Could Covid 19 Numbers be False?

1. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   
   Hospitals are paid more for Covid 19 patients
   
   “So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19,” a widely shared meme on Facebook claimed. “And an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!” One post of the meme, shared by hundreds, was captioned: “And then we wonder why the numbers of deaths are embellished…”
   
   The figures cited by Jensen generally square with estimated Medicare payments for COVID-19 hospitalizations, based on average Medicare payments for patients with similar diagnoses.
   
   It is true, however, that the government will pay more to hospitals for COVID-19 cases in two senses: By paying an additional 20% on top of traditional Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients during the public health emergency, and by reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured patients with the disease (at that enhanced Medicare rate).”
   
   https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospi … ath-count/

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Paul Kozmaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Antibody testing throughout the world has identified 'unknown cases' to be a significant number.  Inclusion has reduced mortality rates to less than 1 %, more likely less than .5%.
      
      With a vaccine, the mortality rate would more than likely drop under .1%.  My point, this is not a dangerous virus; it was an illusion.  Anyone getting the virus has a 99.9 % of recovering.
      
      Is that worth a global lockdown?  I think not.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Your 99.9% figure assumes that there is a significant under-reporting of cases (probably true, but perhaps not) and that there is a vaccine (which there certainly is not, at this point).
         
         You also ask about a "global lockdown" which has not and will not happen; even the US has locked down less than half of businesses.

         replyreport
         1. 64

            Paul Kozmaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            99% chance of surviving assumes no vaccine.   The numbers come the Gan

            replyreport
         2. 64

            Paul Kozmaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            99 % survival rate assumes no vaccine, with the numbers coming from the Gangelt, Germany research. Research are also done in NYC and LA, with similar results.
            
            As for lockdowns, I don't believe it has to be 100% of the business to be considered lockdown.  I would ask the 40 million unemployed if they disagree.   Schools are closed, yet teachers get paid.  The NBA players get paid, they aren't playing. There are many situations similar to that.
            
            I believe we can both agree its a mess.  The mess needs to be cleaned up NOW.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, I understood that 99% assumes no vaccine, and I agree that it is likely a reasonable figure.  But the 99.9% figure assumed a vaccine, which is what I said.
               
               Yes, it needs cleaned up now...but that does not mean it is wise to simply end all efforts at containment today.  It means a slow return to "normalcy" (whatever that means today), with considerable care that we do not allow it to crank back up. 
               
               Personally, it is my hope that we can contain it to a large degree until we have good treatments, lowering even that 1%, and a vaccine.  At that point we can, and should, end all lockdown efforts, accepting the death rate that will follow as the new norm.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  Paul Kozmaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  The 99.9% was a typo, sorry about that, so above 99% is what I should have said.  The flu mortality rate is .01%, so with the vaccine, I expect the same for COVID-19, which would then be a 99.99% survival rate.
                  
                  In either case, I don't believe this virus to be serious at all and feel it's overhyped as doom and gloom.  The Media put doubts in everyone's head, and it's quite effective.  The numbers just don't support the hype.
                  
                  By the way, COVID-19, as per a University of Maryland study, is seasonal.  Cases will go down because it's Spring, not because of social distancing.  The flu is also seasonal.
                  
                  That said, COVID-19 will come back in the fall; it won't disappear.
                  We need that vaccine by the fall, no matter what.
                  
                  P

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     In a bad flu year (2017-18), 61,000 died.  We're five months in and the death toll from Covid-19 is already above 70,000, with the health professionals believing that number is being undercounted due to limited testing (only ~3% of the population being tested).  I'd say that's a bit more serious than the flu reference you keep spouting, especially as there is no vaccine yet and we're still trying to understand the long-term effects this causes to the lungs.

                     replyreport
                     1. 64

                        Paul Kozmaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        The other side of the coin thinks these deaths are overstated. Hospitals get more money by counting all viral as a COVID-19 related.
                        
