CDC is at it again. From Jon Rappoport: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/02/huge-covid-case-counting-deception-at-the-cdc/
Pay special attention to what the CDC did in 2009 when reporting Swine Flu cases and ask yourself why do people still trust any information reported by the CDC.
I'm not sure this is that big of a deal. The CDC publishes a LOT of statistics and you can get these values with and without serological counts, estimated counts and confirmed etc. I think the problem is that news agencies are reporting on whatever is the most sensational.
After all, there's a good reason to combine the numbers. It lets us more accurately calculate the mortality rate. But when the news constantly plays fast and loose with the sources to use the combined totals when fear mongering about the spread and then conveniently swapping to the confirmed cases only to talk about mortality rates to get higher percentages it's not the CDC's fault. It's the fault of dishonest media shilling fear for clicks.
It seems like the author of the article is both simultaneously acknowledging that fact by debunking some of the Atlantic's claims and then laying the blame at the feet of the CDC. Maybe I'm misreading it but it feels like the author is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
I disagree. It is a big deal if the numbers are being fabricated as in the case of what happened during the 2009 Swine flu when the CDC was no longer testing for it but still reporting cases as being in the tens of thousands.
The more current issue as the author states is that combining numbers from the PCR and the antibody tests inflates the number of active cases. The serology/antibody test shows whether someone may have been exposed to the virus, while the PCR test shows active infection. If these numbers are being combined on a daily or weekly bases that is indeed misleading since those who test positive using the antibody no longer have an active infection, and, at least in my opinion, should not be counted as a new case.
Well I didn't follow the 2009 swine flu epidemic so I can't really comment on that.
The other thing is that the numbers arn't being "fabricated" as they are in fact actually based on real tests. But again, this comes down to misinterpretation of the data. Analysts who want to know the total number of infected don't want the data to be dropped if people recover because the goal is to study the overall population infection spread, calculate possible herd immunity, and study the mortality rate. This would be next to impossible if the recovered numbers were removed.
The problem is that people who don't understand the numbers are misusing them when they report. Additionally some states initially were reporting incorrectly to the CDC (which is why the CDC temporarily stopped its public reporting until some of the issues were sorted). But that's not the CDC's fault so much as the state's fault.
You're not likely to find any estimates of active cases that are even remotely reliable anywhere however as a SIGNIFICANT portion of COVID-19 patients don't develop any symptoms, and even those that do, many of them are mild enough that they never go in for treatment. To report active numbers would require the federal government to mandate testing regularly for the entire population (and that's just not practical or possible right now - not to mention it would probably violate a number of constitutional rights).
So again, if people are taking data designed for scientists to calculate specific trends and misapplying it in their public reporting that's not the CDC's fault. Additionally if the states mess up and the CDC has to stop reporting until the states got their acts together that's actually the CDC doing something right. And look. There's PLENTY to criticize the CDC for. The initial rollout of botch testing kits, the ridiculously strict testing requirements initially, the dragging of the feet to allow 3rd party testing, not working with the states on a closer level initially to ensure proper reporting, and on and on and on.
But in this one case I don't see an issue (at least on their end). The people misusing the data in the media... that's another story.
I still respectfully disagree. It is the CDC's fault, in conjunction with the state's public health officials, when their representatives are the ones reporting to the news organizations, testifying before Congress, and appearing on numerous news programs themselves touting the numbers without providing the proper context in which those numbers can or should be understood.
Well I'll have to take your word for that as I don't watch TV so I don't know what CDC reps are saying. I'm just skeptical of that statement as the CDC's website says that the "CDC does not know the exact number of COVID-19 illnesses" and goes on to list a number of reasons why at: (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html)
Furthermore the CDC fully admits and warns people about the dangers of false positives and negatives on their website. They also explain that with so many people not being tested due to no or very mild symptoms they have no way of getting accurate counts of the overall total. And if they can't even tell you how many people total have gotten it, there's no possible means on earth to know the current number or people with it.
