I feel like Cooper is just waiting to Nov. 4 and then he's just going to go gang-busters and shut everything down again.
Coronavirus
2,007,370 Views |
19855 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by Werewolf
Still would love to know discharge and duration numbers.Daviewolf83 said:
I just noticed a new tab on the NCDHHS dashboard, titled "Hospitalization Demographics." It shows the demographic make-up of patients for "Confirmed" and "Suspected" cases separately. It includes distributions of patents by Race, Gender, and Age. I have not gone through it in any detail, but it appears to be good information that will help with our understanding of hospitalizations.
Sierrawolf said:
I feel like Cooper is just waiting to Nov. 4 and then he's just going to go gang-busters and shut everything down again.
(honest question here)
Would Cooper winning/losing make a difference with whether he chooses to shut some things down? (schools, etc.)
Yes.AlleyPack said:Sierrawolf said:
I feel like Cooper is just waiting to Nov. 4 and then he's just going to go gang-busters and shut everything down again.
(honest question here)
Would Cooper winning/losing make a difference with whether he chooses to shut some things down? (schools, etc.)
(I will caveat schools and say he is maybe less likely to roll back there and more likely elsewhere. Since even media are catching up to schools not being an issue. The issue with school openings right now is fear and teachers as much as crazy restrictions).
If Cooper wins he will shut us back down immediately. We know who he is now and we've got months of his attitude and explanation which is not really science based but politically based. With numbers up again he is getting ready to put the hammer down on us. Even if he loses he will probably go scorched earth until Forest is sworn in, but at least we will have a light at the end of the tunnel. Either way we are in for a rough holiday season.
The teachers that I know are mixed between those upset about the extra work load from the hybrid approach, and those that are upset about teaching in person at all because they are scared of getting the virus. The common denominator is that none of them are happy. Cooper is walking a tightrope on schools IMO, because he doesn't want to lose the teacher vote, but it is clear that the science says the schools should be fully open, and the economy needs that to happen so the parents can go back to work. I don't envy teachers in this predicament, but I also don't envy families trying to make this work. My friends with kids all agree that the children, particularly the young ones, are going to be at best a year behind, and that's from families that are all two parent, upper middle class, hands on type people. The gap is going to be even larger for others.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
So if Cooper loses then the new governor would be sworn in on 1/1/2021, correct?
How long would it take for things to be "legally" changed/reversed by the new gov?
Let's say the new gov is going to fully open schools back up, fully open gyms and bars, etc. --- would those edicts become effective January 2nd, or would there be a certain time period for such decisions to pass through all the checks and balances?
Thanks
How long would it take for things to be "legally" changed/reversed by the new gov?
Let's say the new gov is going to fully open schools back up, fully open gyms and bars, etc. --- would those edicts become effective January 2nd, or would there be a certain time period for such decisions to pass through all the checks and balances?
Thanks
There are no 'checks and balances', these orders (I assume) can be rescinded by whoever the governor is, whenever they want. They are official orders by the whim of our mighty ruler.AlleyPack said:
So if Cooper loses then the new governor would be sworn in on 1/1/2021, correct?
How long would it take for things to be "legally" changed/reversed by the new gov?
Let's say the new gov is going to fully open schools back up, fully open gyms and bars, etc. --- would those edicts become effective January 2nd, or would there be a certain time period for such decisions to pass through all the checks and balances?
Thanks
I am not even saying every decision was improper or made with malice. Unfortunately as time has gone on, the decisions have been more driven by 'political science and data' and less by ACTUAL science and data. What kind of true CBA has been done regarding these orders at any level?
I agree. Discharge is most interesting to me. We say hospitalizations flatten in the 900 range for weeks and it seemed to hit some sort of wall, below which hospitalizations refused to decline. You would think as cases were falling during that time, hospitalizations would have continued to fall.Wayland said:Still would love to know discharge and duration numbers.Daviewolf83 said:
I just noticed a new tab on the NCDHHS dashboard, titled "Hospitalization Demographics." It shows the demographic make-up of patients for "Confirmed" and "Suspected" cases separately. It includes distributions of patents by Race, Gender, and Age. I have not gone through it in any detail, but it appears to be good information that will help with our understanding of hospitalizations.
