Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

riflebear said:

---

---

In a nutshell

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

LTbear said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

LTbear said:

---

Some encouraging news (in a sense): Fauci is saying there's a chance, because of the actions that have been put in place, that we really could limit this to about 60,000 deaths in the end. I say good "in a sense" because obviously 60,000 is an unfortunate number of lives lost, but far better than projections before the measures the country has taken. Let's hope this really does become limited and start trending in a positive direction soon.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/09/830664814/fauci-says-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-may-be-more-like-60-000-antibody-tests-on-way

---

So less than the flu 2 years ago

And we got over that without destroying America

That late shelter in place social distancing and the very recent change in Surgeon General policy from DO NOT wear masks they don't help to PLEASE wear masks was a miracle

---

How are you not comprehending that potentially keeping it to that low a number is BECAUSE of the measures we've taken? Truly, how?

---

Because it's all bull****

You're a sheep

Sheep want to be told what to do and feel safety in a herd

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

This.

It's no different from how we handle the flu.

---

Can the flu be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu? And if it was never even verified, should it be tallied as a flu death?

---

Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.

---

How many people are determined to be killed by the flu vs actual cause of death like pneumonia? You seem really certain. I'm sure you have data. Please share. I'm terribly curious. Thanks in advance.

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

Pro tip: If you non-ironically use the term 'Trumpkins', you are a complete ******. It's not my rule. Just trying to help.

ValhallaBear said:

---

LTbear said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

LTbear said:

---

Some encouraging news (in a sense): Fauci is saying there's a chance, because of the actions that have been put in place, that we really could limit this to about 60,000 deaths in the end. I say good "in a sense" because obviously 60,000 is an unfortunate number of lives lost, but far better than projections before the measures the country has taken. Let's hope this really does become limited and start trending in a positive direction soon.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/09/830664814/fauci-says-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-may-be-more-like-60-000-antibody-tests-on-way

---

So less than the flu 2 years ago

And we got over that without destroying America

That late shelter in place social distancing and the very recent change in Surgeon General policy from DO NOT wear masks they don't help to PLEASE wear masks was a miracle

---

How are you not comprehending that potentially keeping it to that low a number is BECAUSE of the measures we've taken? Truly, how?

---

Because it's all bull****

You're a sheep

Sheep want to be told what to do and feel safety in a herd

---

So your only response is sticking your head in the sand and being the sheep you so dislike. This isn't difficult. Live happily in your delusion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

Face it, New Yorkers have a lot of bravado, none of these guys really believed it would be so bad here, even though they could already see what was going on in Italy. The New York guys said they had the best Medical system anywhere and just didn't think it would be so bad HERE.

They were wrong, so was virtually everybody else.

---

They were all wrong....Trump, the Dems, the Reps....all of them. Hard to see why they (and some on this board) thought it wasn't a big deal. Sure, we have people get sick of other diseases, but for the most part we have treatments. This thing was showing emphatically that it didn't have an effective treatment or vaccine and was being spread easily. Why would you NOT have thought it wouldn't be a problem. Short answer....it demonstrates the fact that politics in this country is more important than anything else. Trump was too concerned about his re-election and the Dems were too concerned about getting Trump not re-elected. Only when they saw it was becoming a big problem did they finally start to listen to medical people that knew what they were talking about instead of talking out of their a**.

---

I don't blame either side early on. When the WHO sends out a tweet in Mid January telling the world that China said that COVID wasn't being transmitted between humans why would anyone take it seriously?

---

Maybe because of this?

Quote:

---

U.S. Intelligence Warned of Coronavirus Outbreak as Early as November
By Zachary Evans
April 8, 2020 1:45 PM

U.S. intelligence officials warned of an uncontrolled illness in the region of Wuhan, China, in late November, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

The National Center for Medical Intelligence submitted a report based on satellite images and wire and computer intercepts showing a threat to the region's population from the as-yet unidentified contagion, since dubbed the "novel coronavirus" by the World Health Organization. The report apparently raised concerns about the health threat to U.S. military forces in Asia.

"Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event," a person familiar with the report told ABC. It was then briefed multiple times to" the Defense Intelligence Agency, the White House and the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-s-intelligence-warned-of-coronavirus-outbreak-as-early-as-november-report/?fbclid=IwAR13PyNHVIcxvHTbSv5E-xmPIEjCfoEnGzDMaUppqjjW79Ia4hCVXVfmuWw

---

---

Yeah, about that:



"NCMI and the Defense Intelligence Agency spent considerable time over the last 24 hours examining every possible product that could have been identified as related to this topic and have found no such product," said a defense official last night."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

---

US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as November
By Zachary Cohen, Jim Sciutto, Alex Marquardt, and Evan Perez
Updated 11:47 AM ET, Thu April 9, 2020

(CNN) US spy agencies were tracking the rise of the novel coronavirus as early as November, weeks before that information was included in President Donald Trump's daily intelligence briefing, a former US military official told CNN.

While the exact date of the first report remains unclear, sources told CNN that intelligence gathered in November and in the weeks following offered multiple early warnings about the potential severity of the pandemic now surging in the US.

Intelligence is often only elevated to the highest levels of the government once analysts and officials reach a certain threshold of confidence in their assessment. That day came on January 3, the first day the President's daily briefing included information the US intelligence community had gathered about the contagion in China and the potential it had to spread, including to the US, according to a person briefed on the matter.

But behind the scenes, the work had been going on for weeks, with the CIA and other intelligence agencies combing through their collection to find out what China was beginning to grapple with.

According to the person briefed on the matter, by early to mid-December, Chinese social media and even state-controlled media had begun providing public clues about the struggle to contain a respiratory illness that at the time was being compared to SARS, a similar 2003 virus outbreak that also emerged from China.

Beijing officially notified the World Health Organization of an outbreak of a pneumonia of unknown cause on December 31.

Multiple officials say that open source information served as a jumping off point for intelligence officials early on and was combined with information gathered through other methods before it was ultimately included in the January 3 Presidential Daily Briefing.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/intel-agencies-covid-november/index.html

Queue Killary . . . "What did he know and when did he know it!"

History repeats itself.

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

I don't know if anybody is pushing it, but CNN is on in the office, and they had a guy saying there may be 400 more deaths in NYC each day attributed to Corona than are reported.

Not sure why that angle is being pushed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

This.

It's no different from how we handle the flu.

---

Can the flu be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu? And if it was never even verified, should it be tallied as a flu death?

---

Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.

---

So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?

---

Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

This.

It's no different from how we handle the flu.

---

Can the flu be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu? And if it was never even verified, should it be tallied as a flu death?

---

Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.

---

How many people are determined to be killed by the flu vs actual cause of death like pneumonia? You seem really certain. I'm sure you have data. Please share. I'm terribly curious. Thanks in advance.

---

Very few. As with Covid, most deaths are caused by pneumonia or other complications.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

This.

It's no different from how we handle the flu.

---

Can the flu be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu? And if it was never even verified, should it be tallied as a flu death?

---

Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.

---

How many people are determined to be killed by the flu vs actual cause of death like pneumonia? You seem really certain. I'm sure you have data. Please share. I'm terribly curious. Thanks in advance.

---

Very few. As with Covid, most deaths are caused by pneumonia or other complications.

---

So, flu (or Wuhan) can be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu or Wuhan and if it was never even verified, it should be tallied as a flu or Wuhan death?

Can you clarify?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

Face it, New Yorkers have a lot of bravado, none of these guys really believed it would be so bad here, even though they could already see what was going on in Italy. The New York guys said they had the best Medical system anywhere and just didn't think it would be so bad HERE.

They were wrong, so was virtually everybody else.

---

They were all wrong....Trump, the Dems, the Reps....all of them. Hard to see why they (and some on this board) thought it wasn't a big deal. Sure, we have people get sick of other diseases, but for the most part we have treatments. This thing was showing emphatically that it didn't have an effective treatment or vaccine and was being spread easily. Why would you NOT have thought it wouldn't be a problem. Short answer....it demonstrates the fact that politics in this country is more important than anything else. Trump was too concerned about his re-election and the Dems were too concerned about getting Trump not re-elected. Only when they saw it was becoming a big problem did they finally start to listen to medical people that knew what they were talking about instead of talking out of their a**.

---

I don't blame either side early on. When the WHO sends out a tweet in Mid January telling the world that China said that COVID wasn't being transmitted between humans why would anyone take it seriously?

---

Maybe because of this?

