• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Some Ask a Taboo Question: Is America Overreacting to Coronavirus?

mcg said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/sports/germany-soccer-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

The Bundesliga is working on restarting in early May. The article above indicates that their plan is to play in empty stadiums thru the end of 2020. That really makes me wonder if we will see college football next fall.

This is officially a war now. In wars you may have to sacrifice & if it a college football season so be it! You do what you have to do! Life in this Great Country has definitely changed in the past month.
 
kemajic said:
hokeyfine said:
A quick Google search indicates she is very right leaning and probably has a political slant behind her views.
Does that make her wrong? Maybe if she was left-leaning she would be more correct?
didn't say anything about being right or wrong, or being left-leaning would be more believable.
 
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Your warm weather theory takes a pretty serious blow when you consider the severity of the outbreaks in places like Italy, Iran, Atlanta, Florida, NOLA et al.

Are you indicating that Italy is warm now? It's not. Tehran isn't warm now. Florida, or southern Florida, is warm now. New Orleans isn't that warm now, and right now is cooler than Missoula.

Yes. It was low 70s in northern and central Italy during the height of outbreak. It's going to be 77 in NOLA today, mid 80s over the weekend. Obviously Florida is always warm. So yes, I'd call that warm. Certainly warmer than Montana in April or May if you simply "open the windows" as was suggested.
 
There is alot of good info, in terms of views on reopening in the article. Trump, Mnuchin, Fauci, Barr, Cuomo.

"Trump administration pushing to reopen much of the U.S. next month"

"The Trump administration is pushing to reopen much of the country next month, raising concerns among health experts and economists of a possible covid-19 resurgence if Americans return to their normal lives before the virus is truly stamped out.
Behind closed doors, President Trump — concerned with the sagging economy — has sought a strategy for resuming business activity by May 1, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Asked Thursday during an appearance on CNBC whether he thought it was possible that the country could be open for business next month, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, said, “I do.”

The White House cannot unilaterally reopen the country. Though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued federal guidance advising people to avoid social gatherings, work from home and use pickup and delivery options for food, it is state officials who have put the force of law behind those suggestions.

The CDC guidance is set to expire April 30, but the states are free to choose their own paths. Already, the state directives have varied in timing and in severity, and that is certain to continue as they are rolled back.

Among those pushing to reopen the economy, according to senior administration officials, is Marc Short, the vice president’s chief of staff and a top adviser to Trump. Short has argued there will be fewer deaths than the models show and that the country has already overreacted, according to people with knowledge of his comments.

Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top expert on infectious diseases, said Thursday that some places might reopen sooner than others, and that hard-hit New York, for example, shouldn’t loosen its restrictions until there was a “very steep decline” in infections.

“It’s not going to be one size fits all,” he said.

Among those pushing to reopen the economy, according to senior administration officials, is Marc Short, the vice president’s chief of staff and a top adviser to Trump. Short has argued there will be fewer deaths than the models show and that the country has already overreacted, according to people with knowledge of his comments.

Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top expert on infectious diseases, said Thursday that some places might reopen sooner than others, and that hard-hit New York, for example, shouldn’t loosen its restrictions until there was a “very steep decline” in infections.

“It’s not going to be one size fits all,” he said.

White House advisers have contemplated scenarios in which some “hot spot” states will not be ready to reopen as quickly, the people familiar with the matter said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-administration-pushing-to-reopen-much-of-the-us-next-month/ar-BB12pfvU
 
AZGrizFan said:
Dutch Lane said:
Anybody follow the Wisconsin primary? Lot of pissed off voters who stood in line six feet apart wearing mask for hours to vote. Milwaukee only had five polling places open for 800,000 voters. People risked a lot to stand in line for hours to simply vote during a pandemic. As a country going forward in a presidential election year any thoughts on going to strictly mail in voting to lessen the risk and also insure participation. Thanks

Mail/online voting? A dem’s wet dream....

In reality....if we’re still in this situation in November there won’t be a country left to elect a president FOR.

Why is vote by mail a problem, and why does it (according to the right) help the Democratic party?

