DrEvil » 28 Apr 2021 14:28 You've repeatedly claimed to not know the real death toll of the virus, but here you claim it's about the same, or slightly worse than the flu (assuming that by 'virulent' you mean 'death toll', otherwise the comparison in meaningless). The flu has statistics going back ages (35K dead on average the last ten years), so now you do have a pretty good idea after all?
Lets say it's like a really bad flu season and put the death toll at 100K. That leaves just under half a million extra dead not accounted for. Can you break down what killed them, or if you believe the number is bogus, can you supply the real one?
Since stickdog brought Evil's comment back up, I want to reiterate that this is misrepresentation on Evil's part: I HAVE, a number of times, touched precisely on this topic, and shared charts, and articles, as well as my own thoughts, on inflated/misleading death statistics related to Covid. I am NOT going to repeat them all for your benefit. If this was a topic of true interest to you, YOU would do your OWN due diligence on it, AS I HAVE. Expecting a precise/specific figure is disingenuous, as it's simply not achievable. An approximation can be gleaned, however, which is what I've provided in a number of instances, backed by data points/sources.
I just think that we all need to carefully consider the fact that the age of mortality of supposed COVID-19 victims is basically the normal age of mortality when considering whether certain obviously deleterious authoritarian responses to COVID-19 actually confer more benefit than harm.
Basically, a very real and potentially deadly threat has been overblown in the familiar Shock Doctrine manner to further erode our rights and to further enrich our oligarchs. And IMHO, far too few people have questioned and protested against many clearly deleterious and scientifically unsupportable authoritarian overreaches due to a potent combination of state and corporate propaganda, blind worship of medical "science" experts, inherent fear of disease and mortality, and especially a misguided sense of self-sacrifice as a result of our sincere compassion for others, especially the most vulnerable.
To make an obvious analogy, that real planes actually hit the World Trade Center towers resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent lives does justify a never-ending War on Terror. Our collective acceptance of clearly outsized and clearly detrimental responses to real tragedies can and often cause far more harm than do the real tragedies themselves.
Precisely. Well-stated.
LOL. Except for the missing NOT in the second to last sentence.
DrEvil » 28 Apr 2021 14:28 You've repeatedly claimed to not know the real death toll of the virus, but here you claim it's about the same, or slightly worse than the flu (assuming that by 'virulent' you mean 'death toll', otherwise the comparison in meaningless). The flu has statistics going back ages (35K dead on average the last ten years), so now you do have a pretty good idea after all?
Lets say it's like a really bad flu season and put the death toll at 100K. That leaves just under half a million extra dead not accounted for. Can you break down what killed them, or if you believe the number is bogus, can you supply the real one?
Since stickdog brought Evil's comment back up, I want to reiterate that this is misrepresentation on Evil's part: I HAVE, a number of times, touched precisely on this topic, and shared charts, and articles, as well as my own thoughts, on inflated/misleading death statistics related to Covid. I am NOT going to repeat them all for your benefit. If this was a topic of true interest to you, YOU would do your OWN due diligence on it, AS I HAVE. Expecting a precise/specific figure is disingenuous, as it's simply not achievable. An approximation can be gleaned, however, which is what I've provided in a number of instances, backed by data points/sources.
Yes, you have shared a veritable torrent of charts and articles, yet you seem unable to answer one simple question: what, in your estimation, is the true death toll of covid in the US? You say an approximation can be gleaned, so what is it? One ballpark number or range, that's all I'm asking for.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
DrEvil » 28 Apr 2021 14:28 You've repeatedly claimed to not know the real death toll of the virus, but here you claim it's about the same, or slightly worse than the flu (assuming that by 'virulent' you mean 'death toll', otherwise the comparison in meaningless). The flu has statistics going back ages (35K dead on average the last ten years), so now you do have a pretty good idea after all?
Lets say it's like a really bad flu season and put the death toll at 100K. That leaves just under half a million extra dead not accounted for. Can you break down what killed them, or if you believe the number is bogus, can you supply the real one?
Since stickdog brought Evil's comment back up, I want to reiterate that this is misrepresentation on Evil's part: I HAVE, a number of times, touched precisely on this topic, and shared charts, and articles, as well as my own thoughts, on inflated/misleading death statistics related to Covid. I am NOT going to repeat them all for your benefit. If this was a topic of true interest to you, YOU would do your OWN due diligence on it, AS I HAVE.