I'd assume so....it used to be that the new governor was sworn in on January the 5th after the election year, but Cooper decided to move his date to be sworn in up the a few minutes after midnight on January 1st with the actual inauguration a few days after that.AlleyPack said:
So if Cooper loses then the new governor would be sworn in on 1/1/2021, correct?
How long would it take for things to be "legally" changed/reversed by the new gov?
Let's say the new gov is going to fully open schools back up, fully open gyms and bars, etc. --- would those edicts become effective January 2nd, or would there be a certain time period for such decisions to pass through all the checks and balances?
Thanks
Who's not to say that if we get another governor they decide to swear in before that....
Joined:
Nov 25, 2017
Posts:
12,586
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Applaud WRAL for this story although I honestly can't believe they ran it.
Dr. Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, told The Spectator magazine in London, that the black-and-white nature of the test is leading to an inflated number of cases.
"We have found RNA evidence in shedding for 78 days," Heneghan said. "When you're picking up asymptomatic people, you have no idea if they have an active infection, or did they have it two months ago?"
For its coronavirus test, North Carolina's state public health lab cycles a DNA sample up to 37 times before deciding whether it's positive or negative. LabCorp, the main private tester in the state, has a cycle threshold that's even higher, at 38.
"The more times you do that, the less virus you start out with," Heneghan said.
WRAL Investigates went through the specs of dozens of PCR tests that asked for emergency approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The cycle thresholds range from as low as 35 to as high as 40, depending on the maker.
"The higher that threshold goes, the dimmer the signal is or translated to virus, the lower amount of virus is present," said Thomas Denny, chief operating officer of Duke University's Human Vaccine Institute, who heads up the school's coronavirus testing program.
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/are-nc-s-coronavirus-case-numbers-inflated-some-scientists-say-so/19355130/
Dr. Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, told The Spectator magazine in London, that the black-and-white nature of the test is leading to an inflated number of cases.
"We have found RNA evidence in shedding for 78 days," Heneghan said. "When you're picking up asymptomatic people, you have no idea if they have an active infection, or did they have it two months ago?"
For its coronavirus test, North Carolina's state public health lab cycles a DNA sample up to 37 times before deciding whether it's positive or negative. LabCorp, the main private tester in the state, has a cycle threshold that's even higher, at 38.
"The more times you do that, the less virus you start out with," Heneghan said.
WRAL Investigates went through the specs of dozens of PCR tests that asked for emergency approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The cycle thresholds range from as low as 35 to as high as 40, depending on the maker.
"The higher that threshold goes, the dimmer the signal is or translated to virus, the lower amount of virus is present," said Thomas Denny, chief operating officer of Duke University's Human Vaccine Institute, who heads up the school's coronavirus testing program.
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/are-nc-s-coronavirus-case-numbers-inflated-some-scientists-say-so/19355130/
I was also surprised WRAL ran this story. I posted a link to the NY Times article on this topic several weeks ago. The NY Times article actually pointed out the higher threshold the NC lab uses in their article. While the higher thresholds are good for determining the spread of the virus and knowing how many "have" been infected, it is also identifying people to be quarantined, who are likely no longer infectious and likely, should not be quarantined.Steve Williams said:
Applaud WRAL for this story although I honestly can't believe they ran it.
Dr. Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, told The Spectator magazine in London, that the black-and-white nature of the test is leading to an inflated number of cases.
"We have found RNA evidence in shedding for 78 days," Heneghan said. "When you're picking up asymptomatic people, you have no idea if they have an active infection, or did they have it two months ago?"
For its coronavirus test, North Carolina's state public health lab cycles a DNA sample up to 37 times before deciding whether it's positive or negative. LabCorp, the main private tester in the state, has a cycle threshold that's even higher, at 38.
"The more times you do that, the less virus you start out with," Heneghan said.