We've had mail in voting for years and Washington, and it's fantastic. There hasn't been one proven instance of voter fraud. In fact, there hasn't been one ALLEGATION of voter fraud. I don't understand how making voting easier for registered voters is anything but a positive in a true democracy/republic.
 
EverettGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
Are you indicating that Italy is warm now? It's not. Tehran isn't warm now. Florida, or southern Florida, is warm now. New Orleans isn't that warm now, and right now is cooler than Missoula.

Yes. It was low 70s in northern and central Italy during the height of outbreak. It's going to be 77 in NOLA today, mid 80s over the weekend. Obviously Florida is always warm. So yes, I'd call that warm. Certainly warmer than Montana in April or May if you simply "open the windows" as was suggested.

Average high/low temps in Milan in Feb, March and April are: 49/38, 58/44, 65/50. In Milan, in Feb, there were only 2 days over 61. Most days were in the 50s. In the beginning of March, the temps were 46, 48, 54, 55, 50, 52, 61, 57, 50. It was not in the low 70s in northern Italy during height of the outbreak. "In February, eleven municipalities in northern Italy were identified as the centres of the two main Italian clusters and placed under quarantine. The majority of positive cases in other regions traced back to these two clusters.[7] On 8 March 2020, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte expanded the quarantine to all of Lombardy and 14 other northern provinces, and on the following day to all of Italy, placing more than 60 million people in quarantine." Wiki. Milan is in Northern Italy. The worst place in Italy is Bergamo, a small city northeast of Milan.

For New Orleans: 56/47, 73/54, 69/61.

For Tehran: 52/36, 61/44, 72/54.
 
hokeyfine said:
kemajic said:
Does that make her wrong? Maybe if she was left-leaning she would be more correct?
didn't say anything about being right or wrong, or being left-leaning would be more believable.
The question I raised was, of course, “How credible is this Dr. Annie Bukacek, M.D., out of Kalispell?”

And, actually, I inferred that she had a right-ish slant from the sites that had, or had not, posted the video. Examples of those posting were reddit.com and billingsgazette.com. The more mainstream sources seem to have ignored it … no attempts (that I can find) even to refute it.

In any case, the fact that she might have a right or left leaning bias is irrelevant, and doesn’t answer the question. FWIW: I started to watch the video, which began with a long introduction of her. Her credentials seem quite reasonable. However, she is not a very good public speaker – as a speaker. She spent a lot of time looking down at her manuscript and it was hard to hear and follow her (not close enough to the mike, for one). I finally found a transcript of what she said. It’s most likely only a partial record, so perhaps she has some disclaimers that are not shown.
Dr. Bukacek said:
Few people know how much individual power and leeway is given to the physician, coroner, or medical examiner, signing the death certificate.  How do I know this?  I've been filling out death certificates for over 30 years.

More often than we want to admit, we don’t know with certainty the cause of death when we fill out death certificates.  That is just life. We are doctors, not God.  Autopsies are rarely performed and even when an autopsy is done the actual cause of death is not always clear.  Physicians make their best guesstimate and fill out the form.  Then that listed cause of death … is entered into a vital records data bank to use for statistical analysis, which then gives out inaccurate numbers, as you can imagine.  Those inaccurate numbers then become accepted as factual information even though much of it is false.

So even before we heard of COVID-19, death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses that go unquestioned.  When it comes to COVID-19 there is the additional data skewer, that is – get this – there is no universal definition of COVID-19 death.  The Centers for Disease Control, updated from yesterday, April 4th, still states that mortality, quote unquote, data includes both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19.  That’s from their website.

Translation?  The CDC counts both true COVID-19 cases and speculative guesses of COVID-19 the same.  They call it death by COVID-19. They automatically overestimate the real death numbers, by their own admission. Prior to COVID-19, people were more likely to get an accurate cause of death written on their death certificate if they died in the hospital. Why more accurate when a patient dies in the hospital?  Because hospital staff has physical examination findings labs, radiologic studies, et cetera, to make a good educated guess.  It is estimated that 60 percent of people die in the hospital.  But even [with] those in-hospital deaths, the cause of death is not always clear, especially in someone with multiple health conditions, each of which could cause the death.