Quote:

---

U.S. Intelligence Warned of Coronavirus Outbreak as Early as November
By Zachary Evans
April 8, 2020 1:45 PM

U.S. intelligence officials warned of an uncontrolled illness in the region of Wuhan, China, in late November, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

The National Center for Medical Intelligence submitted a report based on satellite images and wire and computer intercepts showing a threat to the region's population from the as-yet unidentified contagion, since dubbed the "novel coronavirus" by the World Health Organization. The report apparently raised concerns about the health threat to U.S. military forces in Asia.

"Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event," a person familiar with the report told ABC. It was then briefed multiple times to" the Defense Intelligence Agency, the White House and the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-s-intelligence-warned-of-coronavirus-outbreak-as-early-as-november-report/?fbclid=IwAR13PyNHVIcxvHTbSv5E-xmPIEjCfoEnGzDMaUppqjjW79Ia4hCVXVfmuWw

---

---

Yeah, about that:



"NCMI and the Defense Intelligence Agency spent considerable time over the last 24 hours examining every possible product that could have been identified as related to this topic and have found no such product," said a defense official last night."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

---

US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as November
By Zachary Cohen, Jim Sciutto, Alex Marquardt, and Evan Perez
Updated 11:47 AM ET, Thu April 9, 2020

(CNN) US spy agencies were tracking the rise of the novel coronavirus as early as November, weeks before that information was included in President Donald Trump's daily intelligence briefing, a former US military official told CNN.

While the exact date of the first report remains unclear, sources told CNN that intelligence gathered in November and in the weeks following offered multiple early warnings about the potential severity of the pandemic now surging in the US.

Intelligence is often only elevated to the highest levels of the government once analysts and officials reach a certain threshold of confidence in their assessment. That day came on January 3, the first day the President's daily briefing included information the US intelligence community had gathered about the contagion in China and the potential it had to spread, including to the US, according to a person briefed on the matter.

But behind the scenes, the work had been going on for weeks, with the CIA and other intelligence agencies combing through their collection to find out what China was beginning to grapple with.

According to the person briefed on the matter, by early to mid-December, Chinese social media and even state-controlled media had begun providing public clues about the struggle to contain a respiratory illness that at the time was being compared to SARS, a similar 2003 virus outbreak that also emerged from China.

Beijing officially notified the World Health Organization of an outbreak of a pneumonia of unknown cause on December 31.

Multiple officials say that open source information served as a jumping off point for intelligence officials early on and was combined with information gathered through other methods before it was ultimately included in the January 3 Presidential Daily Briefing.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/intel-agencies-covid-november/index.html

---

CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.

As far as actual Coronavirus updates.

Swedens lax system seems not to be working.

If they had the same population as the US they would be at 25,791 deaths.

If they had the same population as Texas they would have 10X as many deaths as Texas.

They will need to adjust at some point.

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Two things. The memo he refers to said it would be appropriate to diagnose someone with Covid19 if they presented with pneumonia and had a family member who had tested positive, but the patient was never tested (which is important here). Second, he says "We've not done that."

So I finally watched one of your videos and it contradicts what you think it stands for. It's a nothingburger.

---

Wow I listened too

Amazing how you miss the point of the entire interview and attempt to deceive us into Rifle claim being bogus

If you don't comprehend the video shows proof COVID deaths are being deceptively inflated it's one thing but to attempt to deceive us from that fact is devious on your part

You are a low life with no integrity

---

I'm the one that quoted the video. If I have no integrity prove that I lied about the quote. I stand by my post.

Bearitto said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

Pro tip: If you non-ironically use the term 'Trumpkins', you are a complete ******. It's not my rule. Just trying to help.

---

How PC of you.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Cue Howard Baker (who may have gotten it from Fed Thompson) . . . "What did he know and when did he know it!"

History repeats itself.

---

fify

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

Face it, New Yorkers have a lot of bravado, none of these guys really believed it would be so bad here, even though they could already see what was going on in Italy. The New York guys said they had the best Medical system anywhere and just didn't think it would be so bad HERE.

They were wrong, so was virtually everybody else.