WRAL Investigates went through the specs of dozens of PCR tests that asked for emergency approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The cycle thresholds range from as low as 35 to as high as 40, depending on the maker.
"The higher that threshold goes, the dimmer the signal is or translated to virus, the lower amount of virus is present," said Thomas Denny, chief operating officer of Duke University's Human Vaccine Institute, who heads up the school's coronavirus testing program.
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/are-nc-s-coronavirus-case-numbers-inflated-some-scientists-say-so/19355130/
The more media gets on board with some of this stuff the better.
Comical they are now citing Heneghan. It isn't like he is a new voice in all this. If only we had been having ACTUAL scientific conversations the whole time and let people like Heneghan into the room.
But it is frustrating that this was something that was being discussed (even here) back in like June and all of a sudden WRAL pulls breaking news. Hell, I shared that testing video (which I think Mina, who is also quoted for this article, may have been in) months ago showing the long past infectious tail being detected with oversensitive CT counts. While it MAY be beneficial to detect past infection, we uselessly quarantine non-infectious people.
Well, congratifinglations WRAL for pulling your head out of your ass just a little bit. They and the rest of the MSM have a long way to go to fully extricate their heads.
Comical they are now citing Heneghan. It isn't like he is a new voice in all this. If only we had been having ACTUAL scientific conversations the whole time and let people like Heneghan into the room.
But it is frustrating that this was something that was being discussed (even here) back in like June and all of a sudden WRAL pulls breaking news. Hell, I shared that testing video (which I think Mina, who is also quoted for this article, may have been in) months ago showing the long past infectious tail being detected with oversensitive CT counts. While it MAY be beneficial to detect past infection, we uselessly quarantine non-infectious people.
Well, congratifinglations WRAL for pulling your head out of your ass just a little bit. They and the rest of the MSM have a long way to go to fully extricate their heads.
To them, the light at the end of the tunnel is likely a proctoscope.Wayland said:
...
Well, congratifinglations WRAL for pulling your head out of your ass just a little bit. They and the rest of the MSM have a long way to go to fully extricate their heads.
Like I said, if you cant get hyped for the Carolina game, why are you here?
-Earl Wolff-
-Earl Wolff-
"Lowering the cycle threshold would reduce cases by 80 to 90 percent, he said.
Heneghan said thresholds in the high 30s paint a false picture, causing unnecessary quarantines and negative economic impacts,"
That's the crux of it right there. Being cautious is one thing, especially early on during this. But at this point, the hospitals are not overwhelmed, we have measures in place, there should be nothing to be gained by unnecessarily considering people positive. This is also yet another reason why it is fruitless to compare our statistics to the rest of the world. Without any standardized threshold for the testing, it very well could be apples to oranges. Eighty to ninety percent. Jeez. Imagine if that were actually being used in practice, we go from "the US is doing terrible dealing with the Rona because people suck, government is bad,, blah blah", to actually, no, we're doing better than everyone. That wouldn't fit the narrative though. I hope I live long enough for some deep dives on the numbers and science of this stuff to be done down the road.
Heneghan said thresholds in the high 30s paint a false picture, causing unnecessary quarantines and negative economic impacts,"
That's the crux of it right there. Being cautious is one thing, especially early on during this. But at this point, the hospitals are not overwhelmed, we have measures in place, there should be nothing to be gained by unnecessarily considering people positive. This is also yet another reason why it is fruitless to compare our statistics to the rest of the world. Without any standardized threshold for the testing, it very well could be apples to oranges. Eighty to ninety percent. Jeez. Imagine if that were actually being used in practice, we go from "the US is doing terrible dealing with the Rona because people suck, government is bad,, blah blah", to actually, no, we're doing better than everyone. That wouldn't fit the narrative though. I hope I live long enough for some deep dives on the numbers and science of this stuff to be done down the road.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
Our public health experts are too simple minded to be able to distinguish between the testing necessary for a clinical diagnosis and testing necessary for infection control.wilmwolf80 said:
"Lowering the cycle threshold would reduce cases by 80 to 90 percent, he said.