The assumption of COVID-19 death can be made even without testing.  Based on assumption alone the death can be reported to the public as another COVID-19 casualty.
First: I cannot tell how accurate this transcription is, since I didn’t listen to the whole talk. But I would quibble with only one point … if it is reported here accurately. She (supposedly) says, “accepted as factual information even though much of it is false.” Not sure I would agree with such a black-and-white assertion. A great deal of it may be “uncertain,” but we, and she, cannot possibly know how much of it is “false.”

Earlier on this thread, I posted the link to CDC guidelines for encoding deaths attributed to COVID-19. That’s now several pages back, so here it is again: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/...-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf

And here are two crucial quotes:
CDC said:
What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?
If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code.
...
Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.
Some of the terminology she used in her talk perhaps betrays her bias. But her basic premise is, in fact, valid. In fact, I hadn’t really absorbed the full implications of that last paragraph from the CDC. It means that any signs of COVID-19 essentially take precedence over other possible cause(s) of death. “Contributory” causes – which could well be the primary cause(s) – are relegated to “Part II.”
 
Here is an article from the end of March that suggest that Italy’s high mortality rate might have been due to the mild winter weather that left alive more people susceptible to Covid19. Note the regular flu peaked in early February, about when Italy started reporting the Covid19 outbreak.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/italy-s-mild-flu-season-may-solve-mystery-of-coronavirus-deaths
 
Now we learn the counting of coup on covid death certificates is bogus under CDC directive. That is, attributing death to covid is done a a a matter of accounting not a matter of cause. Stated another way, if flu deaths were counted this way we would have a pandemic emergency every year. No one can say this virus is more dangerous than seasonal flu based on comparing death rates when the death rates are not consistently calculated by the CDC.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/04/07/covid19-death-certificate-change-stirs-controversy
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/04/10/you-can-trust-utahs/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3105872386098740

A good portion of posters here seem to have grown up during the "never trust the government" and "never trust anyone over 30" generation. It's time to take those warnings to heed again.
 
Grizbeer said:
Here is an article from the end of March that suggest that Italy’s high mortality rate might have been due to the mild winter weather that left alive more people susceptible to Covid19. Note the regular flu peaked in early February, about when Italy started reporting the Covid19 outbreak.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/italy-s-mild-flu-season-may-solve-mystery-of-coronavirus-deaths

And the article was discussing the flu season in all of Italy, not Northern Italy where the Virus broke out. Interesting article and idea.
 
LA Times article with what seems to be a more neutral discussion and approach

"We can't shelter in place forever: How the coronavirus lockdown might end
The coronavirus changed our lives. Health experts discuss how we might get back to normal."

"A safe return to normal life is going to be incremental.

Once there has been a significant drop in new cases, local governments will be able to slowly reopen schools, shops and restaurants, Chi said.

However, shops and restaurants may be required to reduce the maximum number of people they serve at a time so customers can stay at a safe distance from one another.

Swann said we will probably live in a hybrid reality for several months — not quite lockdown conditions, yet not quite normalcy.

“We can expect some services to open, but not all,” she said. “We are entering a new world.”

Cases are likely to rise after restrictions are loosened, Chi said.

However, local health authorities may be able to manage them by carefully tracking everyone an infected person comes into contact with, testing those people for the virus, and quarantining them if they are sick.

“If the government is meticulously tracking, testing and quarantining people, then it is still safe to meet a friend for a drink,” he said.

Does this pandemic only end with a vaccine?
Not necessarily.

Ultimately, pandemics end when a sufficient percentage of the population has immunity to a disease, either because they already had it and recovered or because they get a medical treatment that makes them immune — like a vaccine.

However, our previous lives could largely resume before that comes to pass.

“The availability of an effective treatment — which would reduce not only symptoms but also the chance of complications — would certainly help in terms of getting back to normal,” Keskinocak said."

