Booray said: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.
We failed to appreciate the properties and seriousness of the virus. That failure likely resulted from a combination of Chinese dishonesty and protecting the economy because it is the only thing POTUS really cares about. Like it or not, American government takes its cues from the White House. The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
The questions for me are whether we can learn from our mistakes and (1) get out of this as soon as possible with minimal loss of life and economic devastation and (2) be better prepared for the next one?
Coronavirus updates here
435,007 Views |
4582 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Jacques Strap
I'm pretty sure that the White House's initial reaction was to declare a public health emergency, shut down travel with China and form a task force...... which was ridiculed by those on the liberal left.Quote:
The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
Was that not good enough for you?
Florda_mike said:quash 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."riflebear said:
So I finally watched one of your videos and it contradicts what you think it stands for. It's a nothingburger.
Name calling does not help
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
Waco1947 ,la
No it wasn't. They fumbled the testing and downplayed the severity of the threat to the point that later efforts to combat the virus were impacted.HashTag said:I'm pretty sure that the White House's initial reaction was to declare a public health emergency, shut down travel with China and form a task force...... which was ridiculed by those on the liberal left.Quote:
The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
Was that not good enough for you?
POTUS acts as if his correct call on the China travel ban won the ballgame. I have not heard one scientist who supports that view. nd the "ridicule by the liberal left" is greatly exaggerated. All I saw was a CNN article that said a ban might be counter-productive and Biden saying it wasn't helpful to have a known xenophobe making these decisions. I am sure there are others, but pretending that POTUS was pilloried for making that call is disingenuous. The point of declaring a public health emergency and appointing a task force is to mobilize resources to meet the emergency. I am underwhelmed at the initial mobilization.
Sooo, if Trump didn't enact a travel ban on China, then you wouldn't be on here bashing him for not taking action?Booray said:No it wasn't. They fumbled the testing and downplayed the severity of the threat to the point that later efforts to combat the virus were impacted.HashTag said:I'm pretty sure that the White House's initial reaction was to declare a public health emergency, shut down travel with China and form a task force...... which was ridiculed by those on the liberal left.Quote:
The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
Was that not good enough for you?
POTUS acts as if his correct call on the China travel ban won the ballgame. I have not heard one scientist who supports that view. nd the "ridicule by the liberal left" is greatly exaggerated. All I saw was a CNN article that said a ban might be counter-productive and Biden saying it wasn't helpful to have a known xenophobe making these decisions. I am sure there are others, but pretending that POTUS was pilloried for making that call is disingenuous. The point of declaring a public health emergency and appointing a task force is to mobilize resources to meet the emergency. I am underwhelmed at the initial mobilization.
I have said about 100 times that Trump should be credited for making the right call on the travel ban. If he had made the wrong call on the travel ban it would depend on how long he kept the mistake in place, the intel he had indicating he should have closed and the amount of damage done by failing to close.HashTag said:Sooo, if Trump didn't enact a travel ban on China, then you wouldn't be on here bashing him for not taking action?Booray said:No it wasn't. They fumbled the testing and downplayed the severity of the threat to the point that later efforts to combat the virus were impacted.HashTag said:I'm pretty sure that the White House's initial reaction was to declare a public health emergency, shut down travel with China and form a task force...... which was ridiculed by those on the liberal left.Quote:
The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
Was that not good enough for you?
POTUS acts as if his correct call on the China travel ban won the ballgame. I have not heard one scientist who supports that view. nd the "ridicule by the liberal left" is greatly exaggerated. All I saw was a CNN article that said a ban might be counter-productive and Biden saying it wasn't helpful to have a known xenophobe making these decisions. I am sure there are others, but pretending that POTUS was pilloried for making that call is disingenuous. The point of declaring a public health emergency and appointing a task force is to mobilize resources to meet the emergency. I am underwhelmed at the initial mobilization.
Don't really see the point in that discussion when I clearly give credit where credit is due. Unlike you I recognize that the man can get somethings right and other things wrong.
Booray said: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
https://www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-trial-gets-french-presidents-attention-460000-sign-petition-supporting-1497218
If so, it sounds like there is still a ways to go before the game is changed.