Heneghan said thresholds in the high 30s paint a false picture, causing unnecessary quarantines and negative economic impacts,"
That's the crux of it right there. Being cautious is one thing, especially early on during this. But at this point, the hospitals are not overwhelmed, we have measures in place, there should be nothing to be gained by unnecessarily considering people positive. This is also yet another reason why it is fruitless to compare our statistics to the rest of the world. Without any standardized threshold for the testing, it very well could be apples to oranges. Eighty to ninety percent. Jeez. Imagine if that were actually being used in practice, we go from "the US is doing terrible dealing with the Rona because people suck, government is bad,, blah blah", to actually, no, we're doing better than everyone. That wouldn't fit the narrative though. I hope I live long enough for some deep dives on the numbers and science of this stuff to be done down the road.
It is beyond their capacity to think about more than one thing at a time.
Or for that matter, to take imbalanced risk into consideration for mitigation strategies. Or even consider the economic or life costs of policies beyond COVID.
The WHOLE plan is just 3W propaganda.... and when cases go down 3Ws worked ... and when cases go up, people didn't 3W hard enough.
Talk about giving up? The whole plan in NC was close business and schools, create 3W propaganda, and cross fingers.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me. Are we the most idiotic society ever?wilmwolf80 said:
"Lowering the cycle threshold would reduce cases by 80 to 90 percent, he said.
Heneghan said thresholds in the high 30s paint a false picture, causing unnecessary quarantines and negative economic impacts,"
That's the crux of it right there. Being cautious is one thing, especially early on during this. But at this point, the hospitals are not overwhelmed, we have measures in place, there should be nothing to be gained by unnecessarily considering people positive. This is also yet another reason why it is fruitless to compare our statistics to the rest of the world. Without any standardized threshold for the testing, it very well could be apples to oranges. Eighty to ninety percent. Jeez. Imagine if that were actually being used in practice, we go from "the US is doing terrible dealing with the Rona because people suck, government is bad,, blah blah", to actually, no, we're doing better than everyone. That wouldn't fit the narrative though. I hope I live long enough for some deep dives on the numbers and science of this stuff to be done down the road.
Do you mind explaining this in a little bit more layman's terms, i'm not quite sure I understand? Is it saying that they are considering any trace of the virus as an active case, even if it's not enough to cause someone to get sick or something?wilmwolf80 said:
"Lowering the cycle threshold would reduce cases by 80 to 90 percent, he said.
Heneghan said thresholds in the high 30s paint a false picture, causing unnecessary quarantines and negative economic impacts,"
That's the crux of it right there. Being cautious is one thing, especially early on during this. But at this point, the hospitals are not overwhelmed, we have measures in place, there should be nothing to be gained by unnecessarily considering people positive. This is also yet another reason why it is fruitless to compare our statistics to the rest of the world. Without any standardized threshold for the testing, it very well could be apples to oranges. Eighty to ninety percent. Jeez. Imagine if that were actually being used in practice, we go from "the US is doing terrible dealing with the Rona because people suck, government is bad,, blah blah", to actually, no, we're doing better than everyone. That wouldn't fit the narrative though. I hope I live long enough for some deep dives on the numbers and science of this stuff to be done down the road.
In some cases, this is correct. The way the testing works is through a method of amplification, where you take a sample and run it through an amplification or annealing process to promote growth of the virus in the medium to get enough virus sample to be detectable by the testing equipment. The more cycles (referred to as CT or cycle threshold) you run, the more viral samples that could be present to detect. If there was no virus present, no amount of cycles will produce detectable amounts of the virus and the person will be considered negative for the virus.statefan91 said:Do you mind explaining this in a little bit more layman's terms, i'm not quite sure I understand? Is it saying that they are considering any trace of the virus as an active case, even if it's not enough to cause someone to get sick or something?wilmwolf80 said:
"Lowering the cycle threshold would reduce cases by 80 to 90 percent, he said.