Read in Los Angeles Times: https://apple.news/AuKbbDZG0TRObjUEvcRk5Ow
 
This is a huge number:

"Goldman Sachs now predicts the United States economy will shrink a staggering 34 percent in the second quarter, more than three times the biggest plunge in history.

The investment banking giant has also warned unemployment could hit 15 percent as the country reels from the coronavirus outbreak."

Coronavirus job losses in the United States could hit 47 million, with unemployment at more than 30 per cent, according to stark new estimates by a Federal Reserve."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8172553/Goldman-Sachs-predicts-U-S-economy-drop-34-second-quarter.html
 
"Positive coronavirus tests rise with age, White House data shows."

"Among people who were tested:

11 percent of those under 25 were positive.

17 percent of those between 25 and 45 were positive.

21 percent of those between 45 and 65 were positive.

22 percent of those between 65 and 85 were positive.

24 percent of those over 85 were positive.

Tests for the coronavirus are provided if people show symptoms such as a dry cough, fever or shortness of breath. Women are slightly more likely to get tested than men, although men seem to be more susceptible to the coronavirus, said Dr. Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator for the White House. Among women who were tested, 16 percent were positive; 23 percent of men who were tested had coronavirus infections."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/coronavirus-us-news.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#link-48042a92
 
Bad news for the restaurant business.

"The pandemic could cost the United States a quarter of its restaurants, said Cameron Mitchell, who owns and runs a chain of 21 restaurants in Ohio and has more across the country. He has furloughed all but six of the company’s 4,000 workers. “I’m not asking for a handout,” Mr. Mitchell said, but “we need some additional help, or else America’s not going to have a restaurant industry to come back to.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/business/coronavirus-unemployment-washington.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
 
Anxiety and Depression:

"When the Pandemic Leaves Us Alone, Anxious and Depressed

We are in a dual crisis of physical and mental health. But there are ways to head off breakdowns."

"A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found nearly half of respondents said their mental health was being harmed by the coronavirus pandemic. Nearly everyone I know has been thrust in varying degrees into grief, panic, hopelessness and paralyzing fear. If you say, “I’m so terrified I can barely sleep,” people may reply, “What sensible person isn’t?

But that response can cause us to lose sight of the dangerous secondary crisis unfolding alongside the more obvious one: an escalation in both short-term and long-term clinical mental illness that may endure for decades after the pandemic recedes.

Social isolation generates at least as much escalation of mental illness as does fear of the virus itself. Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a psychologist, found that social isolation is twice as harmful to a person’s physical health as obesity.

There are roughly four responses to the coronavirus crisis and the contingent social isolation. Some people take it all in stride and rely on a foundation of unshakable psychic stability. Others constitute the worried well, who need only a bit of psychological first aid. A third group who have not previously experienced these disorders are being catapulted into them. Last, many who were already suffering from major depressive disorder have had their condition exacerbated, developing what clinicians call “double depression,” in which a persistent depressive disorder is overlaid with an episode of unbearable pain.

Fear of contagion has pushed people into behavior that exacerbates depression and anxiety and so can lead to suicide — raising the mortality of Covid-19 among people who don’t even have it.

The authorities keep saying that the coronavirus will pass like the flu for most people who contract it, but that it is more likely to be fatal for older people and those with physically compromising preconditions. The list of conditions should, however, include depression generated by fear, loneliness or grief. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/opinion/coronavirus-depression-anxiety.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
 
Finally, some good news:

"Some auto insurers are giving refunds because of the coronavirus outbeak"

"As some auto insurance companies start giving refunds and credits to commuters stuck at home during the coronavirus outbreak, there’s an easy way drivers with other carriers can catch the same break — just pick up the phone and ask.

On Thursday, State Farm, the country’s largest auto insurer, said it was giving policyholders an approximate 25% credit on premiums paid between March 20 and May 31; the credit from the country’s largest auto insurer will be returning $2 billion to policy holders on 40 million vehicles.

