But...........but...........but..........Orange man!!!!!!!Canada2017 said:
French complete 2nd hydroxychloroquine study .
1003 patents
91% saw their condition improve .
0 cases of cardiac problems .
Game changer
Those refer to ABC's version, not CNN's.Oldbear83 said:Did you click my link from above?Sam Lowry said: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.Oldbear83 said:CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.Sam Lowry said:US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as NovemberOldbear83 said:Yeah, about that:Sam Lowry said:Maybe because of this?riflebear said: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?blackie said: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**.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.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
"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
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
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/
Clinical observation and judgment are also important tools.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?Sam Lowry said:Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:This.Booray said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?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."
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.
It's no different from how we handle the flu.
** sigh **Sam Lowry said:Those refer to ABC's version, not CNN's.Oldbear83 said:Did you click my link from above?Sam Lowry said: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.Oldbear83 said:CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.Sam Lowry said:US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as NovemberOldbear83 said:Yeah, about that:Sam Lowry said:Maybe because of this?riflebear said: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?blackie said: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**.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.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
"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
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
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/
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:But...........but...........but..........Orange man!!!!!!!Canada2017 said:
French complete 2nd hydroxychloroquine study .
1003 patents
91% saw their condition improve .
0 cases of cardiac problems .
Game changer
If your questions are about the legitimacy of anonymous sources, I don't need to hear them. Journalists have always used such sources. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever as long as they get confirmation.Oldbear83 said:** sigh **Sam Lowry said:Those refer to ABC's version, not CNN's.Oldbear83 said:Did you click my link from above?Sam Lowry said: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.Oldbear83 said:CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.Sam Lowry said:US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as NovemberOldbear83 said:Yeah, about that:Sam Lowry said:Maybe because of this?riflebear said: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?blackie said: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**.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.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
"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
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
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/
Did you forget all you knew about critical thought, Sam?
Or are you so credulous that you don't ask the obvious questions about ABC/CNN's story?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?Sam Lowry said:Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:This.Booray said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?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."
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.
It's no different from how we handle the flu.
quash said:fifyGrowlTowel 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.
But.....but....but......socialized medicine is evil!!!!RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:But...........but...........but..........Orange man!!!!!!!Canada2017 said:
French complete 2nd hydroxychloroquine study .
1003 patents
91% saw their condition improve .
0 cases of cardiac problems .
Game changer
Buddha Bear said:But.....but....but......socialized medicine is evil!!!!RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:But...........but...........but..........Orange man!!!!!!!Canada2017 said:
French complete 2nd hydroxychloroquine study .
1003 patents
91% saw their condition improve .
0 cases of cardiac problems .
Game changer
They're important tools for coming up with diagnoses in order to guide treatment and or therapy.Sam Lowry said:Clinical observation and judgment are also important tools.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?Sam Lowry said:Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:This.Booray said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?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."
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.
It's no different from how we handle the flu.
All doctors can diagnose anything.Booray said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?Sam Lowry said:Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:This.Booray said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?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."
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.
It's no different from how we handle the flu.
Most doctors can diagnose the flu.
History matters, Sam/ CNN has long been biased against Trump, and has been caught in outright lies before.Sam Lowry said:If your questions are about the legitimacy of anonymous sources, I don't need to hear them. Journalists have always used such sources. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever as long as they get confirmation.Oldbear83 said:** sigh **Sam Lowry said:Those refer to ABC's version, not CNN's.Oldbear83 said:Did you click my link from above?Sam Lowry said: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.Oldbear83 said:CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.Sam Lowry said:US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as NovemberOldbear83 said:Yeah, about that:Sam Lowry said:Maybe because of this?riflebear said: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?blackie said: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**.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.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
"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
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
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/
Did you forget all you knew about critical thought, Sam?
Or are you so credulous that you don't ask the obvious questions about ABC/CNN's story?
Riflebear's question was why we should have taken Covid seriously when China was supposedly denying the problem. The answer should be obvious. No matter whose reporting you believe, our own intelligence agencies were warning Trump about it at least in early January, if not before. And even the Chinese were admitting it by late December.
