@mcnado @freemo It did spread for a few years and took out the most susceptible.
Long term data would be nice even if it's blatantly falsified like the death data.
We can't have a control group because nearly everyone was exposed. We don't have a healthy non jabbed group because the government and the public persecuted these people.
Being in the latter group, it's difficult to show empathy as anything other than mockery. Problems quoting inaccurate data? Corruption dragged its fat sack of influence and manipulation over your profession. Medicine will have to regroup and reform to get back to some level of integrity. That's going to be a long fight.
@freemo @mcnado The Death Data was falsified by some facilities due to the financial assistance offered to assist with the additional money spent on combating covid. It was fraud and elderly care facilities were able to get away with it. A family friend died from Alzheimer's and he was reported as having died from COVID around 2 months later. He was cremated. My family reported it but it fell on deaf ears.
About the data for Medicine, I've made Mathematical models for outbreaks. I'm not an expert at it but we would have to limit variables and environmental factors. Even then it would take about as many revisions as a TeX document to get some level of accuracy. Then again with so many limits on data, I couldn't consider it accurate.
With actual data it could prove useful. The long term effects of COVID are not known, the long term effects of the jabs are unknown and the combined effects of both are certainly unknown. Is it actually important? Nope. The data will be collected and processed anyway thanks to our benevolent government.
🇳🇱
@AmpBenzScientist While I dont doubt there were a few examples of someone engaging in inflated numbers to get aide as was pointed out overall when you consider all the effects that create inaccurate numbers overall the numbers were under reported not over
@AmpBenzScientist @freemo in the US at least, the mortality data were not falsified despite reports to the contrary. Indeed, two papers by the same authors looking at mortality suggested a ~20-30% undercount during the early pandemic (higher early on, lower later on). This was most likely due to poor test availability, out of hospital deaths, and shoddy reporting early on.
You are absolutely correct here, Agreed. Thank you for setting him straight.
@mcnado @freemo After reviewing the CDC reporting, the complications possibly caused by infection would result in the stated cause of death to be from COVID-19. It further points out that the long term effects resulting in death would be considered a COVID-19 death.
The situations leading to death weren't properly addressed. Regardless of proper classification, the likely damage from the virus was rightfully included. I suppose I was expecting ARS to be the cause of the deaths and, to a lesser degree, cardiovascular issues.
It seems more inclusive for contributing factors of a COVID death but not necessarily represented correctly. The car example was dismissed incorrectly. According to the guidelines, if COVID-19 contributed to the circumstances then it would indeed be reported as a COVID-19 death even if the subject could have lived if they weren't driving. It's these small things that make me question the data.
Cause, Contributing factor and the Others should be separated. It sounds like the virus directly killed so many people. It just seems misleading to call them all COVID deaths when it would be better to describe them as Covid and common complications deaths.
@AmpBenzScientist @freemo perhaps, but it is in line with how we classify deaths by other causes. For instance, when I fill out paperwork for a death certificate, it includes questions about tobacco smoking history.
It should be noted as well that despite the concerns you raise here, the all-cause excess mortality data for the US has consistently been well above the COVID excess deaths, suggesting we are missing a huge number of COVID deaths in our counting (an undercount).
I agree wi5h your statements about death being accurate compared tonusual practices.
The assumption about excess death rate is a bit of a leap, we may find many other secondary effects that arent covid are at play to explain the difference.
@AmpBenzScientist
The death data wasnt falsified. It was misunderstood though by many.
> We can't have a control group because nearly everyone was exposed. We don't have a healthy non jabbed group because the government and the public persecuted these people.
ITs more complex than that. a person knows when they are sick, so you cant make a virus like this double blind even if you wanted to. When you add in the inability to control for the placebo effect, plus the huge amount of fear that went along with it, its a recipe for wildly inaccurate data even with the best of intentions.
@mcnado