Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

How many Americans have died from covid?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    Without calling into question your honesty...
    I'm not playing this game, Jim.

    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mossrose View Post

      Firstly, your opening comments are certainly calling CP's honesty into question, so stop playing semantics.

      Secondly, what about those reports where people who make an appointment for a test, don't show up, and get notifications that they are positive?

      Thirdly, guess what? I don't care about what the "experts" you've cited say. Do you really think they are going to admit that they've been fudging the numbers?
      I specifically asked our testing center why I had to sign up as a new person each time I took the test. Why couldn't I use my previous login as a followup?
      I was very clearly informed each test is a unique case.
      Perhaps they received the wrong information, but they were most certainly treating each test as a separate patient.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

        You are rejecting a whole mess of scientific studies in your claim. Are you more knowledgeable than all the scientists and medical doctors who have done these studies? You can start reviewing the studies at https://c19study.com and point out where the studies are inaccurate or have been done wrong. So far, no one has found specific faults with the studies. Some people have complained that these were not double-blind studies. They are expressing a preference for only one type of study while denying that less demanding studies can also give accurate results. Please identify where the studies have failed to provide reputable doctors with reputable information. Otherwise, your position is biased and senseless.

        You make it sound like the reputation preserving doctors are those doctors who do not care about patients being healed.
        You say that no one has found specific faults with the studies, but in your very next sentence acknowledge that some have been faulted for not being double blind.

        Your link goes to a long long list of published and unpublished studies, and suggest I start reviewing them! Well, I took a look and some of them are published in "journals" with rock bottom impact factors, IOW journals of poor quality and low standards.
        Less demanding studies can give accurate results, but not necessarily - a stopped clock is right twice a day.

        If you want to support specific claims with science, you need to identify specific studies from reputable research groups published in quality journals.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          I specifically asked our testing center why I had to sign up as a new person each time I took the test. Why couldn't I use my previous login as a followup?
          I was very clearly informed each test is a unique case.
          Perhaps they received the wrong information, but they were most certainly treating each test as a separate patient.
          States are evaluated on how they present covid data including test data. Here is the result for Texas, which is better than many if not most states, but reflects your experience:
          • does not regularly provide total tests in terms of unique people tested
          • does not provide numbers for patients currently on ventilators with COVID-19
          • does not regularly provide a cumulative number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19
          • data for multiple key metrics is hard to discover or access

          https://covidtracking.com/about-data...ng-assessments

          I don't know how covid testing data is aggregated nationally. In some ways it makes sense to count a repeated test separately as a later positive test might reflect virus spread.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by kccd View Post

            States are evaluated on how they present covid data including test data. Here is the result for Texas, which is better than many if not most states, but reflects your experience:
            • does not regularly provide total tests in terms of unique people tested
            • does not provide numbers for patients currently on ventilators with COVID-19
            • does not regularly provide a cumulative number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19
            • data for multiple key metrics is hard to discover or access

            https://covidtracking.com/about-data...ng-assessments

            I don't know how covid testing data is aggregated nationally. In some ways it makes sense to count a repeated test separately as a later positive test might reflect virus spread.
            The frustration our director of emergency services expressed was that there is mixed messaging on the reporting, its transmission, acceptance, tabulation....
            It's a hot mess - I don't care what is written on a website.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

              Without calling into question your honesty in reporting what you believe you were told, based on what is the reported standard from the CDC - and multiple other sources - It is unlikely what you were told (or read) actually reflects what is being done.


              In support of my conclusion, consider:
              ---

              https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/v...9-9a0417650cec

              Do two positive tests for the same person count as two cases?
              ANSWER:
              No. Each person who tests positive is counted as one case, regardless of how many times he or she takes a test that returns positive.
              SOURCES:
              Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- "Testing Data in the U.S." "Cases and Deaths in the U.S." and "CDC COVID Data Tracker"



              https://www.whas11.com/article/news/...4-19082f2320b3
              The state reports total tests and total cases separately.



              https://www.nbc15.com/2020/07/15/you...ore-than-once/
              Health officials say no matter how many times you receive a positive COVID-19 test result, it will only be counted for the first day you tested positive.



              https://www.co.merced.ca.us/Faq.aspx?QID=804

              Does an individual who tests positive for COVID-19 twice get counted as two positive cases in the Merced County Confirmed Cases?
              No, individuals who test positive twice are only counted as a single a positive case in the Confirmed Cases.


              https://www.kare11.com/article/news/...c-6ddea82999a0

              VERIFY: No, a person who gets multiple positive COVID-19 tests is not counted as multiple cases



              https://wlos.com/news/news-13-invest...nted-each-time

              North Carolina’s Public Health Department also confirmed that the individual would only be counted once, saying they assign each person an ID number to track multiple tests.


              Look at the dates on your articles: they're all after July 2020. Prior to that, things were a bit more Wild West. For instance, around May 2020, Virginia was counting number of positive tests per day rather than unique cases, so a person who tested positive on multiple days would count as multiple cases. This report from May 2020 reveals how the CDC had been conflating two different tests that led to an artificially increased case count. And as late as November 2020, there were still problems, such as Oregon which was underrporting the total number of tests given which didn't increase the actual number of positive tests but did artificially increase the percentages. In other cases, the same person is still being counted as multiple positives if a certain amount of time has elapsed between tests which varies from state to state.