Heneghan said thresholds in the high 30s paint a false picture, causing unnecessary quarantines and negative economic impacts,"
That's the crux of it right there. Being cautious is one thing, especially early on during this. But at this point, the hospitals are not overwhelmed, we have measures in place, there should be nothing to be gained by unnecessarily considering people positive. This is also yet another reason why it is fruitless to compare our statistics to the rest of the world. Without any standardized threshold for the testing, it very well could be apples to oranges. Eighty to ninety percent. Jeez. Imagine if that were actually being used in practice, we go from "the US is doing terrible dealing with the Rona because people suck, government is bad,, blah blah", to actually, no, we're doing better than everyone. That wouldn't fit the narrative though. I hope I live long enough for some deep dives on the numbers and science of this stuff to be done down the road.
Some of the experts are saying cycles above 30 that yield a positive result should not be considered as an infectious amount of virus present in the original sample. I believe the tests were set up to err on the positive side, since the virus is so new and they want to make sure they capture all people who may be infected and still infectious. The issue is that with the higher cycles generating positive results, you are detecting people who may have been infected and infectious in the past, but they are no longer infectious and should not be quarantined. The flip side to this is you could have someone that has just acquired the virus and have not become fully infected. Running the test with a higher CT (35+) would potentially help to identify these people before they become symptomatic and infectious.
From a public health standpoint, it is definitely important to know how many people have been infected by the virus and I believe it is important for an individual to know that they have already been infected. From a quarantine standpoint, it is problematic to isolate and quarantine people who were once infected, but are no longer infectious. This is why test reports that do not include the CT for the test should be considered incomplete.
Here's the link to the original NY Times article that I posted about many weeks ago, in case you are interested in learning more. WRAL is late to the party and many in MSM completely ignored this story.
Your Coronavirus Test is Positive - Maybe It Shouldn't Be
I agree with the early caution but based on what I have read/seen elsewhere (and based on that previous testing video I posted), the ramp up on the front end between positive-non infectious and positive-infectious at a high CT is a matter of hours, while the back-end CT detection of non-infectious COVID can be detected up to 3 months later.Daviewolf83 said:In some cases, this is correct. The way the testing works is through a method of amplification, where you take a sample and run it through an amplification or annealing process to promote growth of the virus in the medium to get enough virus sample to be detectable by the testing equipment. The more cycles (referred to as CT or cycle threshold) you run, the more viral samples that could be present to detect. If there was no virus present, no amount of cycles will produce detectable amounts of the virus and the person will be considered negative for the virus.statefan91 said:Do you mind explaining this in a little bit more layman's terms, i'm not quite sure I understand? Is it saying that they are considering any trace of the virus as an active case, even if it's not enough to cause someone to get sick or something?wilmwolf80 said:
"Lowering the cycle threshold would reduce cases by 80 to 90 percent, he said.
Heneghan said thresholds in the high 30s paint a false picture, causing unnecessary quarantines and negative economic impacts,"
That's the crux of it right there. Being cautious is one thing, especially early on during this. But at this point, the hospitals are not overwhelmed, we have measures in place, there should be nothing to be gained by unnecessarily considering people positive. This is also yet another reason why it is fruitless to compare our statistics to the rest of the world. Without any standardized threshold for the testing, it very well could be apples to oranges. Eighty to ninety percent. Jeez. Imagine if that were actually being used in practice, we go from "the US is doing terrible dealing with the Rona because people suck, government is bad,, blah blah", to actually, no, we're doing better than everyone. That wouldn't fit the narrative though. I hope I live long enough for some deep dives on the numbers and science of this stuff to be done down the road.
Some of the experts are saying cycles above 30 that yield a positive result should not be considered as an infectious amount of virus present in the original sample. I believe the tests were set up to err on the positive side, since the virus is so new and they want to make sure they capture all people who may be infected and still infectious. The issue is that with the higher cycles generating positive results, you are detecting people who may have been infected and infectious in the past, but they are no longer infectious and should not be quarantined. The flip side to this is you could have someone that has just acquired the virus and have not become fully infected. Running the test with a higher CT (35+) would potentially help to identify these people before they become symptomatic and infectious.