                        A hospital in Philadelphia had to subtract out 200 deaths for this very reason.  They were caught.
                        
                        I don't believe the deaths are as high as posted, and it's these postings that are driving behavior.  An interesting dilemma, kind of like a twilight zone thing.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           It wasn't one hospital that revised, it was the Pennsylvania department of health that revised the state total down by 200.   Now that's overstating.

                           replyreport
                  2. 95

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     It's interesting that the U of Maryland declares it to be seasonal...without even a single year to study.  Frankly I don't believe them - they may be right, they may not, but they have not done a "study" at all.
                     
                     If the death rate of infected people is about the same (I believe it will turn out to be so) then the biggest difference is the ease of contracting the disease with Corona. As far as hyping it as just doom and gloom, you might check with the surviving loved ones of the 70,000 that have died from it in this country.  You'll see plenty of gloom.

                     replyreport
                     1. 64

                        Paul Kozmaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        agreed, but there should be a balance  between life, liberty, and pursuit for happiness.  A majority of states will start phasing in by middle of month. I guess we'll see together how it goes.  i'm pulling for good.  thx for sharing your thoughts.  a pleasure indeed.  paul

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I believe we are on the right track as well, gradually opening the country back up this month.  As you say, there must be a balance between deaths from the virus and the suffering as the country collapses into abject poverty and runaway inflation.
                           
                           We all hope it will work out well.  I expect deaths yet, for the rest of the year and likely beyond, but that may be the price we pay for having an operating country.

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              +10000000000000

                              replyreport
2. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

   Do you have any evidence that hospitals are falsely diagnosing patients with COVID-19?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hospitals don't have to falsely diagnose a patient.  They can simply "assume" they have Covid 19.
      
      "CDC recommends healthcare providers assume those with mild symptoms to be positive with COVID-19"
      
      https://www.wect.com/2020/03/23/cdc-rec … th-covid-/
      
      Here it is from the CDC.  A death can be reported as having been caused by Covid 19 if it is caused or “assumed” to have been caused by or contributed to the death.  NO verification necessary.
      
      Doesn't this make the reporting a bit false since deaths are not confirmed to have resulted from Covnid 19?
      
      “Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test? COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)”
      
      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coro … DSjsL9XY-M

      replyreport
   2. 0

      La Veeztaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What does this tell you?
      
      https://youtu.be/0yrCjsaZKg8

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Not much.  He doesn't like the label "COVID 19" and prefers ARDS.  Either way there is a major illness striking the nation that must be addressed.  Can't see what it matters what it is called.

         replyreport
3. 91

   IslandBitesposted 4 years ago

   I hope none of your family members get sick with coronavirus and die.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you. I wish the same for you and your family. May this terrible virus never touch you or any of your friends and family.

      replyreport
4. 95

   wildernessposted 4 years ago

   Seems we can take whatever figures we like and call them accurate.  WHO is reporting more deaths than our own CDC - "CDC does not know the exact number of COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths for a variety of reasons,” the agency says, adding that asymptomatic patients, delays in reporting and limited testing make it difficult to accurately track the data. "  Not sure where WHO gets it's data - guesses, maybe.
   
   So the CDC is saying there could well be more deaths than are being reported, and WHO claims there actually are more deaths.  This hardly agrees with the theory that deaths are already being over reported.  Pick one and believe it, I guess.
   
   https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/02/who-us- … 7FCHHzAnsk

   replyreport
   1. 91

      IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      In this type of situations deaths are under reported. That's why at the end of the day, with different data available, CDC and other experts do estimates (that always are higher numbers) and that's considered the official count. That's how they do flu, how they did H1N1 and how they do big natural disasters.
      
      Ie: WHO reported deaths total (global) was 18K. CDC estimated were 200K+.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         "In this type of situations deaths are under reported."
         