              So, yeah, things are a mess. There's really no other way to put it.
              Last edited by Mountain Man; 03-08-2021, 10:00 AM.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mossrose View Post

                Firstly, your opening comments are certainly calling CP's honesty into question, so stop playing semantics.

                Secondly, what about those reports where people who make an appointment for a test, don't show up, and get notifications that they are positive?

                Thirdly, guess what? I don't care about what the "experts" you've cited say. Do you really think they are going to admit that they've been fudging the numbers?
                Why would experts subject themselves to fraud allegations?

                On a national scale or state scale, test data should track with hospitalizations and deaths. Are there clear discrepancies there?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Look at the dates on your articles: they're all after July 2020. Prior to that, things were a bit more Wild West.For instance, around May 2020, Virginia was counting number of positive tests per day rather than unique cases, so a person who tested positive on multiple days would count as multiple cases. This report from May 2020 reveals how the CDC had been conflating two different tests that led to an artificially increased case count. And as late as November 2020, there were still problems, such as Oregon which was underrporting the total number of tests given which didn't increase the actual number of positive tests but did artificially increase the percentages. In other cases, the same person is still being counted as multiple positives if a certain amount of time has elapsed between tests which varies from state to state.

                  So, yeah, things are a mess. There's really no other way to put it.
                  Your argument seems to be that things WERE a mess last spring, right?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kccd View Post

                    Your argument seems to be that things WERE a mess last spring, right?
                    You don't read so good, do you?
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by kccd View Post

                      Why would experts subject themselves to fraud allegations?

                      On a national scale or state scale, test data should track with hospitalizations and deaths. Are there clear discrepancies there?
                      Might I remind you that you claimed it was (present tense, as you presented it) a "raging pandemic", and that hospitals were overflowing, and refrigerated trucks were being brought in....

                      you were way over dramatizing the pandemic. That seems to be a characteristic of the left, and is a large part of why we don't trust you guys.
                      When the left talks about the pandemic, it is always in the very worst of terms and conditions, which causes a real challenge to credibility.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by kccd View Post

                        Can you provide some links to support that?
                        There is no reason to think that deaths due to other causes like cancer have dropped, but the number of deaths has increased, coincidental with the pandemic spread.
                        Found one

                        https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...21#post1245321

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by kccd View Post

                          Can you provide some links to support that?
                          There is no reason to think that deaths due to other causes like cancer have dropped, but the number of deaths has increased, coincidental with the pandemic spread.
                          Why would you think that? Even without looking at the numbers, Covid mainly strikes older people, many of those it strikes would have likely passed for some other reason over that same time. That means there is a substitution effect. You would expect Covid deaths to lower deaths by other causes. The question would be how many.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mossrose View Post

                            Firstly, your opening comments are certainly calling CP's honesty into question, so stop playing semantics.

                            Secondly, what about those reports where people who make an appointment for a test, don't show up, and get notifications that they are positive?

                            Thirdly, guess what? I don't care about what the "experts" you've cited say. Do you really think they are going to admit that they've been fudging the numbers?
                            My daughter works for a company doing thousands of tests a day. Yes, they do count as separate instances. They upload data to the CDC on the total number of tests that came back positive, negative, and undetermined that were tested that day. They do not correlate them to names for the CDC reporting.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by kccd View Post

                              You say that no one has found specific faults with the studies, but in your very next sentence acknowledge that some have been faulted for not being double blind.

                              Your link goes to a long long list of published and unpublished studies, and suggest I start reviewing them! Well, I took a look and some of them are published in "journals" with rock bottom impact factors, IOW journals of poor quality and low standards.
                              Less demanding studies can give accurate results, but not necessarily - a stopped clock is right twice a day.

                              If you want to support specific claims with science, you need to identify specific studies from reputable research groups published in quality journals.
                              Like I said... people just express a preference for double blind studies. Nor does it have to be the "quality" journals for the study to be correct. As a matter of fact, two studies have been retracted by the "quality" journals" during this covid era. Plus, the "study" for the RT-PCR tests should be retracted for its inaccuracies and bias -- per the https://cormandrostenreview.com/report. That study was shared with the public because they expected bias against them if they tried to publish directly to these "quality" journals. Even one editorial by the editor of these journals said that 50% of the studies were unrepeatable. That indicates a lack of quality in the "science" and peer review of these "quality" journals. Also, while not all journals may be subject to the following influence, journals are often just a symbiotic relationship between the journal and elevated scientists -- rather than an open journal for all quality studies.

                              A little bit of safe prophylactic treatment with Hydroxycholoroquine really is not as bad as taking experimental Pfizer vaccines with efficacy determined on a group of less than 200 of all those people in a study. lol. And this was accepted as grounds for promotion of the experimental shots.

                              You just will try everything not to accept the existing treatments for COVID-19. So enjoy your experimental shots and hopefully we'll see you around.
                              Last edited by mikewhitney; 03-08-2021, 11:34 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                                ...

                                The simple fact is that case counts and test counts are tallied separately per CDC guidelines, as evidenced by the links I gave and the pertinent content of those links posted. Bottom line, people that test positive 6 times are not counted as 6 different cases of COVID19. One case, 6 test results.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                13 responses
                                70 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                260 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                82 responses
                                340 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X