Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2020, 05:08 PM
 
18,740 posts, read 8,360,162 times
Reputation: 4118

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
The TOTAL deaths are abnormally up this year by about 250k, this was covered in another thread.

Note, TOTAL, no regard to cause.

Since that's the rough number of COVID deaths, if your SIL is right and that's happening then fine but it's still somewhere around that number even if her tiny rural hospital is telling the truth about it's 40 deaths or whatever and she isn't just confused or full of it.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2771761
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2771758
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2020, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,752,267 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Actually, almost all the major outlets covered the story.....just not CNN.

The KC metro has 2.3million people, several professional sports teams etc. and it's "too small" to run a story about a serial killer racially targeting people even though just about everyone else covered the story?

And it's me making a Biased diatribe?

Here's some more reality for you to deny, crap dude did Trump bite you or something, you're starting to sound like him.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
I didnt hear it at all and I try to watch Nightly News at least from NBC if not ABC as well. Nothing about bias here, it just couldn't make the 30 minutes of news. That was what I went by. As for how big Kansas City is, imagine how much coverage the same crime was committed in New York, Chicago, Boston or L.A., forget about it. Kansas City may not be a small city, but it isn't an important city compared to the others.

As for CNN, I always said they were biased. In 2016 they would poo-poo on Sanders just as Fox did and only gave the other Democratic nominees not Sanders or Clinton time on the debates. In 2020, they gave Sanders a bit more time but it seemed they wanted Beto, Pete, Warren or Biden again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2020, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,972 posts, read 40,966,544 times
Reputation: 44901
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
My SIL lives in a heavily Dem state, and works in a small, rural hospital. According to her, all deaths recorded at their hospital have been attributed to Covid, with no tests run to confirm. According to her, it's because they get more money for a Covid death.
Your SIL is providing really bad information. Hospitals do not get paid anything for COVID-19 deaths. Not a single penny. They get paid for providing medical care to people with COVID-19, the vast majority of whom will be tested now as opposed to the earliest months when tests were not even available.

What she is proposing would be fraud and easily discovered. It could result in loss of the hospital's ability to treat Medicare patients and probably closure of the facility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
I've been saying this for quite some time. How many of the deceased would have died regardless in the past 8 months? I have an uncle who was in his 90's that passed a few months ago, but did not have the virus. It was just his time.
My MIL died early this year, before COVID-19. She had just turned 97. If she had died from COVID-19 when she was 90, it would have robbed her of seven years. She had bacterial pneumonia and the decision was made not to pursue care that might have necessitated intubation.

The idea that all, or even most, of the elderly who have been killed by the coronavirus would have died this year anyway is false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2020, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,288 posts, read 20,640,206 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Your SIL is providing really bad information. Hospitals do not get paid anything for COVID-19 deaths. Not a single penny.
There are financial incentives that might make a difference for hospitals and doctors. The CARES Act adds a 20% premium for COVID-19 Medicare patients. Birx and others are also concerned that the CDC’s “antiquated” accounting system is double-counting cases and inflating mortality and case counts “by as much as 25%.” When all these anomalies are added up, it becomes apparent that we simply don’t have an accurate death toll from this new coronavirus. But it seems clear that the correct rate is just a little worse than the rate for the 2017-2018 flu.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...inflated.html#!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2020, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,502,954 times
Reputation: 22628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
There are financial incentives that might make a difference for hospitals and doctors. The CARES Act adds a 20% premium for COVID-19 Medicare patients. Birx and others are also concerned that the CDC’s “antiquated” accounting system is double-counting cases and inflating mortality and case counts “by as much as 25%.”
"might", "concerned that"

Do you have proof of any of this? Like a widespread pattern of doctors purposely misdiagnosing patients so their hospital receives more from Medicare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2020, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,679 posts, read 24,828,364 times
Reputation: 18907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
I find that hard to believe....but that's what their study says

'According to study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

"After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same…"

"…When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...0-prior-years/

==================

Johns Hopkins Study Saying COVID-19 Has 'Relatively No Effect on Deaths' in U.S. Deleted After Publication

