeah, nobody doubts you view it that way.

 

[byco42]

Is any of this different from how they operated before COVID-19? I suppose that would be helpful to know.

I imagine diagnosing an illness, or cause of death, is somewhat subjective, and always has been.

Hell, I've had flu-like symptoms a couple times over the last couple years. Each time the test came back negative, and the doctor said "I am going to assume you have the flu."

Was this a huge conspiracy?

MC, someone with your discriminating mind should be able to discern that there are people who want to rule the planet and control its resources for their own benefits. This is nothing new...it goes back centuries, and I can offer a legion of books that demonstrate this. Their emissaries are also legion and they are the ones who are telling is "we're all in this together," "it's for our own good" and other like platitudes.

All these people are in the "Club".

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”​

David Rockefeller, from his 2002 memoirs.

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”​

US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, July 20 1992.

“The dirty little secret is that both houses of congress are irrelevant. America’s domestic policy is now being run by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. America’s foreign policy is now being run by the International Monetary Fund. When the President decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from congress.”​

US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, January 7 1999.

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”​

David Rockefeller, to UN Business Conference, 1991.

“Somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.”​

David Rockefeller, Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”​

US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”​

US National Security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski.

 

[Spartanmack]

We are still learning what the long term effects of covid in healthy people are. We definitely didn't know back when these decisions were being made. It's kind of obvious to try to at the very least, do your best allowing and restricting things according to risk/reward - meaning covid caution/economic activity - while you figure things out. But we couldn't even do that without crybabies complaining about how they shouldn't even be restricted from doing things that barely contribute to the economy.

How much does it hurt the economy if you wear a mask?

the economy was absolutely decimated, millions of jobs were lost, families were destroyed in many ways, people died because of the measures taken - and the virus still spread and was even worse in places with the most restrictive measures. People aren't just bitching about masks - it's absurd to label them crybabies, especially when many of them are talking about the evidence that suggests, like lockdowns, they also may not be effective.

 

[Gulo Blue]

the economy was absolutely decimated, millions of jobs were lost, families were destroyed in many ways, people died because of the measures taken - and the virus still spread and was even worse in places with the most restrictive measures. To boil this down to people bitching about masks is absurd - especially when many of them are talking about the evidence that suggests, like lockdowns, they also may not be effective.

If anyone on this board is incapable of boiling something down with any degree of accuracy, it's you.

I suspect there's a lot of overlap between places that implemented the most restrictive lockdowns and places with a higher proportion of idiots that didn't take the risk seriously, or made a political point not to.

 

[Michchamp]

MC, someone with your discriminating mind should be able to discern that there are people who want to rule the planet and control its resources for their own benefits. This is nothing new...it goes back centuries, and I can offer a legion of books that demonstrate this. Their emissaries are also legion and they are the ones who are telling is "we're all in this together," "it's for our own good" and other like platitudes.

All these people are in the "Club".

?Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ?internationalists? and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure ? one world if you will. If that?s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.?​

David Rockefeller, from his 2002 memoirs.

?In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn?t such a great idea after all.?​

US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, July 20 1992.

?The dirty little secret is that both houses of congress are irrelevant. America?s domestic policy is now being run by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. America?s foreign policy is now being run by the International Monetary Fund. When the President decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from congress.?​

US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, January 7 1999.

?We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.?​

David Rockefeller, to UN Business Conference, 1991.

?Somebody has to take governments? place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.?​

David Rockefeller, Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.

?Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.?​

US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

?The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.?​

US National Security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski.

I'm not doubting these people think they rule the world, and believe they and their ilk will be able to rule it under one authority sometime this century... and I'm not saying there aren't people profiting off and using the pandemic to enrich themselves and further their power.

I just don't see how overstating COVID-19 deaths and the severity of the pandemic - as you claim - furthers any of the people you cited and American businesses' goals.

It makes the US government (and its people), look dumb and incompetent on the world stage, and also callous - if not cruel - and they (and all US based corporations) still need the US government to further their reach.