---

They were all wrong....Trump, the Dems, the Reps....all of them. Hard to see why they (and some on this board) thought it wasn't a big deal. Sure, we have people get sick of other diseases, but for the most part we have treatments. This thing was showing emphatically that it didn't have an effective treatment or vaccine and was being spread easily. Why would you NOT have thought it wouldn't be a problem. Short answer....it demonstrates the fact that politics in this country is more important than anything else. Trump was too concerned about his re-election and the Dems were too concerned about getting Trump not re-elected. Only when they saw it was becoming a big problem did they finally start to listen to medical people that knew what they were talking about instead of talking out of their a**.

---

I don't blame either side early on. When the WHO sends out a tweet in Mid January telling the world that China said that COVID wasn't being transmitted between humans why would anyone take it seriously?

---

Maybe because of this?

Quote:

---

U.S. Intelligence Warned of Coronavirus Outbreak as Early as November
By Zachary Evans
April 8, 2020 1:45 PM

U.S. intelligence officials warned of an uncontrolled illness in the region of Wuhan, China, in late November, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

The National Center for Medical Intelligence submitted a report based on satellite images and wire and computer intercepts showing a threat to the region's population from the as-yet unidentified contagion, since dubbed the "novel coronavirus" by the World Health Organization. The report apparently raised concerns about the health threat to U.S. military forces in Asia.

"Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event," a person familiar with the report told ABC. It was then briefed multiple times to" the Defense Intelligence Agency, the White House and the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-s-intelligence-warned-of-coronavirus-outbreak-as-early-as-november-report/?fbclid=IwAR13PyNHVIcxvHTbSv5E-xmPIEjCfoEnGzDMaUppqjjW79Ia4hCVXVfmuWw

---

---

Yeah, about that:



"NCMI and the Defense Intelligence Agency spent considerable time over the last 24 hours examining every possible product that could have been identified as related to this topic and have found no such product," said a defense official last night."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

---

US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as November
By Zachary Cohen, Jim Sciutto, Alex Marquardt, and Evan Perez
Updated 11:47 AM ET, Thu April 9, 2020

(CNN) US spy agencies were tracking the rise of the novel coronavirus as early as November, weeks before that information was included in President Donald Trump's daily intelligence briefing, a former US military official told CNN.

While the exact date of the first report remains unclear, sources told CNN that intelligence gathered in November and in the weeks following offered multiple early warnings about the potential severity of the pandemic now surging in the US.

Intelligence is often only elevated to the highest levels of the government once analysts and officials reach a certain threshold of confidence in their assessment. That day came on January 3, the first day the President's daily briefing included information the US intelligence community had gathered about the contagion in China and the potential it had to spread, including to the US, according to a person briefed on the matter.

But behind the scenes, the work had been going on for weeks, with the CIA and other intelligence agencies combing through their collection to find out what China was beginning to grapple with.

According to the person briefed on the matter, by early to mid-December, Chinese social media and even state-controlled media had begun providing public clues about the struggle to contain a respiratory illness that at the time was being compared to SARS, a similar 2003 virus outbreak that also emerged from China.

Beijing officially notified the World Health Organization of an outbreak of a pneumonia of unknown cause on December 31.

Multiple officials say that open source information served as a jumping off point for intelligence officials early on and was combined with information gathered through other methods before it was ultimately included in the January 3 Presidential Daily Briefing.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/intel-agencies-covid-november/index.html

---

CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.

---

The CIA and DIA haven't officially commented on CNN's version. I don't know what you mean when you say the other claimed sources don't support it, unless you have them on record elsewhere.

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

The left, diip****t, involves the politicians, the media and those TDS'rs here and on Twitter

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

The left, diip****t, involves the politicians, the media and those TDS'rs here and on Twitter

---

Can you cite a specific person or report? Or is it better to just cuss?

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

The left, diip****t, involves the politicians, the media and those TDS'rs here and on Twitter

---

Can you cite a specific person or report? Or is it better to just cuss?

---

You haven't seen news outlets talk about Coronavirus deaths, instead of mentioning specifically Covid 19 deaths? Wow, you are blind or stupid or both

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

This.

It's no different from how we handle the flu.

---

Can the flu be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu? And if it was never even verified, should it be tallied as a flu death?

---

Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.

---

How many people are determined to be killed by the flu vs actual cause of death like pneumonia? You seem really certain. I'm sure you have data. Please share. I'm terribly curious. Thanks in advance.

---

Very few. As with Covid, most deaths are caused by pneumonia or other complications.