If the doctor did not have a test result, he or she would start by being one of the smartest people in our society. The doctor would undergo years of rigorous training, followed by more years of rigorous training, followed by years of supervised apprenticeship. Then the doctor would work in the most highly quality controlled industry for more years. The doctor would adhere to standards established by people with even more training in that specialized field.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:All doctors can diagnose anything.Booray said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?Sam Lowry said:Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:This.Booray said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?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."
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.
It's no different from how we handle the flu.
Most doctors can diagnose the flu.
The importance of the diagnosis being correct is the issue, especially when naming it as the official cause of someone's death. The CDC thinks pediatric deaths due to influenza deserves such scrutiny, as they require a test for confirmation.
Ex: In the example from video, the 86 year-old woman who dies from pneumonia - how would a doctor diagnose influenza from CoVid -19? It is still flu season, right? Or was it Legionnaire's disease?
The CDC doesn't require a test in order for pediatric influenza to be named as a cause of death. It requires a test in order for the death to be reportable to the CDC. The same requirement exists for coronavirus cases. The case counts you're looking at based on CDC numbers are test-confirmed cases. Death counts aren't reportable at the national level as far as I know, but most of them are probably test-confirmed as well. I know the ones from NYC are. And testing is limited for various reasons - e.g. lack of supplies, overworked hospitals, increasing numbers of people dying at home. So the reported numbers aren't inflated. If anything they're lower than the actual numbers.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They're important tools for coming up with diagnoses in order to guide treatment and or therapy.Sam Lowry said:Clinical observation and judgment are also important tools.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:Not at all. We'd have more accurate numbers if it were done more often, according to the CDC.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, don't you see a problem with tallying that as a flu death?Sam Lowry said:Yes and yes. Most people who die from flu-related complications are never tested.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:This.Booray said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?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."
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.
It's no different from how we handle the flu.
Naming it as an official cause of death, however, especially for epidemiological purposes, should require more scrutiny and specificity. The CDC thinks so, regarding the reporting of pediatric deaths due to influenza - the diagnostic acumen of the physician is not solely relied upon. A confirming diagnostic test is required.
Of course CNN is biased; taking bias into account doesn't mean rejecting what you don't like to hear out of hand. And while it may feel good to point out that Democrats reacted more slowly than Trump, it doesn't make up for lost time procuring ventilators and PPE. That is primarily the executive's job, and he should be accountable for it.Oldbear83 said:History matters, Sam/ CNN has long been biased against Trump, and has been caught in outright lies before.Sam Lowry said:If your questions are about the legitimacy of anonymous sources, I don't need to hear them. Journalists have always used such sources. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever as long as they get confirmation.Oldbear83 said:** sigh **Sam Lowry said:Those refer to ABC's version, not CNN's.Oldbear83 said:Did you click my link from above?Sam Lowry said: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.Oldbear83 said:CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.Sam Lowry said:US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as NovemberOldbear83 said:Yeah, about that:Sam Lowry said:Maybe because of this?riflebear said: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?blackie said: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**.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.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
"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
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
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/
Did you forget all you knew about critical thought, Sam?
Or are you so credulous that you don't ask the obvious questions about ABC/CNN's story?
Riflebear's question was why we should have taken Covid seriously when China was supposedly denying the problem. The answer should be obvious. No matter whose reporting you believe, our own intelligence agencies were warning Trump about it at least in early January, if not before. And even the Chinese were admitting it by late December.
China's own internal records, released in March, show the first case in Wuhan around November 17. China did not publicly admit the new virus existed until a month later.
https://www.livescience.com/first-case-coronavirus-found.html
China's advisory to the WHO (China office) was December 31, 2019.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6905e1.htm
The WHO declared a global emergency January 30, 2020.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/30/who-declares-coronavirus-outbreak-a-global-health-emergency/
By that time, President Trump had already done the following:
January 3: CDC Director Robert Redfield sent an email to the director of the Chinese CDC, George Gao, formally offering to send U.S. experts to China to investigate the coronavirus.
January 5: CDC Director Redfield sent another email to the Chinese CDC Director, George Gao, formally offering to send U.S. experts to China to investigate the coronavirus outbreak,
January 6: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a travel notice for Wuhan, China due to the spreading coronavirus.