And having parsed over 26.2 million points of data so far relating to corona virus (most of it provided by the CDC directly), I can say that the data I've gotten from them to date doesn't include anything that could be used to even guess at active cases.
If I had to guess... I'd say that someone heard a statement like, "the number of infections in the US has grown to ______" and incorrectly assumed that this was referencing active cases instead of total cases. But that's not the CDC's fault as literally every single thing is reported this way from them. Flu, Pneumonia, HIV, the common cold, everything. At least here the CDC has been consistent for longer than I've been alive. So if people are suddenly picking 2020 to get confused I can't really say why that is.
Just consider that the CDC has never claimed that it can tell you how many active cases of the flu there are and they've been tracking that a LOT longer than COVID-19. But they will give you stats on the flu season with rolling totals (much of which is estimated based on models running on top of the data that they do have). This accusation just seems very very out of character for them. But again, I don't watch TV so I'll just have to assume for now that everything you're saying is 100% accurate.
The CDC helped create the problem with coding this virus different than how it was done in the past. Yes, you can blame the CDC and it's misrepresentations. After hearing their webinar on coding deaths for covid - I wouldn't believe any information they want to throw out there. After speaking with pathologists who were told to code deaths as covid when they were not, due to how the CDC wants them coded. Yes, you can definitely blame the CDC for playing a Huge part in this mess!!! It was a great article.
Sadly there's so much misinformation out there on this. No, the CDC has not instructed people to code deaths as covid when they are not (that would be fraud)... You can find there actual instructions at ( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf )
The ICD 10 and 11 codes are very specific and confirmed cases are coded one way and suspected cases are coded a different way. Under ICD-11 an RA01.0 is a confirmed case of COVID-19 and a RA01.1is a suspected or probable case. And while the use of RA01.1 (or U07.2 under the ICD-10 spec) has been criticized as the CDC allowing coding without testing they are not taking into account the specificity of the codes, the instructions of the CDC or the fact that especially early on testing for many people was nearly impossible.
I guess my question would be how would you have handled this if you were in charge? If a patient comes into a hospital and doesn't have the flu or pneumonia and is highly suspected to have COVID-19 but there are no testing kits available what do you do? To me, the creation of a unique code to indicate probable cause of death seems like a logical solution.
I agree there is misinformation all around, but the CDC is not absolved, in my opinion, in any of this. For example, a number of medical professionals including the two California doctors, Dr. Scott Jensen, and have pointed to the following statement in the report you link as problematic because it not part of the standard protocol doctors use to report deaths for other suspected but uncertain causes:
"Ideally, testing for COVID–19 should be Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • National Center for Health Statistics • National Vital Statistics System 3 conducted, but it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate without this confirmation if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty."
In addition to that the website that CDC launched last month to track COVID nursing home cases and deaths has also come under fire for gross inaccuracies (inflated numbers) according to MedPage Today. At this point, I don't have very much faith in the information being provided by the CDC or by some of the country's public health officials. I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.
Ok, so once again I ask. When you have someone who tests negative for the flu and for pneumonia, but who came in contact with someone with COVID-19 and is suspected to have it themselves but you don't have access to testing kits... What do you do? Say, oh well... who cares?
These days the presumed codes should be used exceedingly rarely according to the guidelines. These were emergency provisions that were necessitated due to millions of Americans wanting tests and the initial roll out of testing kits being so slow and small as to make testing early on impossible for 90+% of all patients.
Yes. It's not normal. But neither is not having the capacity to test and having a patient die before you can get any tests done. Now if people are abusing this in the hopes of getting government funding they should go to jail. But there was a very real and unique problem early on with access to reliable testing kits.
Hopefully, now that testing kits are far more widespread the CDC will pull the emergency provisions for assumptive recording soon. But I don't have stats on nationwide availability of testing so I don't know if it's too soon for that or not.