91% of the 1003 patients showed improvement .
Zero cardiac issues . ( no surprise here as the drug has been used safely for decades )
No more stalls, no more false narratives, no more letting innocent people die because a president leftists hate dared to suggest the drug might be worth trying .
I despise the media liars who said the drug was dangerous. when it has been prescribed for many years .
Despise those who have hindered the use of the drug for political purposes . And don't kid yourself ...some have .
Ha, the PBS reporter asks the black Surgeon General if his lingo to minority communities is offensive.
And that his message to stop drinking, smoking is targeted to minorities. God, our MSM is so sensitive.
"We need the federal government to help minority communities but it's offensive to tell them the steps to take to be lower at risk for Covid".
And that his message to stop drinking, smoking is targeted to minorities. God, our MSM is so sensitive.
"We need the federal government to help minority communities but it's offensive to tell them the steps to take to be lower at risk for Covid".
Yup. That was Yamiche Alcindor of PBS... our tax dollars pay her damn salary!
Canada2017 said:Booray said: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
https://www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-trial-gets-french-presidents-attention-460000-sign-petition-supporting-1497218
If so, it sounds like there is still a ways to go before the game is changed.
91% of the 1003 patients showed improvement .
Zero cardiac issues . ( no surprise here as the drug has been used safely for decades )
No more stalls, no more false narratives, no more letting innocent people die because a president leftists hate dared to suggest the drug might be worth trying .
I despise the media liars who said the drug was dangerous. when it has been prescribed for many years .
Despise those who have hindered the use of the drug for political purposes . And don't kid yourself ...some have .
1. Do you have a link to what you are talking about?
2. Is it the same study I linked to? Because the concerns raised in response seem valid.
3. Who-specially-are these leftists interfering with the drug for political purposes?
Booray said:Canada2017 said:Booray said: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
https://www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-trial-gets-french-presidents-attention-460000-sign-petition-supporting-1497218
If so, it sounds like there is still a ways to go before the game is changed.
91% of the 1003 patients showed improvement .
Zero cardiac issues . ( no surprise here as the drug has been used safely for decades )
No more stalls, no more false narratives, no more letting innocent people die because a president leftists hate dared to suggest the drug might be worth trying .
I despise the media liars who said the drug was dangerous. when it has been prescribed for many years .
Despise those who have hindered the use of the drug for political purposes . And don't kid yourself ...some have .
1. Do you have a link to what you are talking about?
2. Is it the same study I linked to? Because the concerns raised in response seem valid.
3. Who-specially-are these leftists interfering with the drug for political purposes?
Have read the scare tactics in the WP and NYT.
Have listened to the scare tactics over and over again on the tube. They know damn well the drug has been used safely for decades .
Even my own ( Baylor grad ) physician is furious with the lies being spread about hydroxychloroquine.
Said he would take it immediately if he was infected .
Additional $135 million to this nonbiased (per libs here) organization. Just another example for you liars to dispute.Art Vandelay said:
Yup. That was Yamiche Alcindor of PBS... our tax dollars pay her damn salary!
Trust me, I can recognize when Trump screws up, but you libbies trying to create narrative that he is unfit as president during this crisis because, "well he SAID this" or "well he SAID that".... it's laughable especially when you look at the actions and behavior of the elected liberal left during this time.Booray said:I have said about 100 times that Trump should be credited for making the right call on the travel ban. If he had made the wrong call on the travel ban it would depend on how long he kept the mistake in place, the intel he had indicating he should have closed and the amount of damage done by failing to close.HashTag said:Sooo, if Trump didn't enact a travel ban on China, then you wouldn't be on here bashing him for not taking action?Booray said:No it wasn't. They fumbled the testing and downplayed the severity of the threat to the point that later efforts to combat the virus were impacted.HashTag said:I'm pretty sure that the White House's initial reaction was to declare a public health emergency, shut down travel with China and form a task force...... which was ridiculed by those on the liberal left.Quote:
The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
Was that not good enough for you?
POTUS acts as if his correct call on the China travel ban won the ballgame. I have not heard one scientist who supports that view. nd the "ridicule by the liberal left" is greatly exaggerated. All I saw was a CNN article that said a ban might be counter-productive and Biden saying it wasn't helpful to have a known xenophobe making these decisions. I am sure there are others, but pretending that POTUS was pilloried for making that call is disingenuous. The point of declaring a public health emergency and appointing a task force is to mobilize resources to meet the emergency. I am underwhelmed at the initial mobilization.
Don't really see the point in that discussion when I clearly give credit where credit is due. Unlike you I recognize that the man can get somethings right and other things wrong.
Trump ain't perfect, but he sure is a hell of a lot better than your last guy and your presumptive next guy.. also a lot better than your last candidate and you current "leadership" of the democratic party.
That's what I said, the test is required for reporting it, for surveillance purposes.Sam Lowry said: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.
The point was not that pediatric flu deaths require a test in order to list it as a cause of death. The point was that naming an official, legal cause of death should at least warrant the same scrutiny and specificity as that which they deem reportable. It doesn't make sense to have a child's death officially named as being from the flu, yet it is not reportable as being from the flu.
Neither their smartness nor their rigorous training would enable them to definitively differentiate a pneumonia caused by influenza from one caused by CoVid-19 on their clinical judgement alone. What their training and knowledge would do, is allow them to make an initial, presumptive diagnosis quickly so as to guide treatment and therapy. But a definitive diagnosis is needed for definitive treatment, which requires testing. If a presumptive diagnosis of the flu turns out to be pneumococcal pneumonia from testing, it would necessitate a change in treatment. No doctor would continue treatment based on their presumptive diagnosis alone, without confirmation, especially with infectious disease. Doing so could lead to the patient's death, and it would be malpractice.Booray said: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?
Of course all of this is moot if the doctor does have a test result. It seems like having the right number and quality of tests as a pandemic starts to spread across our shores is a pretty important thing to you?
Yes, a good, quality test would indeed be important, especially during a pandemic. Obviously.
Some of her salary, as PBS has tons of private donors. I've said for years that PBS should follow the Pacifica model and stop taking federal money. Mostly to avoid cheap shots like this that don't even address the issue.Art Vandelay said:
Yup. That was Yamiche Alcindor of PBS... our tax dollars pay her damn salary!
quash said:Some of her salary, as PBS has tons of private donors. I've said for years that PBS should follow the Pacifica model and stop taking federal money. Mostly to avoid cheap shots like this that don't even address the issue.Art Vandelay said:
Yup. That was Yamiche Alcindor of PBS... our tax dollars pay her damn salary!
PBS is no more unbiased than CNN or Fox.
They shouldn't be getting Federal funding.
And they will never do itquash said:Some of her salary, as PBS has tons of private donors. I've said for years that PBS should follow the Pacifica model and stop taking federal money. Mostly to avoid cheap shots like this that don't even address the issue.Art Vandelay said:
Yup. That was Yamiche Alcindor of PBS... our tax dollars pay her damn salary!
Why?
Booray said:No it wasn't. They fumbled the testing and downplayed the severity of the threat to the point that later efforts to combat the virus were impacted.HashTag said:I'm pretty sure that the White House's initial reaction was to declare a public health emergency, shut down travel with China and form a task force...... which was ridiculed by those on the liberal left.Quote:
The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
Was that not good enough for you?
POTUS acts as if his correct call on the China travel ban won the ballgame. I have not heard one scientist who supports that view. nd the "ridicule by the liberal left" is greatly exaggerated. All I saw was a CNN article that said a ban might be counter-productive and Biden saying it wasn't helpful to have a known xenophobe making these decisions. I am sure there are others, but pretending that POTUS was pilloried for making that call is disingenuous. The point of declaring a public health emergency and appointing a task force is to mobilize resources to meet the emergency. I am underwhelmed at the initial mobilization.
Then you are a ****ing moron. The president shut down a 22 trillion dollar economy to save lives while at the same time your party was calling him a racist (as you have for 3 years). Be "underwhelmed" on your own time Killary. This is no difference than her screaming at GWB "what did he know and when did he he know it!"
Oh, and please show your work. What would be different if he shut it down a week earlier. Two weeks? Three weeks.
Can't do the math can you because the data isn't there?
Thanks.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yeah great reply
Booray and its' ilk are a waste, total scum!
If you're still a democrat today then you're an enemy of our country as we all know it
Booray and its' ilk are a waste, total scum!
If you're still a democrat today then you're an enemy of our country as we all know it
Bend it like Fauci........
- BUmma
{ sipping coffee }
- BUmma
{ sipping coffee }
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.
April 10: 33,752 new cases. 2,035 new deaths.
Total cases (tested): 502,876
Total deaths: 18,747
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
April 10: 12,186 cases. 248 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)
April 10: 172,358 cases. 7,844 deaths. (777 today)
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.
April 10: 33,752 new cases. 2,035 new deaths.
Total cases (tested): 502,876
Total deaths: 18,747
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
April 10: 12,186 cases. 248 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)
April 10: 172,358 cases. 7,844 deaths. (777 today)
US will be #1 in the world in Covid-19 deaths today to go along with our number of cases.. We have passed Italy.
ATL Bear said:
US will be #1 in the world in Covid-19 deaths today to go along with our number of cases.. We have passed Italy.
Then either hydroxychloroquine isn't effective or it's being administered too late .
Suspect it is being given far too late .
We have over 3 times as many test confirmed cases but a much lower CFR mortality rate than either Italy or Spain. We passed both in total cases a while back, it's just the volume has caught up with us on deaths. That being said, 60% of our fatalities are from 3 states, NY/NJ/MI.Canada2017 said:ATL Bear said:
US will be #1 in the world in Covid-19 deaths today to go along with our number of cases.. We have passed Italy.
Then either hydroxychloroquine isn't effective or it's being administered too late .
Suspect it is being given far too late .
GrowlTowel said:Booray said:No it wasn't. They fumbled the testing and downplayed the severity of the threat to the point that later efforts to combat the virus were impacted.HashTag said:I'm pretty sure that the White House's initial reaction was to declare a public health emergency, shut down travel with China and form a task force...... which was ridiculed by those on the liberal left.Quote:
The White House's initial reaction left something to be desired. It cost us, but that cost is incremental; we were never going to completely escape the virus.
Was that not good enough for you?
POTUS acts as if his correct call on the China travel ban won the ballgame. I have not heard one scientist who supports that view. nd the "ridicule by the liberal left" is greatly exaggerated. All I saw was a CNN article that said a ban might be counter-productive and Biden saying it wasn't helpful to have a known xenophobe making these decisions. I am sure there are others, but pretending that POTUS was pilloried for making that call is disingenuous. The point of declaring a public health emergency and appointing a task force is to mobilize resources to meet the emergency. I am underwhelmed at the initial mobilization.
Then you are a ****ing moron. The president shut down a 22 trillion dollar economy to save lives while at the same time your party was calling him a racist (as you have for 3 years). Be "underwhelmed" on your own time Killary. This is no difference than her screaming at GWB "what did he know and when did he he know it!"
Oh, and please show your work. What would be different if he shut it down a week earlier. Two weeks? Three weeks.
Can't do the math can you because the data isn't there?
Thanks.
Where did you get your data?
You throw out 22 trillion like it's the actual damage to the economy, but we don't know that yet.
And then ask for his math, with some cheap political shots thrown in when booray was trying to be bipartisan.
If you have something to add to the discussion feel free. This reply subtracted.
Thanks againATL Bear said:
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.
April 10: 33,752 new cases. 2,035 new deaths.
Total cases (tested): 502,876
Total deaths: 18,747
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
April 10: 12,186 cases. 248 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)
April 10: 172,358 cases. 7,844 deaths. (777 today)
My thanks added as well. This is useful and does not attack anyone, which is what we need more of from everyone, please.Osodecentx said:Thanks againATL Bear said:
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.
April 10: 33,752 new cases. 2,035 new deaths.
