2020-10-16 at 1:22 AM UTC
None of that proves anything. As usual, you are intentionally avoiding uncomfortable points
2020-10-16 at 7:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe
He backed up his claims with sources.
Some of his claims. Not the claims I was disputing from that post. It's a typical deflection tactic. Just ignore the discussion and talk about what YOU want. This way you can discuss the strongest points of your argument while ignoring the weakest, which are what people are actually disputing.
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace
Flagrantly untrue. They don't get paid more for COVID deaths. Where the fuck did you hear that? Trump? Actually READ the CARES act and you'll see the only money hospitals got from the federal government was a 20% medicaid supplement. This is, the feds covering an additional 20% for all medicaid bills for all patients who test positive for COVID.
Here's the money for that. Both for the CARES act and the 2nd wave of 10 billion.
https://data.cdc.gov/Administrative/Provider-Relief-Fund-COVID-19-High-Impact-Payments/b58h-s9zx/data
Where's the money you're talking about? Where's the legislation that says hospitals get money 'for each death'?
This is complete bullshit lol. "CDC test kits" are not any different from the tests the rest of the world is using. If America's testing numbers are off, so is everyone else's. Clearly though, you have no idea what you're talking about. What you're thinking about are the very early molecular tests. We now have far more sophisticated antigen/antibody tests which are significantly more accurate.
I don't even know what to say about the rest of your post. It's just wild ass speculation and you come to a wild ass conclusion that '90% of the tests may be false positives' based on fucking what? Your own guesswork? Because you THINK it might be? You FEEL they aren't accurate?
I mean holy shit. The level of mental gymnastics you are going through to get to the conclusions you are getting is just insane. You have no evidence of any kind for anything you're saying. Where are your scientific studies showing the tests are 'wildly accurate'? Like you realize this is just a problem in modern medicine right? People get false positives for cancer. For other coronaviruses. For genetic diseases. Donut frosting gets mistaken for methamphetamines in reagent tests. I mean it's just a problem overall. Why is anybody pretending like the coronavirus tests are any different?
Even if 50% of the tests are false positives (which would be unrealistically inaccurate) the official CDC report (as in, the actual counted COVID deaths) is at like 210,000 dead in America, with it being more like 300,000 if you count the 'unexplained' spike in pnuemonia and heart attack. But let's assume the "real" number is 100k. That is still 10% of the COVID deaths for a country with 4% of the world's population.
Originally posted by aldra
I'm sure we've talked about it before, I know I've posted links and data
Basically hospitals will typically mark any death while a patient has tested positive for COVID as being caused by COVID. This is partially due to the lack of resources to perform an autopsy/verify cause of death for every casualty and partially because hospitals get paid out more (insurance) for COVID kills. This has lead to instances where people who died in car accidents, falls or violence being marked as COVID deaths because they had the virus concurrently.
In terms of testing, the initial CDC test kits had a 50% accuracy rate and it's not clear how much they've been improved since then. Current test kits carry the warning that they may register a positive for any coronavirus such as the common cold, rather than the specific COVID19 virus. Further it's recently been reported that the PCR tests used to detect the presence of the virus in the test kits has been such a high sensitivity (standard tests are run at sensitivity level 30, COVID tests are run at 40 with graduating steps) that they've been demonstrated to pick up inert and deactivated viruses and even stray genetic material that may or may not have even come from a coronavirus intially. Over 90% of tests are run at this absurdly high sensitivity, meaning that up to 90% of tests may have registered a false positive.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Nevermind that the rest of the world is using the same sensitivity for the tests but whatever
Apparently these are only American problems. They give so many explanations that can easily be debunked by looking at the rest of the world.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2020-10-16 at 10:33 PM UTC
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Oh shit. Thanks for pointing that out, MMR. What's aldra's response?
2020-10-17 at 5:36 AM UTC
I love Soi. He is the best example of "I don't have any counter argument so this makes me angry".
Feels literally over facts.
2020-10-17 at 5:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra
That's a bit ironic given that my overall argument is that COVID test and fatality numbers are too unreliable to draw conclusions from, and unreliable testing ALONE demonstrates this.
That said I'll post about the hospital reporting stuff when I have time.
Candy has sugar. Water is wet. Dogs have fur. We should fill the air with noxious poison. Fish like to swim. Plants need water to grow.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2020-10-17 at 5:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra
COVID test and fatality numbers are too unreliable to draw conclusions from
The problem is a little like the problem that stops economics becoming a real science - too many people have too strong an opinion about things.
Once this is no longer current affairs, and the freaks move on to the next outrage, there will be the space for knowledgeable people to come to thoughtful conclusions. Not until then.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