         And yet the latest conspiracy theory is that hospitals all across the country are grossly overreporting COVID deaths (the OP here)
         
         That was my point - in this day and age we can find someone, somewhere, saying whatever we want to hear and believe.  If you think the whole COVID thing is vastly overblown and fake, then you believe hospitals are over reporting.  If you see great danger worthy of ruining an economy and causing worldwide poverty, then you believe WHO and their much higher fatality numbers which completely refutes the idea of COVID deaths being smaller than reported.
         
         And, typically, refuse to even recognize any numbers but the ones you wish to believe.  If you like the WHO numbers then the CDC one are fake because we know they are false.  And vice versa.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Do you have another link? Im not sure why you said WHO numbers are higher. (honest curiosity) From the link you posted, according to WHO report, the total US corononavirus deaths at that moment were 55K+.  I believe official death numbers in US by that date were higher.
            
            In any case, both CDC and WHO have disclaimers about the numbers.
            
            WHO: Caution must be taken when interpreting all data presented. Differences are to be expected between information products published by WHO, national public health authorities, and other sources using different inclusion criteria and different data cut-off times. While steps are taken to ensure accuracy and reliability, all data are subject to continuous verification and change. Case detection, definitions, testing strategies, reporting practice, and lag times differ between countries/territories/areas. These factors, among others, influence the counts presented with variable underestimation of true case and death counts, and variable delays to reflecting these data at global level.
            
            CDC: Case numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on CDC's website because CDC’s overall case numbers are validated through a confirmation process with each jurisdiction. The process used for finding and confirming cases displayed by other sites may differ.
            
            CDC for their Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease: Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons: Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays. States report at different rates. Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation among jurisdictions. It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days. Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.
            
            I get what you're saying, but in this type of situation there is no "real" number, whatever that means. Yes, there are people dying, a lot of people. And the people that keep minimizing and peddling conspiracy theories are idiots. <-- This is not directed at you.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, no other link.
               
               But Island, the point was not to provide accurate, true figures for virus fatalities or infections.  It was 1) to give an alternate view to the idea that deaths are over reported and 2) to provide something to back my own opinion that you can find anything you want to believe.

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  "to provide something to back my own opinion that you can find anything you want to believe."
                  
                  With that, for the most part, I agree.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Bet you that, within a year, you will be able to find where Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, was in cahoots with the Chinese to unleash COVID 19 on the US.  Or both!  Or neither, but just a general US government plot to kill off it's people. 

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        We wont need to wait that long. Some already blamed Hillary, also Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Obama and Soros. SMH

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           Gates and Soros I've seen.  Not Hillary or Hanks.  Obama, by stretching things to the absolute breaking point, could be held to have some responsibility for not taking China to task for behaving as if they are the only nation on earth and failing to teach China that truth is the best policy overall.  It would really be a stretch, though.

                           replyreport
   2. 99

      DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think those WHO estimates are about as accurate as those "enemy death counts" during the Vietnam war. Why are there so many deaths from the disease in the US as compared to other countries?
      I know that the deaths are under reported here in Brazil, since they do not do the testing until the patient is close to death, and the results do not come back until the death certificate is made out as "respiratory disease". It looks like it is going the other way there in the US.

      replyreport
5. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   Doesn't it make anyone wonder how many "assumed" deaths and infections of Covid 19 are actually something else?
   
   Governors are basing their decisions for their state's economic future on these "assumed" numbers. 
   
   Shouldn't these decisions be based on actual numbers?
   
   I do believe that being paid an extra 20 percent for a Covid 19 patient will inspire some of those in hospitals to "assume" for the purpose of a profit.
   
   Does make you wonder what is actually real.

   replyreport
6. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   I am not alone in thinking the Covid 19 numbers are off.
   
   "Most Americans say they doubt the U.S. death count — but whether they think it's actually higher or lower depends on whether they're Democrats or Republicans, according to the latest installment of the Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index."
   
   https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-coron … fdc1b.html

   replyreport
7. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   

   replyreport
8. 77

   Valeantposted 4 years ago

   https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … -payments/
   
   Note:  Facebook flagged the meme you reference as false.
   