---

So, flu (or Wuhan) can be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu or Wuhan and if it was never even verified, it should be tallied as a flu or Wuhan death?

Can you clarify?

---

Flu tests can add a degree of certainty, but they're far from perfect. They provide false negatives, they don't work well after the first week, and they're less reliable in adults than in children. For these and other reasons doctors may diagnose flu without lab tests. This is especially true during epidemics, when they're treating a lot of patients in a hurry. I'm sure the same will be true of Covid, as it should be.

Great news unless you are in the media

riflebear said:

---

Great news unless you are in the media

---

This is great, but it isn't news. This promise was made on March 13. The impression from the press conference that day was that it would be up and running in a week. Four weeks later and they are announcing it again.

A week would have been a miracle and it was typical over-promising from DJT. Widely available testing is key to returning to normalcy, so I hope that they have this ready to go sooner rather than later.

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

The left, diip****t, involves the politicians, the media and those TDS'rs here and on Twitter

---

Can you cite a specific person or report? Or is it better to just cuss?

---

You haven't seen news outlets talk about Coronavirus deaths, instead of mentioning specifically Covid 19 deaths? Wow, you are blind or stupid or both

---

So the answer is no. The Johns Hopkins data tracker is what everyone pays attention to, it compiles what the hospitals report. If you think that number is inflated, by "coronavirus deaths" that aren't really "covid deaths" I would love to hear your theory and the evidence that supports it.


You are an angry elf, aren't you?

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/coronavirus-spread-rural-counties-university-texas-researchers/

riflebear said:

---

---

https://apple.news/ANUiFLppqQHqhj2VUb646Fw

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

HashTag said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

If someone is driving along, minding their own business and a mac truck jumps the median and slams into their Prius killing that driver, but the doctor suspects that the Prius driver has Covid 19, would it be appropriate for that doctor to list Covid 19 as a cause of death? Or even a contributing cause of death?

If there is going to regulation or law or orders or money being handed out by the trillions, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a set of standards for listing the cause of death, instead of just leaving it up to the doctor. So yes, at the very least, lab confirmation should be a requirement and even then in my example, even if the doctor has lab confirmation about Covid 19, the debate isn't over of about the driver's death.

Likewise, from the left their seems to be a push to label all these death as a result of coronavirus... that's right coronavirus which contains subset of viruses including Covid 19 and the common cold.... I've seen some pretty high numbers being attributed to death by coronavirus (not Covid 19), which seems to be honest misinformation at best or manipulation of facts at worst.

With the gov't now willing to toss around trillion of dollars like they just hit the jackpot on the world's biggest slot machine, there WILL BE fraud. Fraud by the companies, hospitals, politicians and everyday people. I don't think it unreasonable to question or at least a little skeptical about some of the data being represented by the media and even their own gov't... after all, there's narratives to push, politicizing to do and fraud to be had. The media and ALL politicians have an equal history of not quite being honest with their viewers and their constituents.

---

Of course not.

We do have a set of standards-I linked it for you. You don't agree with the standards.

Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx now the left? Why is the CDC the left?

All of you Trumpkins are just desperate to reduce the numbers. Its a simple as that and at this point I don't understand it. The numbers are not horrific and the projections are getting better.

---

Where the hell did i say anything about Fauci or Birx? Try again, pal.

---

I love how all you Trumpkins talk like you are Jack Webb from Dragnet.

Fauci/Birx are the most prominent voices saying to apply normal CDC guidelines for Certifications of Death. So that is where the "push" is coming from. Who were you referring to when you said the "left" is pushing inflated death reporting?

---

The left, diip****t, involves the politicians, the media and those TDS'rs here and on Twitter

---

Can you cite a specific person or report? Or is it better to just cuss?

---

You haven't seen news outlets talk about Coronavirus deaths, instead of mentioning specifically Covid 19 deaths? Wow, you are blind or stupid or both

---

So the answer is no. The Johns Hopkins data tracker is what everyone pays attention to, it compiles what the hospitals report. If you think that number is inflated, by "coronavirus deaths" that aren't really "covid deaths" I would love to hear your theory and the evidence that supports it.


You are an angry elf, aren't you?

---

lol

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

blackie said:

---

Quote:

---

Face it, New Yorkers have a lot of bravado, none of these guys really believed it would be so bad here, even though they could already see what was going on in Italy. The New York guys said they had the best Medical system anywhere and just didn't think it would be so bad HERE.