Earlier in the week, other insurers announced discounts and credits for their customers. The list includes Allstate ALL, +3.17% and Liberty Mutual, which are issuing 15% refunds on premiums, according to announcements earlier this week. Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s BRK.A, +1.22% BRK.B, +1.48% Geico insurance said Tuesday it will give a 15% credit as policies come up for renewal between now and October, and American Family Insurance is issuing a onetime $50 refund per covered vehicle.

Farmers Insurance and its subsidiary, 21st Century Insurance, is giving drivers a 25% reduction in April premiums, the company said Wednesday. The same day, USAA, a bank and insurer geared towards military members and their families, announced a 20% credit for auto policy holders on two months of premiums. Progressive Insurance also unveiled a 20% credit on the April and May premiums.

Car traffic has plummeted as states impose “shelter in place” orders and scores of companies have told employees to work from home. Personal travel has been declining for three straight weeks, according to Inrix, a traffic data analytics company. From late March to early April, personal travel traffic in the U.S. dropped 47% compared to traffic in late February, the data showed."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/some-auto-insurers-are-giving-refunds-because-of-the-coronavirus-outbeak-heres-how-you-can-get-a-break-too-2020-04-09
 
"Carson says 'about 98 percent' of people who get coronavirus will recover: 'We can't operate out of hysteria'"

"Housing & Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson told "The Story" Thursday that not enough public attention is being paid to "the number of people who have recovered" from coronavirus" -- which Carson said "is going to be about 98 percent of all the people who get it."

Carson emphasized that Americans should continue practicing social distancing and follow the other guidelines from the White House coronavirus task force, of which he is a member. He added that now is not the time for people to let their guard down.

The secretary added that when it comes to reopening the U.S. economy, the government must watch for the infection curve to be at a low enough point, as well as for sufficient antibody testing to be online.

"When we see that bell-shaped curve -- and we've seen it come down rather steeply in some other countries -- when that happens [and] we haven't seen it go back up, that's what we are looking for here," he said. "That already seems to be starting."

"Obviously, we don't want to [resume economic activity] too early. We will wait for a couple of weeks and see if that continues down and then we also need to make sure that we have appropriate testing."
"We have to be able to test people to see if they have the antibodies which will make them much safer in terms of returning to the workforce. And then we have to return them in a logical way. That's the key."

At the same time, Carson acknowledged that if we "destroy the economic infrastructure of our country," there will be more hardship than there has been from the virus itself.

"We can't operate out of hysteria," Carson said. "When people are hysterical they don't do logical things."


https://apple.news/AS5cMSKdTTpqVYt4rqLGo3g
 
IdaGriz01 said:
hokeyfine said:
didn't say anything about being right or wrong, or being left-leaning would be more believable.
The question I raised was, of course, “How credible is this Dr. Annie Bukacek, M.D., out of Kalispell?”

And, actually, I inferred that she had a right-ish slant from the sites that had, or had not, posted the video. Examples of those posting were reddit.com and billingsgazette.com. The more mainstream sources seem to have ignored it … no attempts (that I can find) even to refute it.

In any case, the fact that she might have a right or left leaning bias is irrelevant, and doesn’t answer the question. FWIW: I started to watch the video, which began with a long introduction of her. Her credentials seem quite reasonable. However, she is not a very good public speaker – as a speaker. She spent a lot of time looking down at her manuscript and it was hard to hear and follow her (not close enough to the mike, for one). I finally found a transcript of what she said. It’s most likely only a partial record, so perhaps she has some disclaimers that are not shown.
Dr. Bukacek said:
Few people know how much individual power and leeway is given to the physician, coroner, or medical examiner, signing the death certificate.  How do I know this?  I've been filling out death certificates for over 30 years.

More often than we want to admit, we don’t know with certainty the cause of death when we fill out death certificates.  That is just life. We are doctors, not God.  Autopsies are rarely performed and even when an autopsy is done the actual cause of death is not always clear.  Physicians make their best guesstimate and fill out the form.  Then that listed cause of death … is entered into a vital records data bank to use for statistical analysis, which then gives out inaccurate numbers, as you can imagine.  Those inaccurate numbers then become accepted as factual information even though much of it is false.