Expecting a precise/specific figure is disingenuous, as it's simply not achievable. An approximation can be gleaned, however, which is what I've provided in a number of instances, backed by data points/sources.
I have looked high and low for any data that could answer the most salient questions about the US COVID-19 crisis, such as:
1) what are the mortality rates of COVID-19 categorized deaths broken out age and by specific underlying conditions or lack of any underlying conditions?
2) what are the average ages of mortality of supposed COVID-19 deaths broken out by locality and/or specific underlying conditions or lack of any underlying conditions?
3) what are the hospitalization rates of COVID-19 positive patients broken out age and by specific underlying conditions or lack of all underlying conditions?
4) how does the outdoor transmission rate of COVID-19 compare to the indoor transmission rate of COVID-19, broken out by masking status?
5) how does does the asymptomatic transmission rate of COVID-19 compare to the symptomatic transmission rate of COVID-19, broken out by masking status and/or indoor/outdoor environments?
6) since vaccination efforts began, what are the overall average ages of mortality as well as overall hospital and mortality rates broken out by vaccination status as well as by specific vaccines?
7) since vaccination efforts began, what are the overall average ages of mortality of supposed COVID-19 victims as well as overall hospital and mortality rates of those who tested positive for COVID-19 broken out by vaccination status as well as by specific vaccines?
However, for some strange reason, none of these critically important data are available anywhere.
In fact, no matter how hard I search, I can find no clear data to buttress the assumptions of virtually everyone I know that mask and social distancing mandates, school and small business closures, bans on all human gatherings, hand and surface sanitation rituals. and policies that make basic humans rights contingent on vaccination status are inherently beneficial "common sense" responses to COVID-19 "because science."
Is it really too much to ask for these data before I join the unquestioning cult of the COVID faithful? If not, where can I find the data that can answer any of the salient questions that I outlined above?
DrEvil » 28 Apr 2021 14:28 You've repeatedly claimed to not know the real death toll of the virus, but here you claim it's about the same, or slightly worse than the flu (assuming that by 'virulent' you mean 'death toll', otherwise the comparison in meaningless). The flu has statistics going back ages (35K dead on average the last ten years), so now you do have a pretty good idea after all?
Lets say it's like a really bad flu season and put the death toll at 100K. That leaves just under half a million extra dead not accounted for. Can you break down what killed them, or if you believe the number is bogus, can you supply the real one?
Since stickdog brought Evil's comment back up, I want to reiterate that this is misrepresentation on Evil's part: I HAVE, a number of times, touched precisely on this topic, and shared charts, and articles, as well as my own thoughts, on inflated/misleading death statistics related to Covid. I am NOT going to repeat them all for your benefit. If this was a topic of true interest to you, YOU would do your OWN due diligence on it, AS I HAVE. Expecting a precise/specific figure is disingenuous, as it's simply not achievable. An approximation can be gleaned, however, which is what I've provided in a number of instances, backed by data points/sources.
Yes, you have shared a veritable torrent of charts and articles, yet you seem unable to answer one simple question: what, in your estimation, is the true death toll of covid in the US? You say an approximation can be gleaned, so what is it? One ballpark number or range, that's all I'm asking for.
Why is this all you are asking for? Why aren't you asking for any data that could conceivably answer any of the most salient questions about the cost and risk versus benefit of continuing various authoritarian COVID-19 response mandates that I outlined above?
DrEvil » 28 Apr 2021 14:28 You've repeatedly claimed to not know the real death toll of the virus, but here you claim it's about the same, or slightly worse than the flu (assuming that by 'virulent' you mean 'death toll', otherwise the comparison in meaningless). The flu has statistics going back ages (35K dead on average the last ten years), so now you do have a pretty good idea after all?
Lets say it's like a really bad flu season and put the death toll at 100K. That leaves just under half a million extra dead not accounted for. Can you break down what killed them, or if you believe the number is bogus, can you supply the real one?
Since stickdog brought Evil's comment back up, I want to reiterate that this is misrepresentation on Evil's part: I HAVE, a number of times, touched precisely on this topic, and shared charts, and articles, as well as my own thoughts, on inflated/misleading death statistics related to Covid. I am NOT going to repeat them all for your benefit. If this was a topic of true interest to you, YOU would do your OWN due diligence on it, AS I HAVE. Expecting a precise/specific figure is disingenuous, as it's simply not achievable. An approximation can be gleaned, however, which is what I've provided in a number of instances, backed by data points/sources.