   'Medicare has determined that a hospital gets paid $13,000 if a COVID-19 patient on Medicare is admitted...'  Key phrase there is 'on Medicare.'

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I've seen this - that hospitals get lots more for ventilator use - and my reaction was "So what?  They DO more and their costs go up!"
      
      So much slant and spin today, all designed to get us to believe what isn't true.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      From the article you provided.
      
      "Medicare will pay hospitals a 20% "add-on" to the regular DRG payment for COVID-19 patients. That’s a result of the CARES Act, the largest of the three federal stimulus laws enacted in response to the coronavirus, which was signed into law March 27."

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         The point being, how many of the Covid-19 patients are actually on Medicare.  I've looked and cannot find any demographics on the distribution by age.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You make a valid point.
            
            I've tried and am also unable to find anything stating the number of the demographics of patients.

            replyreport
9. 81

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   "Is that worth a global lockdown?  I think not."
   
   I have been pondering this. I have been looking at the articles about Sweden's efforts.
   
   And I still don't know what to think.
   
   I do agree—tentatively—that the mortality rate will turn out to be much less than now claimed or predicted. Which, means I now have to consider the reality of the extreme measures taken worldwide.
   
   In the u.S. no hospitals were overwhelmed as the predictions indicated they would be. When talking about the 80%-90% prison population positive tests it seems each article mentions that those positives were asymptomatic.
   
   Has this covid-19 thing been blown out of proportion, or, did our lockdown efforts do what they were intended to do.
   
   At this point I am undecided, but, I am leaning towards the "overblown" perspective.
   
   Probably another 4 weeks of increased testing will tell the tale.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Paul Kozmaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's overblown, demonstrating how easy it is to manipulate the masses.  People have been doing it for years, but now it can be done in real-time.   Mortality rates were never high but presented that way, and people believed.  They believed because the media graphically depicted horrifying deaths and pain.
      
      Franklin Roosevelt once said, there's nothing to fear but fear itself.  He's right, and until people get past this fear, the world won't move forward.  The world needs to move on NOW.  COVID-19 if seasonal, just like any flu. That's my two cents.
      P

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Just a question...are you in a big city or a small town?  Do you think that has any influence on your perspective here?
         
         I bet those in the big cities might see the virus a bit differently than those of us in remote areas.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            If we could, we might ask that nurse that survived infection after working in a large city hospital.  Ask her how bad it is, and how bad it was working in an overloaded hospital trying to treat the infected.
            
            I suspect she would fill a mountain with personally witnessed horror stories.

            replyreport
         2. 96

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            How do you feel about small populated areas of a state having few if any Covid 19 cases being locked down like a city that is over 50 miles away?  Is THAT really fair?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I think that small communities should be given the flexibility to ease some restrictions as long as their cases have stabilized.  My county has just 70 cases and 3 deaths.  Some businesses that went on pause have already resumed operations, albeit restaurants still doing mostly takeout.

               replyreport
10. 91

    IslandBitesposted 4 years ago

    https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4 … e-masks-to
    
    Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms have removed a viral documentary-style video titled "Plandemic" that promoted conspiracy theories about the coronavirus.
    
    The 26-minute video, which was framed as part of a longer documentary on the coronavirus pandemic, promoted several false claims, including that wearing a face mask makes it easier to get the virus and that shelter-in-place orders hurt the immune system.
    
    It also claimed without evidence that the coronavirus was invented in a laboratory in order to promote vaccinations. Judy Mikovits, an anti-vaccination activist, makes many of the claims in the video.

    replyreport
    1. 95

       wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Ordinarily I am very much against censorship such as this, but it is beginning to be in the same category as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.   
       
       We saw this type of thing being posted in the last election as enemies inimical to the United States made a concerted effort to divide and harm our country; are we seeing more of the same?  What other possible agenda could the posters have other than to cause as much harm as possible to the people of America?

       replyreport
       1. 96

          Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The concept of free speech requires people be free to share their ideas, no matter what.
          