January 7: The CDC established a coronavirus incident management system to better share and respond to information about the virus.
January 11: The CDC issued a Level I travel health notice for Wuhan, China.
January 17: The CDC began implementing public health entry screening at the 3 U.S. airports that received the most travelers from Wuhan San Francisco, New York JFK, and Los Angeles.
January 20: Dr. Fauci announces the National Institutes of Health is already working on the development of a vaccine for the coronavirus.
January 21: The CDC activated its emergency operations center to provide ongoing support to the coronavirus response.
January 23: The CDC sought a "special emergency authorization" from the FDA to allow states to use its newly developed coronavirus test.
January 27: President Trump tweeted that he made an offer to President Xi Jinping to send experts to China to investigate the coronavirus outbreak.
January 27: The CDC issued a level III travel health notice urging Americans to avoid all nonessential travel to China due to the coronavirus.
January 27: The White House Coronavirus Task Force started meeting to help monitor and contain the spread of the virus and provide updates to the President.
January 29: The White House announced the formation of the Coronavirus Task Force to help monitor and contain the spread of the virus and provide updates to the President.
I will not bring up the Democrats' behavior during this period, except to observe that the Democrats were slower to respond than the White House in terms of action.
The media during this time showed no particular urgency regarding the virus, but were focused on the impeachment trial
On February 5, the President delivered the State of the Union address to Congress, which included references to the new virus emerging in China at that time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/state-of-union-transcript.html
Taken in toto, the statements and actions of both political parties and the media are all consistent with no new information beyond what was already reported to the public. Further, CNN's story is essentially the debunked ABC claim with a few details tweaked but unsupported by anything.
If we had intercepted electronic communications in China regarding the virus, the NSA would have reported the new information, not the DIA. It's important to understand the province of the different agencies with regard to sources and where they work. The CNN report is not consistent with known IC behaviors, nor is there any valid 'open source' intelligence available for review prior to mid-December.
That is true. While there are things that governors/mayors can do independent of Washington, it is pretty political difficult without wide warning from the federal government. And I am not sure what it is congressional Democrats were supposed to be doing to combat the virus in January and February,Sam Lowry said:Of course CNN is biased; taking bias into account doesn't mean rejecting what you don't like to hear out of hand. And while it may feel good to point out that Democrats reacted more slowly than Trump, it doesn't make up for lost time procuring ventilators and PPE. That is primarily the executive's job, and he should be accountable for it.Oldbear83 said:History matters, Sam/ CNN has long been biased against Trump, and has been caught in outright lies before.Sam Lowry said:If your questions are about the legitimacy of anonymous sources, I don't need to hear them. Journalists have always used such sources. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever as long as they get confirmation.Oldbear83 said:** sigh **Sam Lowry said:Those refer to ABC's version, not CNN's.Oldbear83 said:Did you click my link from above?Sam Lowry said: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.Oldbear83 said:CNN's version is not supported by the DIA. CIA or any of the sources claimed by CNN.Sam Lowry said:US intelligence agencies started tracking coronavirus outbreak in China as early as NovemberOldbear83 said:Yeah, about that:Sam Lowry said:Maybe because of this?riflebear said: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?blackie said: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**.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.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
"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
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
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/
Did you forget all you knew about critical thought, Sam?
Or are you so credulous that you don't ask the obvious questions about ABC/CNN's story?
Riflebear's question was why we should have taken Covid seriously when China was supposedly denying the problem. The answer should be obvious. No matter whose reporting you believe, our own intelligence agencies were warning Trump about it at least in early January, if not before. And even the Chinese were admitting it by late December.
China's own internal records, released in March, show the first case in Wuhan around November 17. China did not publicly admit the new virus existed until a month later.
https://www.livescience.com/first-case-coronavirus-found.html
China's advisory to the WHO (China office) was December 31, 2019.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6905e1.htm
The WHO declared a global emergency January 30, 2020.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/30/who-declares-coronavirus-outbreak-a-global-health-emergency/
By that time, President Trump had already done the following:
January 3: CDC Director Robert Redfield sent an email to the director of the Chinese CDC, George Gao, formally offering to send U.S. experts to China to investigate the coronavirus.
