Ok, that's it. I just saw the stupidest thing ever!

[Gunbuffer]

I touched myself today. Covid19 made me do it

 

[okierider]

I touched myself today. Covid19 made me do it

 

[Gunbuffer]

Not devinyls, decovid

 

[Aries]

Not devinyls, decovid

What deheck you say??

 

[TerryMiller]

That article is kind of a bit on the dumb side. It says:
Host Laura Ingraham read Jensen the guidelines, which say: "In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed.'"

and then later on says:
Jensen then told Ingraham that under the CDC guidelines, a patient who died after being hit by a bus and tested positive for coronavirus would be listed as having presumed to have died from the virus regardless of whatever damage was caused by the bus.

So what about the guideline quoted says to list the cause of death as Covid versus "blunt force trauma from getting hit by a bus". Even then, the quote makes no sense because (in theory) testing for Covid should actually result in a definite "positive" or "negative". But again, the actual guideline as quoted doesn't say to not list the COD as Covid because of the bus. It does seem to indicate that if a patient was experiencing all the checkmark symptoms of Covid before death, and there's no other definite reason, then it is up to the ME/Doctor to make a determination and it would be "acceptable" to list it as such. It doesn't even say it's "required" to list it. It simply says acceptable because I would think that the CDC thinking is that most Doctors are big boys and girls that can use the matter between their ears.

I think the implication of all this is that hospital administrators would be the ones that would actually be requesting the doctors to list a cause of death as Covid-19. After all, there is a monetary advantage to that. As for the CDC guidelines, who of us here would know what all of those are? I certainly don't, and to add to that, what are the guidelines from Medicare, since they would be the ones that were paying out for the diagnosed disease?

 

[SMS]

I think the implication of all this is that hospital administrators would be the ones that would actually be requesting the doctors to list a cause of death as Covid-19. After all, there is a monetary advantage to that. As for the CDC guidelines, who of us here would know what all of those are? I certainly don't, and to add to that, what are the guidelines from Medicare, since they would be the ones that were paying out for the diagnosed disease?

...and the CDC data on excess deaths since March doesn't support anyone's claim that is happening. I've still yet to see a credible claim from someone that falsification or exaggeration of COVID as the cause of death is happening in any statistically significant quantity.

 

[BobbyV]

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/22/mandy-cohen/covid-19-americas-leading-cause-death/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/16/coronavirus-leading-cause-death/?arc404=true


I don't know that we'll have any concrete data about leading causes of death until annual data can be collected and reviewed.

 

[BobbyV]

https://www.conservativereview.com/...onavirus-fatality-rate-outside-nursing-homes/

A portion of this article is below . . .

To begin with, the media and politicians are still promoting high overall infection fatality rates (IFR), such as the World Health Organization’s estimate of 3.4%. But we’ve seen enough random sampling from serological antibody tests, corroborated by hard data from prisons and navy ships, to demonstrate that the virus spread earlier, wider, and more asymptomatically than previously thought, thereby driving the fatality rate much lower. A new analysis averaging all the major antibody tests indicates that the average overall fatality rate (including nursing home deaths) is 0.2%. Why have our policies not been updated to reflect that reality?

This week, Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis published a preprint (before peer review) analysis averaging the fatality rates reflected in the extrapolation of all the serology tests with a sample size larger than 500 and that were randomly sampled (as opposed to health care workers). These tests measure the seroprevalence – the prevalence of antibodies for the virus in a given population – through some degree of random sampling.

Based on these random samples, the Stanford professor of medicine, epidemiology, biomedical data science, and statistics concluded that the fatality rate ranges from 0.02% to 0.40%. That is a range of seven times less deadly or 2.8 times more deadly than seasonal influenza.

The mean IFR is 0.2%, right around the result we saw from the first U.S. serology studies in Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and Miami Dade Counties. That is 17 times less deadly than what the World Health Organization originally predicted and 4.5 times less deadly than the Imperial College study assumed!

 

[Dale00]

It is likely we are all stumbling around in the dark and hollering whenever we stub a toe. Our information comes to us from reporters and UTubers who are hungry to latch onto something to confirm their bias. Meanwhile the medical researchers themselves are not immune to political pressure.
All I know is there is a train track out there in the dark somewhere and people doing something the wrong way are getting plowed down in places like New York City. We can hope and pray we don't experience here what they went through there. What bothers me is that some of us here reject the danger entirely and proudly proclaim that it's a farce or so minor that it isn't worth worrying over. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

 

[The Scribe]

Conspiracy theories aren’t actually theories. They are conspiracies. This whole covid BS is just that. And the lock down is about the election, not the virus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk