Are they trying to scare people?
Why skew the numbers?


UPDATE: Dr. Birx Confirms Anyone Who Dies WITH Coronavirus, Regardless of Any Underlying Health Condition, is Being Counted as a COVID-19 Death (VIDEO)
By Cristina Laila
Published April 7, 2020 at 8:45pm
219 Comments
Share
(700)
Tweet
Email


As TGP reported over the weekend, the amount of Americans who are reported to have died from the Coronavirus is based on a CDC coding system that will “result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”

Advertisement - story continues below


Dr. Birx confirmed this on Tuesday during a COVID-19 task force briefing.

A new ICD code was established to keep track of Coronavirus deaths.

The U07.1 code will be used for death by Coronavirus infection.

TRENDING: Colorado Man Handcuffed in Front of His 6-Year-Old Daughter at Park For 'Violating Social Distancing Order' (VIDEO)

However, there’s another secondary code, U07.2, “for clinical or epidemiological diagnosis of COVID-19 where a laboratory confirmation is inconclusive or not available,” the CDC guidelines read.

“The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID- 19 being the underlying cause more often than not,” the guidelines read.

Advertisement - story continues below


Dr. Birx on Tuesday told a reporter during a Coronavirus task force briefing, “We’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality.”

“Can you talk about your concerns about deaths being misreported by Coronavirus because of either testing or standards for how they are characterized?” the reporter asked Birx.

“If someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death,” Birx said.

There is a big difference between dying with the virus and from the virus.

As if the average person reads..
The average adult is running on low information and, thanks to this, admitted BULLSHIT,misinformation.
Funding? Naaah..
Your holding to numbers
Don't buy it.
Bureaucrats who hate Trump
Yeah. Anything to try to make him look bad
And
They get the added bonus of
Demonstrable NEED for a large force to be ready for
Next time..
How can usable data be generated
When the data is corrupted
By POLICY?
You might decide you know
Why they are choosing to destroy the data this way
But it's fukking inexcusable.
At the end of this, nobody is gonna have hard data to look at, because people who were hanging by a thread are being counted as healthy, prior to CoVid, and dead
Due to it.
I'm disappointed
But not surprised
Government,, always right..


Hmmmm,, ya Knoow,, since the asymptomatic aren't included in the mortality rate, to hold it down, or, if it is, I'm not seeing it..
And everyone who dies who tests positive is assumed to have died From it
They just might make it look like they handled right...
Are they testing wreck victims who weren't under doctors care?
Just how stupid are they?
I have a friend who has died several times, Type 2 diabetes, over 300 pounds, COPD, he teeters on the line between this world and the next every day.. so if he gets it and dies , his death will be, because of how they did the data, counted as a generally healthy person, killed by CoVid..
Right?

 It is inaccurate to say that if someone dies from a skiing accident, or a car wreck, that they will be classified as a SARS-COV-2 death.  

 A car wreck does not fit within the parameters of "Underlying Health Condition" and as such can not be coded that way, but it is a good strategy to claim that so programs one doesn't agree with can be discredited.  


 One thing left out of the article is that this is a new code and intended to include pneumonia cases that might have been SARS-COV-2 but not tested for.  Also the coding isn't expected to remain an absolute, it is designed to create a data-block that is further studied.  The CDC will most likely not release official numbers for years.  Also people are ignoring the word "provisional".


 I'm still wondering why if this is a strategy to induce fear, why one would go on national television and say outright the numbers are wrong.

Eegore wrote on 04/07/20 at 23:27:08:

 It could be funding for that matter,

"Could" Be ????????

Say I came accost a person that fell from a ladder.
I saw a piece of bone sticking out from his leg.
Not being a Doctor or a Nurse,
I would say that person has a broken leg.
NOT ! “… So it could be, or it could not…"

Eegore wrote on 04/08/20 at 06:53:31:

 So it could be, or it could not.  

"Say I came accost a person that fell from a ladder.
I saw a piece of bone sticking out from his leg.
Not being a Doctor or a Nurse,
I would say that person has a broken leg."

 I would consider the bone sticking out of the leg as an appropriate level of evidence.  Since we are just imagining up unrelated things lets say this:

 You see a video of someone saying they fell off a ladder.  They say they might have broken their leg, they can stand with significant pain, there is no x-ray, no examination.  Do they have a broken leg?


 I don't consider one person's statement enough evidence on this topic to say it is for funding and not study, or any other reason.  I've been accused of implementing policy to make money that actually cost me money.  So in this case I can't say that a classification code is for funding, and not for classification, or other reasons.

Eegore wrote on 04/08/20 at 07:26:57:

"... Since we are just imagining up unrelated things ..."

What say you about;
The CDC, 'no fly list', order, (domestic), which is enforced by the Airlines.
Which say's, "...at risk for, a serious contagious disease..."
Which, can, include everybody.
That order, is not, 'imagining'.

Wait, that is totally, 'Unrelated'.

Not at all like lying about a virus's death rate,
to get more funding.

"The vast majority of men over 65,
die with some sort of Prostrate cancer"
(As P.H. would say; "The Rest Of The Story")
"A very small amount of men over 65 die,
from, Prostrate cancer"

"...don't consider one person's statement enough evidence on this topic to say it is for funding and not study..."

Which statement above, gets a bigger grant ?

Yeah, but that would be BS too.. How about we just report the truth, instead of having to
adjust
later?