Total cases (tested): 502,876
Total deaths: 18,747
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
April 10: 12,186 cases. 248 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)
April 10: 172,358 cases. 7,844 deaths. (777 today)
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
hocus pocus.....
>>
Guidelines recently released by the Centers for Disease Control bolster concerns that the death toll is being rigged to show a higher fatality rate.
"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed'," the agency advises. "In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgment in determining if a COVID19 infection was likely."
That clinical judgment, alarmingly, does not require administering a test to confirm the presence of the virus.
<<
- BUmma
>>
Guidelines recently released by the Centers for Disease Control bolster concerns that the death toll is being rigged to show a higher fatality rate.
"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed'," the agency advises. "In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgment in determining if a COVID19 infection was likely."
That clinical judgment, alarmingly, does not require administering a test to confirm the presence of the virus.
<<
- BUmma
william said:
hocus pocus.....
>>
Guidelines recently released by the Centers for Disease Control bolster concerns that the death toll is being rigged to show a higher fatality rate.
"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed'," the agency advises. "In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgment in determining if a COVID19 infection was likely."
That clinical judgment, alarmingly, does not require administering a test to confirm the presence of the virus.
<<
- BUmma
This protocol was discussed thoroughly elsewhere. First, it is absolutely standard procedure for death certificates. You never need a definitive test for a death certificate-ft lu, pneumonia, cancer whatever. Second, CDC is requiring a positive test to be counted in the deaths that will be used for epidemiological studies. Third, Covid likely contributes to or caused a number of deaths were no medical attention was given and the deceased had underlying conditions, so there are Covid deaths not being reported. Fourth, doctors who report with a reasonable degree of certainty that Covid caused or contributed to a death are going to be right 99% of the time.
This isn't a conspiracy. It's medical science.
In your last sentence, the last thing all this is, is "science!"
And with today's lame stream media true "science" rarely surfaces anymore
And with today's lame stream media true "science" rarely surfaces anymore
You libs were on Trump for not listening to his scientists early, then we find out he actually was and now you blame Trump for listening to his Scientists. The NYC Mayor in early March was even telling people there was nothing to worry about. It's sad that the media has made this political but no one is surprised. And no one is surprised that they are trying to rewrite history and lie as usual.TexasScientist 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.
1. Here is a good synopsis:
Don't Trust the Chinese Government's COVID-19 Timeline
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/dont-trust-the-chinese-governments-covid-19-timeline/
2: MSNBC and WAPO - Morning JOE MSNBC April 6th
Summary
December 31. CDC began developing reports for HHS on virus from Wuhan.
January 3rd formal notification of Covid 19 from China to CDC
January 3rd chief of CDC warns HHS Secretary Azar of disturbing news. On same day Azar shares Chinese virus notification with White House and NSC.
January 5. U. S. spy agencies warn Trump of outbreak in presidents daily brief
January 6. CDC offers assistance to China who turned down offer.
Same week HHS convened an interagency task force on Covid 19 with HHS Secretary Azar, chief of CDC, and Dr. Fauci.
January 8th CDC issued a public warning about Coronavirus
January 14th HHS assistant Secretary Robert Kadlec begins drawing up planes to implement the DPA to fight the virus for President to use DPA
Feb. 29 the FDA allowed private testing cause CDC failed. FDA said if it was a private entity it would shut it down, and two days later opened it up for private testing.
38 countries banned at same time or before U.S. banned China travel. U.S. had so many exceptions so porous that 40,000 continued through after ban. 430,000 came overall since virus first broke out.
Peter Navarro warned President in Mid January and in mid February of coming pandemic.
3. Timeline: Trump's efforts to downplay the coronavirus threat
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/12/trump-coronavirus-timeline/
4. The Coronavirus According to Donald Trump
A tick-tock of the President's remarks over the last seven weeks as the COVID-19 viral disease outbreak grew into a pandemic.
https://thebulwark.com/the-coronavirus-according-to-donald-trump/
Florda_mike said:
In your last sentence, the last thing all this is, is "science!"
And with today's lame stream media true "science" rarely surfaces anymore
*Says the dude who's not remotely close to being a scientist