So even before we heard of COVID-19, death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses that go unquestioned.  When it comes to COVID-19 there is the additional data skewer, that is – get this – there is no universal definition of COVID-19 death.  The Centers for Disease Control, updated from yesterday, April 4th, still states that mortality, quote unquote, data includes both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19.  That’s from their website.

Translation?  The CDC counts both true COVID-19 cases and speculative guesses of COVID-19 the same.  They call it death by COVID-19. They automatically overestimate the real death numbers, by their own admission. Prior to COVID-19, people were more likely to get an accurate cause of death written on their death certificate if they died in the hospital. Why more accurate when a patient dies in the hospital?  Because hospital staff has physical examination findings labs, radiologic studies, et cetera, to make a good educated guess.  It is estimated that 60 percent of people die in the hospital.  But even [with] those in-hospital deaths, the cause of death is not always clear, especially in someone with multiple health conditions, each of which could cause the death.

The assumption of COVID-19 death can be made even without testing.  Based on assumption alone the death can be reported to the public as another COVID-19 casualty.
First: I cannot tell how accurate this transcription is, since I didn’t listen to the whole talk. But I would quibble with only one point … if it is reported here accurately. She (supposedly) says, “accepted as factual information even though much of it is false.” Not sure I would agree with such a black-and-white assertion. A great deal of it may be “uncertain,” but we, and she, cannot possibly know how much of it is “false.”

Earlier on this thread, I posted the link to CDC guidelines for encoding deaths attributed to COVID-19. That’s now several pages back, so here it is again: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/...-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf

And here are two crucial quotes:
CDC said:
What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?
If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code.
...
Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.
Some of the terminology she used in her talk perhaps betrays her bias. But her basic premise is, in fact, valid. In fact, I hadn’t really absorbed the full implications of that last paragraph from the CDC. It means that any signs of COVID-19 essentially take precedence over other possible cause(s) of death. “Contributory” causes – which could well be the primary cause(s) – are relegated to “Part II.”


"Minnesota doctor blasts 'ridiculous' CDC coronavirus death count guidelines
Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota family physician who is also a Republican state senator, told "The Ingraham Angle" Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines for doctors to certify whether a patient has died of coronavirus are "ridiculous" and could be misleading the public.]

https://apple.news/AD6kYp_9WQ0mHCnRckzUXug

[As I have said, I don't really care how the count is done. I don't see it as some big conspiracy, one way or the other. Bigger fish to fry.]
 
PlayerRep said:
IdaGriz01 said:
The question I raised was, of course, “How credible is this Dr. Annie Bukacek, M.D., out of Kalispell?”
...
Some of the terminology she used in her talk perhaps betrays her bias. But her basic premise is, in fact, valid. In fact, I hadn’t really absorbed the full implications of that last paragraph from the CDC. It means that any signs of COVID-19 essentially take precedence over other possible cause(s) of death. “Contributory” causes – which could well be the primary cause(s) – are relegated to “Part II.”
"Minnesota doctor blasts 'ridiculous' CDC coronavirus death count guidelines
Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota family physician who is also a Republican state senator, told "The Ingraham Angle" Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines for doctors to certify whether a patient has died of coronavirus are "ridiculous" and could be misleading the public.]

https://apple.news/AD6kYp_9WQ0mHCnRckzUXug

[As I have said, I don't really care how the count is done. I don't see it as some big conspiracy, one way or the other. Bigger fish to fry.]
Okay, we know Jensen's "bias" -- he's a Republican. But he's saying exactly the same thing as an obscure, but highly-experienced physician in Montana. (He just doesn't use as much "loaded" terminology as Bukacek does.) As a scientist, I do care how the count is done, because making big decisions on bad data is almost always a bad idea. If nothing else, it can skew how critical resources are doled out. Also, the computer models become even less reliable if the numbers fed into them are wrong.

But I do not necessarily see a big conspiracy here. Laziness, maybe, but not a conspiracy. The CDC is desperate for COVID-19 numbers, any numbers, and this probably looked like the quickest, easiest way to get them.
 
Back
Top