Yes, you have shared a veritable torrent of charts and articles, yet you seem unable to answer one simple question: what, in your estimation, is the true death toll of covid in the US? You say an approximation can be gleaned, so what is it? One ballpark number or range, that's all I'm asking for.
Does it matter? Does my answer change what actually happened since 2020?
If we work with the CDC figures -- which I simply don't take at face value, but whatevs -- there's been an average range of 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually attributed to flu or flu-like illness since 2010. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
The 25 page report includes a Conclusion that echoes my earlier comment:
Arguing over what the most accurate COVID fatality count may be is an exercise in futility without intimate knowledge of case history and accompanying certificates of death, and it is the exact reason we entrust these determinations to the skill of our licensed professionals. With the inclusion of probable fatalities and significant changes made to how certificates of death are recorded exclusively for COVID-19, scientific objectivity demands that we acknowledge the data presented is inaccurate. Federal agencies have a legal obligation to provide the most accurate data to the public, fellow agencies, and policy makers they are advising, and they have a responsibility to abide by every federal law. This responsibility to collect,analyze, and publish data accurately, transparently, and with unquestionable integrity increases exponentially during a national crisis. It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis. Further federal investigation is justified by the magnitude of the crisis and the collateral damage generated by policies based upon projection data that was unproven and never peer reviewed. If the data being reported was indeed compromised by the CDC’s perplexing decision to abandon proven data collection and reporting practices in favor of untested methods, then all public health policies based upon these inaccurate data must be reexamined.
That about sums it up, doesn't it?
There are a number of charts in this report, but one of them displays the following:
Since the chart depicts data as of August 2020, a rough estimate places ACTUAL COVID IFR through ~April 2021 somewhere around the ~40K to ~50K range, roughly, which is an above-average flu season.
And lockdowns absolutely impacted excess mortality -- and by the way, 2020 was NOT the highest excess mortality of the 21st Century, nor the 2nd highest. I've touched on lockdown-related death causes numerous times, even in the last ~2-3 pages.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2020 not only didn’t have the highest mortality rate in the post war period, it didn't have the highest mortality rate in the 21st century either. 2020 ranked 9th, out of 20 consecutive years, for all cause mortality in England and Wales. It was the 11th least dangerous year in the last 50.
No it didn't. What it did have is the largest rate spike in 70 years ie a generation.
And what caused that rate spike, Joe? I -- and others -- raised a number of points about that, within this thread. If you believe it was due purely to COVID, you simply haven't been paying attention, or perhaps, have been watching too much network news. Time to tune out.
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are not the same thing. The detected presence of SARS-CoV-2 does not mean the person has or will develop COVID-19.
Therefore the attribution of mortality based solely upon a positive test result in no way proves the person died of COVID-19.
This is disingenuous at best.
Regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 test status, without a very accurate diagnosis of symptoms, suspected COVID-19 patients could be suffering from one among a range of ILI's. Again, a positive test result does not mean the patient died from COVID-19, even if they had corresponding symptoms.
What? A positive test shows the presence of the virus. There is nothing to that point to suggest otherwise. A positive test of what? He's only talked about signs and symptoms at this stage apart from referencing the PCR test. There is nothing in the writing under the heading to support the heading. Its just priming again.
Joe, I'm afraid you're misinformed [to put it charitably] on a number of the points raised in your output.
Given time constraints, I will focus this post on your comments Re: PCR tests, hence the quoted bit above.
First, I typed the following most recently:
Belligerent Savant » Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:23 pm wrote: I discussed cycle thresholds and the flaws of the PCR tests before, numerous times within this thread. Even the NY times covered the probability of false positives with PCR tests for any Ct over ~30 -- and the majority are indeed over 30 -- though it's difficult to obtain stats on this as Ct is rarely reported or included when results are doled out. They can be throttled up or down to achieve desired results.
Did you miss this? You didn't mention cycle thresholds in your missive, unless I overlooked it. Are you familiar with cycle thresholds and how they impact, in fact will increase, the probability of a positive PCR result, depending on threshold #?
This is a very important, critical detail.
Prior to Covid, a "case" was defined as one who exhibited symptoms. This nonsense about labeling someone as a "case", based ONLY on a positive PCR result -- while showing ZERO symptoms, and REMAINING ASYMPTOMATIC -- is one of the many canards with respect to how numbers and ACTUAL case counts are manipulated.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
The guidance warned against diagnosing someone as having the virus just because one tests positive if the individual does not present with symptoms of COVID-19. It also warned about the high risk of false positives: “The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”
“As disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. The probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity,” per the WHO.