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...ation-n1178930
1) Newsletters are not studies.
2) It did not look at the total number of deaths. It looked at distribution of deaths by age group over time, which is more or less the same. If 10% deaths are people in their 70s-80s in 2019 and 10% of deaths are people in their 70s-80s in 2020, then 10% of deaths are people in their 70s-80s. That does raise some questions but it says nothing about how many people in their 70s and 80s died in 2019 versus 2020. It just says that 10% of the total deaths for 2020 were people in their 70s to 80s. Total deaths are up by, you know, looking at CDC data of total deaths rather than saying the distribution of deaths is the same therefore the total number of deaths is the same, which was apparently the conclusion that Briand drew from the percentages being relatively the same. Rather than actually doing any journalism and fact checking, the student journalist didn't bother. Sloppy.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2020, 04:24 PM
 
8,480 posts, read 3,285,218 times
Reputation: 6834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
1) Newsletters are not studies.
2) It did not look at the total number of deaths. It looked at distribution of deaths by age group over time, which is more or less the same. If 10% deaths are people in their 70s-80s in 2019 and 10% of deaths are people in their 70s-80s in 2020, then 10% of deaths are people in their 70s-80s. That does raise some questions but it says nothing about how many people in their 70s and 80s died in 2019 versus 2020. It just says that 10% of the total deaths for 2020 were people in their 70s to 80s.
The percentage distribution was meaningless, yes. While the study did not examine the total number of deaths that did not stop Briand from pulling some aggregated data from the CDC and - without properly labelling it - then manipulating seemingly misusing the data to arrive at an inflammatory conclusion.

Horse-pucky, IMHO. Incomplete studies are one thing, differences in opinion fine. This is not that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2020, 04:25 PM
 
18,740 posts, read 8,360,162 times
Reputation: 4118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
"might", "concerned that"

Do you have proof of any of this? Like a widespread pattern of doctors purposely misdiagnosing patients so their hospital receives more from Medicare?
Not going to happen. The doc makes no more money for a Covid diagnosis. A hospital can though. ALL inpatients are tested for Covid, and they get reimbursed more by Medicare for any case. Whether they are sick from Covid or not. This helps to reimburse the hospital for all they to have to give up and all they have to go through in order to properly manage all patients, Covid or not, during the Pandemic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2020, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,972 posts, read 40,966,544 times
Reputation: 44901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
There are financial incentives that might make a difference for hospitals and doctors. The CARES Act adds a 20% premium for COVID-19 Medicare patients. Birx and others are also concerned that the CDC’s “antiquated” accounting system is double-counting cases and inflating mortality and case counts “by as much as 25%.” When all these anomalies are added up, it becomes apparent that we simply don’t have an accurate death toll from this new coronavirus. But it seems clear that the correct rate is just a little worse than the rate for the 2017-2018 flu.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...inflated.html#!
The 20% Medicare premium is for providing medical care. Whether the patient lives or dies is not a factor in that. There is no motivation to try to count deaths from other conditions as COVID-19 deaths.

Analysis of excess deaths supports the number of COVID-19 deaths and is higher than the excess deaths from the 2017-2018 flu.

See the graph here:

https://theconversation.com/up-to-20...ic-year-143139

Whatever accounting problems exist need to be corrected. People are still dying from COVID-19.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2020, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,679 posts, read 24,828,364 times
Reputation: 18907
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady View Post
The percentage distribution was meaningless, yes. While the study did not examine the total number of deaths that did not stop Briand from pulling some aggregated data from the CDC and - without properly labelling it - then manipulating seemingly misusing the data to arrive at an inflammatory conclusion.

Horse-pucky, IMHO. Incomplete studies are one thing, differences in opinion fine. This is not that.
Expanded a bit on my earlier post, but yes. Coming to a factually incorrect conclusion based on conjecture is a good sign that the conjecture is flawed. Rather than going, hmm, my conjectures arrive at a demonstrably false conclusion, Briand doubled down. You go back and try and figure out what false assumptions your conjectures may have incorporated that lead you down a path to an erroneous conclusion. You don't double down.

There's an actual interesting point in there. But then if you look at the total number of deaths from the 45+ cohort, right now deaths from people with COVID is ballpark about 10%. Given that it's only a factor in a relatively small percentage of deaths, you wouldn't really expect to see any major shifts in the distribution of deaths. The vast majority of deaths had nothing to do with COVID so any shift would be pretty minor. You wouldn't expect to see, for example, the 70-80 cohort go from 10% of deaths in 2019 to 20% of deaths in 2020. There's just not that many people dying from COVID to see such a large swing.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ekly/index.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top