Yes the CDC did instruct differently for covid. Perhaps you have missed some information? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBw1ynpDANQ We are former death investigators and know how they are to be coded. Using different wording with covid created a mess - you have too many people coding deaths that have input covid as a main cause when it was not. I would not go straight to assuming it is covid with the same symptoms as a the flu - unless of course I wanted those fat kickbacks. I know for a fact that the swine flu and hantavirus have similar symptoms - as many others do. I know for a fact 2 pathologists were instructed to rule these deaths as covid since the symptoms showed. These 2 honest pathologists did not rule these deaths as covid since one was the swine flu and the other hantavirus.
Not sure if you're responding to my comment or not, but if you were I specifically said that COVID-19 was coded differently (and listed the exact codes for both the ICD-10 and 11 specs). I also explained that the "emergency provision" was due to the extraordinarily limited testing available early one. People were dying around the country suspected to have it with no access to testing kits and the CDC made a provision to allow for this.
And look, if hospitals were intentionally filling out death certificates in a hope to gain government funding I hope they are prosecuted to the fullest extend under the law. But I think it's also unfair to assume that any doctor that would put a covid presumptive code on a certificate wasn't doing due diligence. It's trivial to have the hospital test for the flu or pneumonia and a variety of other things. If these came back negative but the person was still sick and there was reported contact with another covid-19 case then it would be reasonable to presume a covid-19 illness even if testing wasn't available.
Is there mistakes being made? Yes. Is there fraud being committed? Undoubtedly. But to paint everyone in this light seems to say a lot about people's current frame of mind.
When people are looking for the CDC to have accurate information and they do not have accurate information - why defend them? Some people do not understand how statistic manipulation works or how the different classifications work. The CDC certainly have their misinformation hands in this mess as well as Fauci, Ferguson, media outlets, elected officials both democrats and republicans, hospitals, nurses, doctors, the list goes on and on. You didn't like the article, or think the number manipulation is a big deal. I think the number manipulation and adding them together to make everything appear bigger and scarier than the truth - is a big deal. I won't try to guess your frame of mind - and you don't try to guess mine. We can agree to disagree and go on about our day - hows that?
I never tried to guess your frame of mind. And I'll gladly admit, that if someone pulls the data and looks at the largest number and reports on that they won't have an accurate picture of what's going on.
But here's 3 interesting facts from the CDC:
Only 7% of people who died from COVID-19 had coronavirus listed as the only cause of death.
The average death due to COVID-19 had 2.5 other comorbidities (the most common of which are pneumonia and respiratory failure).
Over 80% of the people who died with COVID-19 were 65 or older
And just by grabbing these few statistics from the CDC, the overall data appears in a radically different light no? Are the number inflated? That's not easy to answer as there have been many well reasoned arguments as to why they might actually be too low too. Personally I'd lean towards them being on the high end myself, but in the end I don't know that it makes a ton of difference because attempting to calculate the mortality rate of people under the age of 65 based solely on CDC data yields a number below 1% (and dropping every week).
I think at the end of the day, "if I tried to guess at your frame of mind" we're probably in agreement on most everything else. I think Fauci has done a horrific job. I think many of the democrat and republican politicians have been awful and that the whole lockdown is a gross abuse of power and is by and large unwarranted, I don't think mandating masks is useful or necessary, and I think many in the media are trying desperately to spin the situation to gain political advantages for their parties.
And like I said earlier the CDC has made more than their fair share of mistakes and blundered just about everything that could be messed up initially (LOL, like rolling out COVID-19 tests that tested positive if water was in your nose). My only frame of mind here (to give you a picture) is that the CDC offers the public millions upon millions of data points and people are looking at less than 1/10th of 1% of the data and arriving at a skewed conclusion. Then they point their fingers at a data collection process designed to work around limitations when accurate testing wasn't available and blame the CDC retroactively. By all means, blame the CDC for their many failures... I just think this one area is a little weird to be focusing on is all...