It also describes PCR tests merely as an “aid for diagnosis” and did not place any greater weight upon the results of PCR tests. “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
The new guidance for assessing the results of PCR COVID tests effectively means that there are additional steps to be taken before reporting that someone has tested positive for the virus. The WHO notes that “a new specimen should be taken and retested” and further stipulates that “health care” workers should weigh up the test result alongside real-world information, such as symptoms or “clinical observations,” and contact with any other infected individuals.
And this, which I typed one month prior to the above updated [Jan. 2021] guidance from the WHO:
"cases" does not = active instance of the virus, more often than not.
How many tested during the lockdown timeframe? Of those who tested, how do we know what the Ct rate was compared to pre-lockdown?
We'll never know as they don't publish it.
Most tests set the cycle threshold (Ct) limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.
The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.
I recommend fully digesting the content in the above quote. It's essentially saying that MOST "cases" are false-positive, and further, the majority are NOT carriers of the virus.
Since Ct utilized in a given region are rarely, if ever, disclosed, it also means they can tweak the cycle count as preferred, which in turn would raise or lower 'positive cases' dramatically.
Ct around 40? Mostly false-positive results. Ct around 30? Far less false-positives.
By withholding the disclosure of Ct, "case" numbers can be throttled up or down depending on desired reaction.
Something to keep in mind in the months ahead.
(For example: keep it at Ct ~40 prior to the "100 days" mask mandate; revise to Ct ~30 after the 100 days).
Just a theory, of course.
You need to do more/better homework, Joe. Let's revisit this in a few months, perhaps, when you may have a bit more clarity.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
They have risen to 119th among countries in population adjusted deaths. Yes, 119th. About 36% (145/404) of the world average. If you asked news watchers where India ranks in that metric world wide, what are the odds that anyone would come close?
DrEvil » 28 Apr 2021 14:28 You've repeatedly claimed to not know the real death toll of the virus, but here you claim it's about the same, or slightly worse than the flu (assuming that by 'virulent' you mean 'death toll', otherwise the comparison in meaningless). The flu has statistics going back ages (35K dead on average the last ten years), so now you do have a pretty good idea after all?
Lets say it's like a really bad flu season and put the death toll at 100K. That leaves just under half a million extra dead not accounted for. Can you break down what killed them, or if you believe the number is bogus, can you supply the real one?
Since stickdog brought Evil's comment back up, I want to reiterate that this is misrepresentation on Evil's part: I HAVE, a number of times, touched precisely on this topic, and shared charts, and articles, as well as my own thoughts, on inflated/misleading death statistics related to Covid. I am NOT going to repeat them all for your benefit. If this was a topic of true interest to you, YOU would do your OWN due diligence on it, AS I HAVE. Expecting a precise/specific figure is disingenuous, as it's simply not achievable. An approximation can be gleaned, however, which is what I've provided in a number of instances, backed by data points/sources.
Yes, you have shared a veritable torrent of charts and articles, yet you seem unable to answer one simple question: what, in your estimation, is the true death toll of covid in the US? You say an approximation can be gleaned, so what is it? One ballpark number or range, that's all I'm asking for.
Does it matter? Does my answer change what actually happened since 2020?
Of course it does. If your claim is that 450000 people died from covid then that's still a fuck-ton of dead people, but if it's that 20000 people died then that's a whole other ball game. Just repeating "it isn't what they say" while refusing to say what you think it really is is useless.
If we work with the CDC figures -- which I simply don't take at face value, but whatevs -- there's been an average range of 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually attributed to flu or flu-like illness since 2010. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
The 25 page report includes a Conclusion that echoes my earlier comment:
Arguing over what the most accurate COVID fatality count may be is an exercise in futility without intimate knowledge of case history and accompanying certificates of death, and it is the exact reason we entrust these determinations to the skill of our licensed professionals. With the inclusion of probable fatalities and significant changes made to how certificates of death are recorded exclusively for COVID-19, scientific objectivity demands that we acknowledge the data presented is inaccurate. Federal agencies have a legal obligation to provide the most accurate data to the public, fellow agencies, and policy makers they are advising, and they have a responsibility to abide by every federal law. This responsibility to collect,analyze, and publish data accurately, transparently, and with unquestionable integrity increases exponentially during a national crisis. It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis. Further federal investigation is justified by the magnitude of the crisis and the collateral damage generated by policies based upon projection data that was unproven and never peer reviewed. If the data being reported was indeed compromised by the CDC’s perplexing decision to abandon proven data collection and reporting practices in favor of untested methods, then all public health policies based upon these inaccurate data must be reexamined.
