CDC Covid Data Manipulation

As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19. Had the long-standing, original guidelines for death reporting been used, there would have only been 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19

The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed

https://www.globalresearch.ca/cdc-violated-law-inflate-covid-cases-fatalities-2/5744223

@metal-brain said
As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19. Had the long-standing, original guidelines for death reporting been used, there would have only been 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19

The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Bud ...[text shortened]... followed

https://www.globalresearch.ca/cdc-violated-law-inflate-covid-cases-fatalities-2/5744223

This article is extremely (and purposefully) confusing and actually does not support your claim of data manipulation. You will need to elaborate on the OP if any productive dialogue can develop.

@wildgrass said
This article is extremely (and purposefully) confusing and actually does not support your claim of data manipulation. You will need to elaborate on the OP if any productive dialogue can develop.

My OP is an accurate and unambiguous explanation. What is confusing you?

I must have confused wildgrass with facts.
Where is no1 and sh76? They must be eating crow. LOL!

@metal-brain said
I must have confused wildgrass with facts.
Where is no1 and sh76? They must be eating crow. LOL!

Working, mainly. I hope that's okay with you. Somebody has to contribute to the economy to finance your stimulus check. But I digress...

That article is written in conspiracy-nut-ese, so I'm having trouble sight-translating it to English.

Still, this thing about 94% of COVID deaths not really being COVID deaths is an old chestnut that this piece seems to be rehashing.

I'm grant (and I've claimed, to No1's chagrin) that COVID deaths may be somewhat overcounted due to the counting of deaths with COVID (and were undercounted - especially early in the pandemic due to lack of testing). Whether the overcount or undercount is greater I'm not sure, though I'd guess the undercount is somewhat more.

But, folks, if the death certificate says:
COD: Pneumonia
Positive for COVID-19

... It's very likely that the pneumonia was caused by COVID-19. Heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and many other problems are also symptoms of COVID complications.

The idea that COVID didn't cause major problems is silly. We all know people who had problems with COVID even if (like me) you're fortunate enough not to have known anyone who died.


Edit: The one thing I do agree with that article about was that the expansion of PCR tests to 40 cycles was unscientific and led to inflated case counts.

@metal-brain said
I must have confused wildgrass with facts.
Where is no1 and sh76? They must be eating crow. LOL!

I'm not much interested in debunking every one of your crank pieces.

The article is ridiculous BS which tries to claim that no COVID death should be counted as such IF the deceased also had a condition that would be seen as a comorbidity. But those conditions like obesity or diabetes or heart conditions etc. etc. etc. might increase the risk of death from COVID but they didn't cause it in these cases according to the medical examiners and other health officials responsible for preparing the death certificates. I see no reason to discount their judgment; the US excess deaths rose as soon as the COVID19 started hitting the country in late March 2020, in some weeks last year, it was 40% over what was expected. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

That wasn't because, all of a sudden for some unexplained reason, people started dying in higher numbers because of common conditions that might be considered comorbidities.

@no1marauder said
I'm not much interested in debunking every one of your crank pieces.

The article is ridiculous BS which tries to claim that no COVID death should be counted as such IF the deceased also had a condition that would be seen as a comorbidity. But those conditions like obesity or diabetes or heart conditions etc. etc. etc. might increase the risk of death from COVID ...[text shortened]... dying in higher numbers because of common conditions that might be considered comorbidities.

You don't want to be confused with facts. Denying facts seems to be what you excel at. You previously claimed there were no changes in the way deaths were counted. That was a false claim and you know it.

The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed

@metal-brain said
Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed

Let's assume that's true.

So the F what?

Because the CDC didn't follow proper rulemaking procedures, you can slice the number of COVID fatalities in 20?

@sh76 said
Let's assume that's true.

So the F what?

Because the CDC didn't follow proper rulemaking procedures, you can slice the number of COVID fatalities in 20?

The CDC violated federal law.
I thought you claimed to be a lawyer.

What the F is wrong with you?

@metal-brain said
The CDC violated federal law.
I thought you claimed to be a lawyer.

What the F is wrong with you?

<sigh>


never mind

@sh76 said
<sigh>


never mind

Lawyers are not supposed to condone violation of the law, even if it is your client. Either you are not a lawyer or you are a crappy lawyer who has no respect for the law.

Stop condoning unethical conduct because of political bias.

@metal-brain said
You don't want to be confused with facts. Denying facts seems to be what you excel at. You previously claimed there were no changes in the way deaths were counted. That was a false claim and you know it.

The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed c ...[text shortened]... n the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed

Just because your crank site claims something hardly makes it true. I seriously doubt that the CDC is required to go through the rule making changes outlined just to provide guidance to health professionals in preparing death certificates. Certainly, the article provided zero citations supporting such a far fetched thesis.

While changes in CDC rules would require "a notice-and-comment process in which regulations are published in the Federal Register for public comment over a specified time", https://www.cdc.gov/regulations/index.html, the CDC did not make any rules in its guidance regarding how death certificates are prepared regarding COVID:

"The purpose of this report is to
provide guidance to death certifiers on proper cause-of-death certification for cases where confirmed or suspected COVID–19 infection resulted in death."

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

So the CDC passed no mandatory rule in that report and your quacks don't know what they are talking about.

@no1marauder said
Just because your crank site claims something hardly makes it true. I seriously doubt that the CDC is required to go through the rule making changes outlined just to provide guidance to health professionals in preparing death certificates. Certainly, the article provided zero citations supporting such a far fetched thesis.

If you are really so confident of that would you care to make a bet on it? If you lose you create a thread called "Metal Brain is right and I was wrong". If I lose I will do the same for you if I fail to prove it before June 1st.

Agreed?

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/cdc-4178-americans-dead-following-experimental-covid-injections-deaths-from-covid-shot-now-equal-21-years-of-recorded-deaths-following-vaccines-since-2001/

@sh76 said
Working, mainly. I hope that's okay with you. Somebody has to contribute to the economy to finance your stimulus check. But I digress...

That article is written in conspiracy-nut-ese, so I'm having trouble sight-translating it to English.

Still, this thing about 94% of COVID deaths not really being COVID deaths is an old chestnut that this piece seems to be rehashin ...[text shortened]... t was that the expansion of PCR tests to 40 cycles was unscientific and led to inflated case counts.

You must have missed this part.

"Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.

Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.

“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.

“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’ The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’ That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”"

@mott-the-hoople said
You must have missed this part.

"Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the ...[text shortened]... ncentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”"

Except they didn't even do that in their guidance(not rule):

"If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should
be specified on the death certificate. In many cases, it is
likely that it will be the UCOD [underlying cause of death -no1], as it can lead to various life threatening conditions, such as pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In these cases, COVID–19 should be reported on the lowest line used in Part I with the other conditions to which it gave rise listed on the lines above it.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

You really shouldn't rely on MB's crank sites for info.