January 5: CDC Director Redfield sent another email to the Chinese CDC Director, George Gao, formally offering to send U.S. experts to China to investigate the coronavirus outbreak,
January 6: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a travel notice for Wuhan, China due to the spreading coronavirus.
January 7: The CDC established a coronavirus incident management system to better share and respond to information about the virus.
January 11: The CDC issued a Level I travel health notice for Wuhan, China.
January 17: The CDC began implementing public health entry screening at the 3 U.S. airports that received the most travelers from Wuhan San Francisco, New York JFK, and Los Angeles.
January 20: Dr. Fauci announces the National Institutes of Health is already working on the development of a vaccine for the coronavirus.
January 21: The CDC activated its emergency operations center to provide ongoing support to the coronavirus response.
January 23: The CDC sought a "special emergency authorization" from the FDA to allow states to use its newly developed coronavirus test.
January 27: President Trump tweeted that he made an offer to President Xi Jinping to send experts to China to investigate the coronavirus outbreak.
January 27: The CDC issued a level III travel health notice urging Americans to avoid all nonessential travel to China due to the coronavirus.
January 27: The White House Coronavirus Task Force started meeting to help monitor and contain the spread of the virus and provide updates to the President.
January 29: The White House announced the formation of the Coronavirus Task Force to help monitor and contain the spread of the virus and provide updates to the President.
I will not bring up the Democrats' behavior during this period, except to observe that the Democrats were slower to respond than the White House in terms of action.
The media during this time showed no particular urgency regarding the virus, but were focused on the impeachment trial
On February 5, the President delivered the State of the Union address to Congress, which included references to the new virus emerging in China at that time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/state-of-union-transcript.html
Taken in toto, the statements and actions of both political parties and the media are all consistent with no new information beyond what was already reported to the public. Further, CNN's story is essentially the debunked ABC claim with a few details tweaked but unsupported by anything.
If we had intercepted electronic communications in China regarding the virus, the NSA would have reported the new information, not the DIA. It's important to understand the province of the different agencies with regard to sources and where they work. The CNN report is not consistent with known IC behaviors, nor is there any valid 'open source' intelligence available for review prior to mid-December.
The actions of both political parties are indeed consistent with a lack of information. That's troubling enough in itself, since we have procedures and personnel dedicated to providing that information. What's more troubling is the evidence that our people were doing their jobs but couldn't get Trump to take the threat seriously. You haven't debunked that evidence, and there's plenty more where it came from.
The DIA collects "integrated, all-source intelligence," including electronic communications, for reporting to the DOD and other government organizations. They have NSA personnel on staff for that purpose.
I'm not going to argue about anonymous sources. That's an old rabbit trail for people who don't know how journalism works.Oldbear83 said:
You admitted yourself, Sam, that CNN did not report their sources.
When that happens, the credibility of the reporter is important.
CNN does not have credibility when they cannot provide sources.
That's not a like-Trump/hate-Trump thing, it's Journalism 101.
You had the wrong source (esp when you appeal to history) and the wrong word for "cue" You're welcome.GrowlTowel said:quash said:fifyGrowlTowel 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.
You didn't. But thanks for the limited effort.
I know full-well how journalism works. Credibility matters, which of course varies from person to person, but CNN 2020 is nowhere near the credibility of Weekly World News, let alone CNN 1995.Sam Lowry said:I'm not going to argue about anonymous sources. That's an old rabbit trail for people who don't know how journalism works.Oldbear83 said:
You admitted yourself, Sam, that CNN did not report their sources.
When that happens, the credibility of the reporter is important.
CNN does not have credibility when they cannot provide sources.
That's not a like-Trump/hate-Trump thing, it's Journalism 101.
Is this what you are talking about?Canada2017 said:
French complete 2nd hydroxychloroquine study .
1003 patents
91% saw their condition improve .
0 cases of cardiac problems .