From a public health standpoint, it is definitely important to know how many people have been infected by the virus and I believe it is important for an individual to know that they have already been infected. From a quarantine standpoint, it is problematic to isolate and quarantine people who were once infected, but are no longer infectious. This is why test reports that do not include the CT for the test should be considered incomplete.
Here's the link to the original NY Times article that I posted about many weeks ago, in case you are interested in learning more. WRAL is late to the party and many in MSM completely ignored this story.
Your Coronavirus Test is Positive - Maybe It Shouldn't Be
The chance that you are actually catching PRE-infectious cases with a high CT is small. This should be countered against the impact of how you are treating these cases not as diagnostic, but to make economic and societal policies (quarantine, business/school closure, etc).
Lazy man's death charts.
NC - 10/27 *with* COVID Deaths Update. +41
Dates of Death Reported 10/26(3), 10/25(16), 10/24(8), 10/23(5), 10/22(2), 10/21(2), 10/20, 10/18, 10/10, 10/9, 10/5, 9/26, 9/17
2 missing DoD assigned dates (8 total missing)
Setting: 23 Congregate, 5 Unknown, 13 General
Antigen deaths seem to be ramping up some.
NC - 10/27 *with* COVID Deaths Update. +41
Dates of Death Reported 10/26(3), 10/25(16), 10/24(8), 10/23(5), 10/22(2), 10/21(2), 10/20, 10/18, 10/10, 10/9, 10/5, 9/26, 9/17
2 missing DoD assigned dates (8 total missing)
Setting: 23 Congregate, 5 Unknown, 13 General
Antigen deaths seem to be ramping up some.
I just a saw a report that NC will be receiving 3.5 million more antigen test kits, so I suspect the ramp in antigen deaths will continue. I wish we knew where these kits are being deployed. Personally, I would prioritize people working in nursing homes and other congregate facilities. The news report I saw suggested using them to test students and teachers. I would certainly put them much lower on the list of people to receive these tests, based on the demographics and mortality trends.Wayland said:
Lazy man's death charts.
NC - 10/27 *with* COVID Deaths Update. +41
Dates of Death Reported 10/26(3), 10/25(16), 10/24(8), 10/23(5), 10/22(2), 10/21(2), 10/20, 10/18, 10/10, 10/9, 10/5, 9/26, 9/17
2 missing DoD assigned dates (8 total missing)
Setting: 23 Congregate, 5 Unknown, 13 General
Antigen deaths seem to be ramping up some.
I agree with you. First and foremost (as it should have been since April), the priority should be with testing LTC staff or those working with a high-risk population. Use the tests where there will be the greatest costs of an outbreak.
I haven't read this thread in several weeks. So apologies if this has already been posted.
The CDC and the "experts" now say that "the flu has been wiped out this year all over the world", down ~98%.
Just more proof that "covid-19" is a gigantic scam the likes of which we have never seen. Of course the flu hasn't disappeared. In reality, they are just diagnosing everything as "covid-19".
All this BS fear-mongering from the communist Establishment Lamestream media about the "rise in cases"...yeah, that's people who have the flu or a common cold.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/uritheflu/88676
I also saw where recently they are now admitting of the "220,000" that have supposedly died from this, at least 130,000 (in reality much more) actually died of pneumonia, heart disease, and other diseases. Obviously, as we've been saying all along, they are deliberately inflating the numbers of "covid deaths" by counting anyone towards that total who is "presumed" to have covid (based on just having the sniffles or a cough) or tests "positive" with their bogus test, even if the vast majority of those people actually died as a result of some other cause.
The CDC and the "experts" now say that "the flu has been wiped out this year all over the world", down ~98%.
Just more proof that "covid-19" is a gigantic scam the likes of which we have never seen. Of course the flu hasn't disappeared. In reality, they are just diagnosing everything as "covid-19".