They were wrong, so was virtually everybody else.

---

They were all wrong....Trump, the Dems, the Reps....all of them. Hard to see why they (and some on this board) thought it wasn't a big deal. Sure, we have people get sick of other diseases, but for the most part we have treatments. This thing was showing emphatically that it didn't have an effective treatment or vaccine and was being spread easily. Why would you NOT have thought it wouldn't be a problem. Short answer....it demonstrates the fact that politics in this country is more important than anything else. Trump was too concerned about his re-election and the Dems were too concerned about getting Trump not re-elected. Only when they saw it was becoming a big problem did they finally start to listen to medical people that knew what they were talking about instead of talking out of their a**.

---

I don't blame either side early on. When the WHO sends out a tweet in Mid January telling the world that China said that COVID wasn't being transmitted between humans why would anyone take it seriously?

---

Maybe because of this?

Quote:

---

U.S. Intelligence Warned of Coronavirus Outbreak as Early as November
By Zachary Evans
April 8, 2020 1:45 PM

U.S. intelligence officials warned of an uncontrolled illness in the region of Wuhan, China, in late November, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

The National Center for Medical Intelligence submitted a report based on satellite images and wire and computer intercepts showing a threat to the region's population from the as-yet unidentified contagion, since dubbed the "novel coronavirus" by the World Health Organization. The report apparently raised concerns about the health threat to U.S. military forces in Asia.

"Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event," a person familiar with the report told ABC. It was then briefed multiple times to" the Defense Intelligence Agency, the White House and the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-s-intelligence-warned-of-coronavirus-outbreak-as-early-as-november-report/?fbclid=IwAR13PyNHVIcxvHTbSv5E-xmPIEjCfoEnGzDMaUppqjjW79Ia4hCVXVfmuWw

---

---

Yeah, about that:



"NCMI and the Defense Intelligence Agency spent considerable time over the last 24 hours examining every possible product that could have been identified as related to this topic and have found no such product," said a defense official last night."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

---

US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as November
By Zachary Cohen, Jim Sciutto, Alex Marquardt, and Evan Perez
Updated 11:47 AM ET, Thu April 9, 2020

(CNN) US spy agencies were tracking the rise of the novel coronavirus as early as November, weeks before that information was included in President Donald Trump's daily intelligence briefing, a former US military official told CNN.

While the exact date of the first report remains unclear, sources told CNN that intelligence gathered in November and in the weeks following offered multiple early warnings about the potential severity of the pandemic now surging in the US.

Intelligence is often only elevated to the highest levels of the government once analysts and officials reach a certain threshold of confidence in their assessment. That day came on January 3, the first day the President's daily briefing included information the US intelligence community had gathered about the contagion in China and the potential it had to spread, including to the US, according to a person briefed on the matter.

But behind the scenes, the work had been going on for weeks, with the CIA and other intelligence agencies combing through their collection to find out what China was beginning to grapple with.

According to the person briefed on the matter, by early to mid-December, Chinese social media and even state-controlled media had begun providing public clues about the struggle to contain a respiratory illness that at the time was being compared to SARS, a similar 2003 virus outbreak that also emerged from China.

Beijing officially notified the World Health Organization of an outbreak of a pneumonia of unknown cause on December 31.

Multiple officials say that open source information served as a jumping off point for intelligence officials early on and was combined with information gathered through other methods before it was ultimately included in the January 3 Presidential Daily Briefing.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/intel-agencies-covid-november/index.html

---

CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.

---

The CIA and DIA haven't officially commented on CNN's version. I don't know what you mean when you say the other claimed sources don't support it, unless you have them on record elsewhere.

---

Did you click my link from above?

Or try these:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/04/09/pentagon-issues-rare-public-rebuke-against-abc-for-claim-white-house-was-warned-of-pandemic-in-november-906664

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/9/pentagon-says-covid-report-cited-abc-doesnt-exist/

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

As far as I can tell, the uproar is over this:

Doctors are being told to list Covid as a cause of death if they believe Covid was a cause of death. Note "a" not "the."