Game changer
Credibility matters when it's an issue. For example if you had some evidence that the reporters invented their sources, or that the sources weren't who they claimed to be, we would look to the organization and its editorial practices to help support or rebut the charge. You haven't raised any such issue in this case. Dismissing the story just because it's from CNN is a way to avoid information, not a way to collect it.Oldbear83 said:I know full-well how journalism works. Credibility matters, which of course varies from person to person, but CNN 2020 is nowhere near the credibility of Weekly World News, let alone CNN 1995.Sam Lowry said:I'm not going to argue about anonymous sources. That's an old rabbit trail for people who don't know how journalism works.Oldbear83 said:
You admitted yourself, Sam, that CNN did not report their sources.
When that happens, the credibility of the reporter is important.
CNN does not have credibility when they cannot provide sources.
That's not a like-Trump/hate-Trump thing, it's Journalism 101.
That's not to say I am a fan of Fox or anyone else in mainstream media. It's become a chase for ratings ahead of anything else, and so facts get trampled in the rush to be first with a scandal, no matter how contrived.
As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
Now you are just being deliberately obtuse, Sam.Sam Lowry said:So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
Oldbear83 said:Now you are just being deliberately obtuse, Sam.Sam Lowry said:So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
So you have something in common with Bearitto, now.
See what I mean, Sam?Bearitto said:Oldbear83 said:Now you are just being deliberately obtuse, Sam.Sam Lowry said:So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
So you have something in common with Bearitto, now.
Sam is certainly smart. In what other ways are we similar in your opinion?
Oldbear83 said:See what I mean, Sam?Bearitto said:Oldbear83 said:Now you are just being deliberately obtuse, Sam.Sam Lowry said:So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
So you have something in common with Bearitto, now.
Sam is certainly smart. In what other ways are we similar in your opinion?
Bearitto, you and Florda have posted a lot of comments which were basically just trolling the leftists here. A lot like posts from Bear2be2 or Porteroso in that way, although better than the venom posted by Jinx or Xiled.Bearitto said:Oldbear83 said:See what I mean, Sam?Bearitto said:Oldbear83 said:Now you are just being deliberately obtuse, Sam.Sam Lowry said:So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
So you have something in common with Bearitto, now.
Sam is certainly smart. In what other ways are we similar in your opinion?
Have I argued with you or really addressed your points in any way? Did I upset you in some way that has caused you to spend your time thinking about me? Serious question.
Oldbear83 said:Bearitto, you and Florda have posted a lot of comments which were basically just trolling the leftists here. A lot like posts from Bear2be2 or Porteroso in that way, although better than the venom posted by Jinx or Xiled.Bearitto said:Oldbear83 said:See what I mean, Sam?Bearitto said:Oldbear83 said:Now you are just being deliberately obtuse, Sam.Sam Lowry said:So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
So you have something in common with Bearitto, now.
Sam is certainly smart. In what other ways are we similar in your opinion?
Have I argued with you or really addressed your points in any way? Did I upset you in some way that has caused you to spend your time thinking about me? Serious question.
It's easy to just pop off an opinion without really supporting it. But it's the discussion version of weeds on the putting green.
Oldbear83 said:Now you are just being deliberately obtuse, Sam.Sam Lowry said:So, no contradiction.Oldbear83 said:Their report claims the White House had knowledge about the virus outbreak and severity prior to statements made on the matter. They have not supported the claim with anything like a valid source, nor even credible reasoning.Sam Lowry said:As far as I know CNN hasn't contradicted any statement on record. That's the first thing I asked you about.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Credibility matters when it's an issue"
When no source is cited, credibility of the reporter becomes the default quality. When CNN is the only agency reporting a story (remember the ABC version was flat debunked), CNN's credibility is the critical question. When CNN makes claims which contradict the statements and behaviors on record, that makes their claim dubious unless they can back it up with sources.
CNN is not credible when criticizing Trump, that was established even before Acosta started acting the ass in press conferences.
There is, for example, nothing from CNN prior to February indicating they had such knowledge, so this comes off like someone claiming to have known about 9/11 before September, but not saying anything before the attack.
Show me a Reuters report that says this and you have something. Show me a Wall Street Journal report that says this and you have something. You are believing CNN just because you find them credible. Their track record indicates that would be naive, like expecting Trump not to tweet every day.
So you have something in common with Bearitto, now.
