re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***

quote:

---

This sentence that you quoted from me is just stating the fact that the confirmed covid death figures will always be an undercount of the true number of covid deaths. That's just a basic fact of logic and reality

---

You keep using the word “fact” like you have evidence to support it.

It all depends on what your definition of “COVID death” is.

Do you have an explanation as to why hospitalizations for stroke, MI, a fib, etc are all down?

Those typically aren’t issues you can put off. I don’t think we have all the facts here so saying you “know for a fact” the number of deaths is higher is ridiculous.

quote:

---

You keep using the word “fact” like you have evidence to support it.

---

No, just logic in this case. It goes like this: if you count only the cases that you are sure about, is it more likely that the true number is more than or less than the number you have counted? It's more. No further evidence is necessary, this is simply a self-evident fact.

quote:

---

It all depends on what your definition of “COVID death” is.

---

A reasonably strict definition would be tests positive, presents symptoms, dies.

quote:

---

Do you have an explanation as to why hospitalizations for stroke, MI, a fib, etc are all down?

---

Do you have evidence to support this claim? I've read anecdotes.

quote:

---

I don’t think we have all the facts here so saying you “know for a fact” the number of deaths is higher is ridiculous.

---

Maybe you misunderstood. We know that the true number is higher than the confirmed cases, not necessarily higher than the currently reported cases that includes "probables". All I'm saying is that, based purely on logic, a count of strictly confirmed cases will be less than the true number of cases. This is a fact simply based on the definition of the word "confirmed".

quote:

---

That statement is factually false.

---

It can only be false if the word "confirmed" is used to mean something entirely different than its definition.

quote:

---

Any cause of death can be either undercounted or overcounted, whether it's Covid-19 or myocardial infarction. The less information used to establish cause of death, the greater the chance of both positive and negative errors.

---

Care to put a number on the false positive rate when a person tests positive and presents symptoms before death?

quote:

---

Ooooh...way to throw my own words where I knew what I said and know what the article said as if it was some sort of gotcha! Haha.

---

So why did you say it?

quote:

---

I also said "thus far" and "underdiagnosis is probably likely."

You burned me, bro!

---

Then I don't understand the point of posting the link.

quote:

---

You're right, it's not likely to be a 50/50 split. Might be in the 70/30 range, though, with the 70 being CoviD by the end of this.

---

That seems reasonable. My point is that this 70% of "probables" being correct far outweighs whatever the positive error rate is for "confirmed" cases.

quote:

---

You're just diminishing something that's pretty big and ample ammo to show how the policies, with which you disagree, have been bad.

---

But I'm not "diminishing" it in order to support any policies. I'm just doing my best to be realistic about the true impact of this virus. Because IMO, assuming this thing comes back in the fall/winter, it's best if we have models based on accurate data rather than inaccurate data. Understating the death tolls is as bad as overstating it, because if deaths turn out to be higher than expected, that could easily trigger another extreme policy overreaction. We don't want that.

quote:

---

And that posted article was from across the pond, if you didn't notice, though I'm sure you did.

---

I did, but do you have anything from Sweden or somewhere else with a drastically different policy than us?

Maryland reports spike in cases four days after reopening LINK

quote:

---

Maryland reports spike in cases four days after reopening LINK

---

The media really sucks at data. They're giving us raw numbers instead of % of tests that are positive.

If you look at newly hospitalized and total hospitalized, the trend is heading down.

Anyone heard from tiger91 lately? I got tired of scrolling several pages back.

quote:

---

So why did you say it?

---

I said it because I can fricking read and that's what the article said, and it was a, clearly, vain attempt to prevent you from the rebuttal of "yeah, but they aren't proven at this point..."

quote:

---

Then I don't understand the point of posting the link.

---

Well then, if we can't talk about things yet to be proven one way or the other despite "experts" saying these things are happening, let's only talk about proven, confirmed CoviD deaths then, despite "experts" saying they are happening even if unconfirmed.

quote:

---

But I'm not "diminishing" it in order to support any policies.

---

I didn't say you were, merely stating that: 1. you were diminishing it in general and 2. you don't support the policies. This is "evidence" to fight against the policies you don't support.

quote:

---

do you have anything from Sweden or somewhere else with a drastically different policy than us?

---

Do your own research.

quote:

---

tiger91

---

They've posted in a few other threads today.

quote:

---

Maryland reports spike in cases four days after reopening LINK

---

Clickbait media fearmongering. From the article:

quote:

---

The Maryland Department of Health attributed the spike in cases "in part to an influx of backlogged lab results” submitted to the department, a spokesman said.

---