That about sums it up, doesn't it?
There are a number of charts in this report, but one of them displays the following:
Since the chart depicts data as of August 2020, a rough estimate places ACTUAL COVID IFR through ~April 2021 somewhere around the ~40K to ~50K range, roughly, which is an above-average flu season.
And lockdowns absolutely impacted excess mortality -- and by the way, 2020 was NOT the highest excess mortality of the 21st Century, nor the 2nd highest. I've touched on lockdown-related death causes numerous times, even in the last ~2-3 pages.
Ignoring that it's written by a bunch of nutritionists, it's horseshit. The updated CDC guidelines are pretty clear:
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
How exactly is that supposed to inflate the numbers by half a million? Did every doctor and coroner in the US become incompetent at their jobs overnight?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
Prior to Covid, a "case" was defined as one who exhibited symptoms. This nonsense about labeling someone as a "case", based ONLY on a positive PCR result -- while showing ZERO symptoms, and REMAINING ASYMPTOMATIC -- is one of the many canards with respect to how numbers and ACTUAL case counts are manipulated.
Canard indeed. Another word would be lies. PCR tests are a joke for determining actual cases. The major media have done a poor job of asking questions and informing the public about this "test" and how the results have inflated the "cases." With all the bright minds on RI I'm surprised this even has to be discussed over and over to explain. Seriously people.
How exactly is that supposed to inflate the numbers by half a million? Did every doctor and coroner in the US become incompetent at their jobs overnight?
Ummmm hello, you know what money is, right? Here is the U.S. medicine and health care if more about stats and dollars. Some still have this notion that doctors and the medical establishment is really about caring for us. They are welcome to their unicorn fantasies. Take into account how much money hospitals got per patient that was either diagnosed, and better yet for them, died. A patient hospitalized who dies and has any indication that the person had the Corona virus in them and the death certificate could have it listed, EVEN if it was NOT the cause of death.
DrEvil » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:55 am wrote: Ignoring that it's written by a bunch of nutritionists, it's horseshit. The updated CDC guidelines are pretty clear:
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
It's not just the "nutritionists" that are writing it. CDC changed their guidelines in 2020 specifically for Covid. this is a FACT.
Are nutritionists stupid or sub-human, or something? Or perhaps simply less willing to be compromised?
In any event, to call your response 'weak' is giving it too much credit. It also proves my earlier point that it's a waste of time to type any further on this topic when dealing with a zealot.
You also typed:
How exactly is that supposed to inflate the numbers by half a million? Did every doctor and coroner in the US become incompetent at their jobs overnight?
It seems I need to break this down as if you're new to how things work: Doctors/hospitals have been provided specific guidelines for how to fill out death certificates. This has already been raised before. These guidelines have been changed, specifically for COVID. A doctor is to enter COVID in a death certificate in any instance where a patient may have exhibited symptoms that may be tied to COVID, which of course, are also the same/similar symptoms for other illnesses quite similar to COVID. EVEN IF THE PATIENT DIDN'T TEST POSITIVE, they will still add covid to the death certificate if there were certain flue-like or related symptoms exhibited by the deceased, OR, if the deceased tested positive at some point in the past; in a number of instances within the U.S. this applies even if the positive result was up to 60 days prior to death, though some of this criteria may have recently changed in certain jurisdictions*. Many are aware that pneumonia and flu-like symptoms are quite common when a patient is terminal, especially among the elderly, as their immune symptoms weaken due to other serious illnesses/comorbidities.
There are also clear monetary incentives for hospitals to enter COVID in death certificates.
*according to the utterly compromised BBC: "Rules were amended last summer to include deaths in the coronavirus total only if they occurred within 28 days of a positive test. Previously in England, all deaths after a positive test were included." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51768274
As an example of this despicable criteria, before they revised it to 28 days: someone tests positive; they recover after, say, 3 weeks. 3 months later, they unfortunately perish in a car accident. What did the death certificate say? "COVID". (along with physical trauma, etc.)