---

Help me out here...I'm not understanding why the "a" vs "the" is even relevant. Should doctors even be declaring a or the cause of death based on what they "believe", without actual laboratory confirmation? And if these declarations are being used to tally Covid-19 deaths, which are in turn reported to the public, wouldn't that matter?

---

Frequently death certificates list multiple causes of death. So for someone suffering from pneumonia who contracts Covid 19 which then exacerbates respiratory distress to the point of death, listing both pneumonia and Covid 19 as "a" cause of death would be appropriate. Listing either without the other as "the" cause of death would be inappropriate.

Which leads to the second part of your question. Should a coroner list "a" cause as being Covid 19 without lab confirmation? You would have to ask a forensic pathologist that question, but I do know that coroners often draw conclusions from non-lab evidence: was the death accidental or suicide? The bullet wound did the same damage, looks the same on the autopsy. But the coroner may use other clues to reach a conclusion or say that he/she can not reach a conclusion.

In this instance it seems to be the guidance is for the doctors to use their judgment in informing the cause of death. Given the circumstances, I do not think that is unreasonable as long as all contributing factors are also listed.

There seems to be a push from the right to say that the only Covid deaths are those that killed an otherwise healthy person. That is not the way it should work and it is not the way it has ever worked, because the world is full of unhealthy people.

---

This.

It's no different from how we handle the flu.

---

Can the flu be listed as a cause of death, without even establishing that they had the flu? And if it was never even verified, should it be tallied as a flu death?

---

Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.

---

So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?

---

Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.

---

If no diagnosis of influenza was confirmed, the cause of death should just list the complication of the (assumed) flu, e.g. "pneumonia", and not list "influenza". Officially declaring it as an influenza death without diagnostic confirmation makes no sense at all, and doesn't lend toward reliable epidemiological data.

Updated virus progression

March 19: 4,530 new cases, 57 new deaths
March 20: 5,594 new cases, 49 new deaths
March 21: 4,824 new cases, 46 new deaths
March 22: 9,339 new cases. 117 new deaths
March 23: 10,168 new cases. 140 new deaths.
March 24: 11,089 new cases. 225 new deaths.
March 25: 13,355 new cases. 247 new deaths.
March 26: 17,224 new cases. 268 new deaths.
March 27: 18,691 new cases. 401 new deaths.
March 28: 19,452 new cases. 525 new deaths
March 29: 18,882 new cases. 264 new deaths
March 30: 20,353 new cases. 573 new deaths.
March 31: 24,742 new cases. 912 new deaths.
April 1: 26,473 new cases. 1049 new deaths.
April 2: 29,874 new cases. 968 new deaths.
April 3: 32,284 new cases. 1,321 new deaths.
April 4: 34,196 new cases. 1,331 new deaths.
April 5: 25,316 new cases. 1,165 new deaths.
April 6: 30,331 new cases. 1,255 new deaths.
April 7: 33,331 new cases. 1,970 new deaths.
April 8: 31,935 new cases. 1,940 new deaths
April 9: 33,536 new cases. 1,900 new deaths.

Total cases (tested): 468,566
Total deaths: 16,691

Texas:
March 30: 2,906 cases. 41 deaths.
March 31: 3,666 cases. 56 deaths.
April 1: 4,068 cases. 60 deaths
April 2: 4,823 cases. 77 deaths
April 3: 5,658 cases. 97 deaths
April 4: 6,311 cases. 111 deaths
April 5: 7,044 cases. 133 deaths
April 6: 8,088 cases. 151 deaths
April 7: 8,939 cases. 167 deaths
April 8: 10,065 cases. 195 deaths
April 9: 11,426 cases. 222 deaths

New York:
March 30: 67,325 cases. 1,342 deaths.
March 31: 75,983 cases. 1,714 deaths.
April 1: 83,901 cases. 2,219 deaths. (505 today!)
April 2: 93,053 cases. 2,583 deaths.
April 3: 103,476 cases. 3,218 deaths. (680 today!)
April 4: 114,775 cases. 3,565 deaths.
April 5: 123,018 cases. 4,159 deaths. (594 today)
April 6: 131,916 cases. 4,758 deaths. (599 today)
April 7: 142,384 cases. 5,489 deaths. (731 today)
April 8: 151,171 cases. 6,268 deaths. (779 today)
April 9: 161,504 cases. 7,067 deaths. (799 today)

And the beat goes on for the usual suspects.