David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzenski (however its spelled) and Strobe Talbot might have a lot of sway in North America, Europe, and parts of the rest of the world, but not in Moscow, or Beijing. Or FWIW Havana or Hanoi...

 

[tomdalton22]

not just overwhelmed - financially incentivized to put COVID on the death certificate.

My understanding is the overwhelming majority of the people who died were both elderly and infirmed, followed by the elderly or infirmed. I agree and think most would that 325k is a real problem but it's important to have both an accurate count and an analysis of that count. So how much of this is due to mismanagement - like governors forcing nursing homes to take COVID positive patients and exposing the most vulnerable of our population. And how much of this was "demand pull" for lack of a better term - how many of those people were dying a slow death and COVID cut their life short by 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? I'm not saying that to be cruel or indifferent to elderly infirmed people but it's important to know when evaluating the actions taken. Did we need to lock everyone down instead of quarantining the sick and the vulnerable (elderly sick people)? The unintended consequences of these actions are significant - increased suicide, did people with potentially greater life expectencies and quality of life die because they were denied treatments? Did we need to destroy the economy?

I agree with you on most of your points. It has been a cluster fuck from day one.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not doubting these people think they rule the world, and believe they and their ilk will be able to rule it under one authority sometime this century... and I'm not saying there aren't people profiting off and using the pandemic to enrich themselves and further their power.

If we really cared, we'd have a movement the size of the Q Anon followers all obsessed with picking apart the Panama papers instead of anonymous clues about the rank and file gov employees being deep state.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So how much of this is due to mismanagement - like governors forcing nursing homes to take COVID positive patients and exposing the most vulnerable of our population.

Are we still doing that? Because deaths are higher now.

 

[Michchamp]

If we really cared, we'd have a movement the size of the Q Anon followers all obsessed with picking apart the Panama papers instead of anonymous clues about the rank and file gov employees being deep state.

If you actually investigated something real like the Panama Papers, you'd be a journalist, and journalists are members of the media, and the media is bad!

and beyond that... the people that have hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars in tax shelters and off-shore havens, are not nice people and you will face personal consequences for investigating them. That's scary!

Better to go online and play make believe and follow "clues" and go after random stiffs on the street who aren't in a position to fight back like the rich and powerful are. it's more fun!

 

[Spartanmack]

If anyone on this board is incapable of boiling something down with any degree of accuracy, it's you.

I suspect there's a lot of overlap between places that implemented the most restrictive lockdowns and places with a higher proportion of idiots that didn't take the risk seriously, or made a political point not to.

Do you have a link that shows what you suspect is more than mere suspicion? Because we have data that shows states w/ the most restrictive lockdowns (NY, NJ, MI, MA, CA, etc) were among the worst states in terms of cases and deaths and I'm not aware of any heavily locked down states that had notably better outcomes.

The fact that people are concerned that the "cure" may be worse than the virus, particularly since the "cure" isn't proven to be effective doesn't mean they don't care - you don't have the moral high ground here just because you're OK forcing people to do things that might not be helping.

 

[Spartanmack]

Are we still doing that? Because deaths are higher now.

still having trouble boiling things down with any degree of accuracy, I see.

But since you ask...Are you saying it no longer matters because people continued to get the virus and die from it? Should we not hold people accountable? Is it not OK to question anything else they've done because the deaths didn't stop there? I will absolutely continue to question anything these people do based on the outcomes of the decisions they've made thus far. If you want to give them a pass, and trust everything they prescribe, you're free to do that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Do you have a link that shows what you suspect is more than mere suspicion? Because we have data that shows states w/ the most restrictive lockdowns (NY, NJ, MI, MA, CA, etc) were among the worst states in terms of cases and deaths and I'm not aware of any heavily locked down states that had notably better outcomes.

The fact that people are concerned that the "cure" may be worse than the virus, particularly since the "cure" isn't proven to be effective doesn't mean they don't care - you don't have the moral high ground here just because you're OK forcing people to do things that might not be helping.

If you were held to this standard you'd never post again.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Are you saying

What have I said a million time about your posts that start like this? Let's see if you can answer your own question.