All this BS fear-mongering from the communist Establishment Lamestream media about the "rise in cases"...yeah, that's people who have the flu or a common cold.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/uritheflu/88676
Quote:
CDC: COVID-19 Wiped Out the Flu Around the World This Year
Flu numbers in the U.S. were historically low during COVID-19 in the spring, with deep declines also occurring in the recently completed Southern Hemisphere flu season, CDC researchers found.
Influenza positivity rates in specimens tested (a standard metric of community flu activity) fell 98% in 2020 during March 1-May 16 relative to Sept 29, 2019-Feb. 29, 2020, plummeting from a median of 19.34% to 0.33%, reported Sonja Olsen, PhD, of the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues.
I also saw where recently they are now admitting of the "220,000" that have supposedly died from this, at least 130,000 (in reality much more) actually died of pneumonia, heart disease, and other diseases. Obviously, as we've been saying all along, they are deliberately inflating the numbers of "covid deaths" by counting anyone towards that total who is "presumed" to have covid (based on just having the sniffles or a cough) or tests "positive" with their bogus test, even if the vast majority of those people actually died as a result of some other cause.
About that bogus "220,000 covid deaths" number...
At least 51,000 people who died of heart disease were counted in that total.
Over 130,000 deaths from causes other than "covid-19" are counted in that total.
https://www.oann.com/cdc-reveals-hospitals-counted-heart-attacks-as-covid-19-deaths/
At least 51,000 people who died of heart disease were counted in that total.
Over 130,000 deaths from causes other than "covid-19" are counted in that total.
https://www.oann.com/cdc-reveals-hospitals-counted-heart-attacks-as-covid-19-deaths/
Quote:
The latest numbers from the CDC reveal hospitals have been counting patients who died from serious preexisting conditions as COVID-19 deaths. One America's Pearson Sharp has more, as the CDC counts over 51-thousand patients who actually died from heart attacks, as opposed to the coronavirus.
GuerrillaPack said:
About that bogus "220,000 covid deaths" number...
At least 51,000 people who died of heart disease were counted in that total.
Paging Dr. Mormad...
Not worth his timeCivilized said:GuerrillaPack said:
About that bogus "220,000 covid deaths" number...
At least 51,000 people who died of heart disease were counted in that total.
Paging Dr. Mormad...
IseWolf22 said:Not worth his timeCivilized said:GuerrillaPack said:
About that bogus "220,000 covid deaths" number...
At least 51,000 people who died of heart disease were counted in that total.
Paging Dr. Mormad...
LOL. True, true
I don't guess we have any numbers on how many of which types of tests we've run over time. Are there more of the PCR tests now in relation to the quick tests?
NC started reporting PCR and Antigen tests several weeks ago. Here are the current totals:PackMom said:
I don't guess we have any numbers on how many of which types of tests we've run over time. Are there more of the PCR tests now in relation to the quick tests
PCR Testing: 3,867,320 tests
Antigen Testing: 23,444 tests
In the past two weeks, the average daily number of each type of test is:
PCR Testing: 31,339 tests/day
Antigen Testing: 921 tests/day
IseWolf22 said:Not worth his timeCivilized said:GuerrillaPack said:
About that bogus "220,000 covid deaths" number...
At least 51,000 people who died of heart disease were counted in that total.
Paging Dr. Mormad...
Lol. True. Dat.
Btw, our numbers are up big. Over 80 in the hospital. Icu numbers not horrible.
Overall, ICU numbers seem to be staying below 30% for all Covid patient admits. Hopefully this trend continues, with the better treatments protocols in place now.Mormad said:
Btw, our numbers are up big. Over 80 in the hospital. Icu numbers not horrible.
Featured Stories
See All
COMMIT ALERT: All-MAC Guard Marcus Hill Picks NC State
by James Henderson
Cam Riley Decommits From NC State
by James Henderson
IPS ZOOM CALL ALERT: Zoom Call Announcement at 6PM!
by James Henderson
25:09
5h ago
519
WATCH: Wolfpack Launches Inaugural Victory Over Cancer Game
by Daniel Wilson
IPS TAKE: Mike James Transfer Decision
by James Henderson