          "It also claimed without evidence that the coronavirus was invented in a laboratory in order to promote vaccinations." 
          
          How do we know what the video claims unless we are able to view the video?  And so what?  If it is that far-fetched, people will know.
          
          We can't lose our freedom of speech because unintelligent and weak-minded people will believe anything.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

             And yet we have limitations on free speech, such as the FIRE example. 
             
             And no, people do not know; we are becoming a nation that simply believes whatever we want to hear...and behave accordingly.

             replyreport
             1. 96

                Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                No, the fire example you cited is often used in Law Schools discussing free speech.  If this is done falsely, it has been done with the intent to cause harm and it becomes a separate legal issue.
                
                Modern societies worldwide have members that believe whatever they want to hear and behave accordingly...so what?
                
                Should we ban videos on Big Foot? Space Aliens visiting the earth? How about Ghost researching?
                
                Again, sensible people will be able to view such a documentary and know if it is worth anything.
                
                I resent giving up freedom of speech because gullible and unintelligent people may be affected by it.

                replyreport
                1. 95

                   wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                   There are other examples if you don't like that one.   Incitement to riot, for example, or encouragement to assassinate the president or carry out terrorist activities.
                   
                   "Modern societies worldwide have members that believe whatever they want to hear and behave accordingly...so what?"
                   
                   True.  But when the percentage of people doing that goes from 10% to 90% there is a very real problem, right?  And it really does seem to me that we have an extraordinarily large percentage of people simply searching for what they want to hear and then declaring it to be true.

                   replyreport
                   1. 96

                      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                      "Incitement to riot, for example, or encouragement to assassinate the president or carry out terrorist activities."
                      
                      Again...this goes to intent.  If you incite a riot, that is your goal and not expressing an idea.  If you encourage the assassination of the president, that is your intent and not expressing a belief.
                      
                      You do have a right to express your views of the president.  You can say you wish he was dead.  If you encourage the assassination, you are attempting to create an outcome that has nothing to do with the expression of a view, idea or belief.
                      
                      "we have an extraordinarily large percentage of people simply searching for what they want to hear and then declaring it to be true."
                      
                      I would say we have people who don't accept what they are told and challenge what others accept.  This is essential when it comes to having a free society.
                      
                      A video doubting the information provided by the government is free speech.  They are expressing a view.
                      
                      If they were trying to create a result such as stating people should go into supermarkets en mass and defy all orders from their state government...that could be considered illegal.
                      
                      We'll never know...because those against free speech have decided to censor it.

                      replyreport
                      1. 87

                         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                         I think if I sat around all day looking for conspiracy theories, assuming everything was some giant fake-out, I'd be miserable.
                         
                         Are you happy, Mike?
                         
                         Is this what people do in retirement?
                         
                         That video you're referring to was false in every way and the companies were right to ban it because it could do serious damage to the public health, but since we live in a world where every idiotic conspiracy theory has value, we're just supposed to let more and more people watch it.
                         
                         I think it's fine if the President wants people to drink bleach because drinking bleach only hurts yourself, but when it comes to the public health, demonstrably false information should be removed.

                         replyreport
                      2. 95

                         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                         "Again...this goes to intent."
                         
                         You are right.  And if the intent is to de-stabilize the country and it's efforts to control a pandemic, causing riots throughout and convincing people to risk other's lives?  We're seeing that right now - is that not a form of "incitement to riot" on a nationwide basis?
                         
                         "I would say we have people who don't accept what they are told and challenge what others accept.  This is essential when it comes to having a free society."
                         
                         You are correct.  But I wasn't referring to that, and I stand by my statement that we have a large percentage of people that go looking for information, from any source and with or without reason or evidence, that agrees with what they have already decided to believe without the requirement for reason or evidence.  And that then declare their belief true and factual...because they found what they wanted to find.

                         replyreport
                         1. 87

                            crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                            The dangers of the internet, in a nutshell.

                            replyreport