I'll also drop this comment here, found within the comments section of an article I came across on this topic. Interpret as you deem fit:
Let's not forget the financial incentives that the government has set up to "die from COVID-19". 3 patients, dying in a hospital at the same time of pneumonia, warrants a 5,000 dollar hospital reimbursement. COVID pneumonia gets you 13,000 dollars, and if the patient is placed on a ventilator the reimbursement is 32,000. And there is NO requirement for covid testing, or autopsy to confirm the actual cause. Certainly a patient with uncontrolled diabetes or long standing renal failure can meet his/her demise because of either of those issues, but it is to the hospitals advantage to say the patient died of COVID, when in fact he simply contracted it because of exposure when he was hospitalized for what really killed him.
Contracting Covid for the first time AFTER being hospitalized for OTHER causes is NOT uncommon.
Dr. Ngozi Ezike | How COVID Deaths are Classified:
"...of the definition of people dying of COVID, so the case definition is is very simplistic. It means at the time of death it was a COVID positive diagnosis so that means that if you were in hospice and had already been given, you know, a few weeks to live and then you also were found to have COVID that would be counted as a COVID death; it means that if, technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause but you had COVID at the same time it is still listed as a COVID death, so everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that it was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death. I hope that's helpful."
"have COVID" doesn't necessarily mean test positive. And as I clearly already explained above, testing positive doesn't mean you have COVID, given the prevalence of False-Positives.
Just about everyone that doesn't die due to accident, murder or suicide will die due to numerous contributing causes, not just one, especially once past middle-age.
Did we f'ing lock down the world because of this fact, prior to 2020?
INDIA: "No Need To Panic": AIIMS Chief, Top Doctors Clear Doubts On Covid Crisis
According to the AIIMS Director, there are 10-15 per cent of people who may witness severe infection and may need extra medicines like Remdesivir, oxygen or plasma.
New Delhi: Covid-19 is a mild disease and there is no need to panic, said AIIMS Director Dr Randeep Guleria on Sunday while addressing issues related to coronavirus with Chairman of Medanta Dr Naresh Trehan, Professor and Head of Department of Medicine AIIMS Dr Naveet Wig and Director General Health Services Dr Sunil Kumar. "If we talk about the current situation of COVID-19, there is panic in public, Due to this panic, people are putting injections in their houses, hoarding of the Remdesivir drug and oxygen cylinder has started with this. And because of this, we are facing a shortage of supply and unnecessary panic is being created," Mr Guleria said.
He further said, "The COVID-19 infection is a normal infection. 85 to 90 per cent of people are witnessing normal symptoms like fever, cold, body ache, and cough and in these cases, one doesn't need Remdesivir or other large numbers of medicines. You can take medicines for these normal infections or treat yourself with home remedies and yoga. You will back to normal and get well within seven or 10 days. You don't need to put Remdesivir or oxygen in your house."
According to the AIIMS Director, there are 10-15 per cent of people who may witness severe infection and may need extra medicines like Remdesivir, oxygen or plasma. Less than five per cent of patients need to be operated on a ventilator, he informed.
"If we see this data, it shows that there is no need to panic. If one gets a positive report, he/she shouldn't rush to the hospital or get medical oxygen. It's a wrong belief and it will create an unnecessary shortage of oxygen. We need to understand that it is a mild disease and only 10 to 15 per cent cases get severe," he added.
Medanta chairman Dr Trehan said that 90 per cent of COVID patients can recover at home if they are provided with correct medicines on time. "As soon as your RT-PCR report comes positive, my advice would be to consult your local doctor with whom you are in touch. All doctors know the protocol and will begin your treatment accordingly. 90 per cent of patients can recover at home if given correct medicines on time."
Why are you trusting what authorities say in this case? Cos it agrees with your pre conceptions?
Lets take it on face value tho:
There are over a billlion people in India. 10 - 15 percent of that number is 150 million.
If one percent of those people die it'll be 1.5 million but its more likely to be 10% of that number and maybe higher. Because there won't be enough remdesivir, O2 or plasma for them.
They are already running out of stuff. That's why this Kumar guy is making a plea for people to stop hoarding precious resources. India is stuffed. people will be dying from poor air quality from all the cremations and that will be added to the COVID total no doubt. While they won't die of COVID they will die because of it.
And that is key to what is driving the panic of COVID. When its out of control it has the potential to overwhelm medical infrastructure and people will die who otherwise shouldn't. From COVID left untreated and from other stuff that isn't dealt with cos of the overwhelming numbers of COVID patients.
