3 ms·

Read further down. The article I linked mentions that Washington state said in a prior request that they only count confirmed COVID cases in mortality metrics:

Read further down. The article I linked mentions that Washington state said in a prior request that they only count confirmed COVID cases in mortality metrics: > In its May 8 response to the Freedom Foundation, DOH stated, “All of the deaths currently attributed to COVID-19 had a positive PCR (polymerise chain reaction) test at some point. A PCR test is required in order to classify something as a confirmed case.” However various other sources now seemingly contradict the answer previously given, since they do count “presumptive” cases in mortality metrics after all: > DOH’s “Preliminary Guidance for Reporting COVID-19 Deaths” provides: “Coronavirus Disease 2019 or 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.” (emphasis in original) > Another DOH COVID-19 fact sheet makes a distinction between “confirmed” cases of COVID-19 in which the patient tested positive and “probable” cases involving any of the following factors [...] So either the initial response was false or the definitions of the metrics changed at some point. The reason this matters is because WA’s governor, Jay Inslee, has instituted the nation’s most strict restrictions, going well beyond what other cautious states like CA have implemented. For example he has banned fishing, hunting, residential construction, prevented rural areas from advancing in reopening phases, etc. Even as some restrictions (like closing all state parks or banning fishing) were reversed, Inslee continues to retain strange nonsensical bans on activities like camping. Certainly there is motive to make the numbers look worse to justify policy overreach or missteps, and it deserves scrutiny.

FireBeyond 6y ago
Those two statements are not contradictory: 1. A death _must_ have a positive PCR in order to be _attributed_ to COVID-19. This does not mean that a positive PCR means that the death _will_ be attributed to COVID-19. 2. Documentation of co-morbidities is standard, be it for COVID-19, or any other disease, "where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death". > The reason this matters is because WA’s governor, Jay Inslee, has instituted the nation’s most strict restrictions, going well beyond what other cautious states like CA have implemented. For example he has banned fishing, hunting, residential construction, prevented rural areas from advancing in reopening phases, etc. Even as some restrictions (like closing all state parks or banning fishing) were reversed, Inslee continues to retain strange nonsensical bans on activities like camping. The entirety of Eastern Washington is in Phase 2 or eligible (and the decision to go to Phase 2 in Adams and Spokane County is on those Counties, not the State, who has said they're eligible), which allows fishing, hunting, construction and camping: https://q13fox.com/2020/05/19/10-more-counties-including-thurston-kitsap-and-clallam-can-apply-for-phase-2-reopening/ https://q13fox.com/2020/05/19/10-more-counties-including-thu...
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I am not contesting that the documentation of comorbidities is reasonable or standard. I am however pointing out that the state has said contradictory things when it comes to which deaths are counted as COVID-caused deaths. Their guidance doc reads as follows: > “Coronavirus Disease 2019 or 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.” The phrasing "assumed to have caused" is key here and it suggests that at least some deaths were assumed to be COVID-caused even without explicit confirmation (via a PCR test). This means that this prior statement from the state was false: > “All of the deaths currently attributed to COVID-19 had a positive PCR (polymerise chain reaction) test at some point. A PCR test is required in order to classify something as a confirmed case.” If the standards for what counts as a COVID-death have changed to be more permissive, then that would have the effect of inflating mortality metrics. But either way the contradicting statements don't help with trust or confidence in their decision making. As for your statement about Eastern Washington... > The entirety of Eastern Washington is in Phase 2 or eligible This literally just came out today. These counties have been asking for this variance for at least a couple weeks and have been rebuffed without any clear reason. Inslee's reopening plans and conferences have historically been vague (without clear metrics or goals) despite claims of being data driven and science based. And then there's the question of why so many counties in central Washington are not given variances...
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > The phrasing "assumed to have caused" is key here and it suggests that at least some deaths were assumed to be COVID-caused even without explicit confirmation (via a PCR test). Not so much - while the _suggestion_ may be there, I grant you, it doesn't negate the PCR testing. "COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate" refers to co-morbidities, not (necessarily) cause of death. However, if COVID-19 _is_ considered the cause of death, it should a) be reported, and b) be confirmed by PCR testing. I'll grant you that the wording may not be clear in inference (particularly read separately, and piecemeal). But one of these statements doesn't and hasn't "supplanted" the other. AND, not OR, in programming parlance. My understanding of this comes from being involved at a practitioner level working with my County's Public Health, Medic One, and the state DOH. I'm not a physician, but I have been privy to these discussions. > This literally just came out today. These counties have been asking for this variance for at least a couple weeks From the article: "This includes Spokane, Adams, Thurston, Mason, Lewis, Clark, Kitsap, Clallam, San Juan and Island counties." With the exception of Spokane and Adams, all those Eastern counties were already in Phase 2.

FireBeyond 6y ago

Those two statements are not contradictory: 1. A death _must_ have a positive PCR in order to be _attributed_ to COVID-19. This does not mean that a positive PCR means that the death _will_ be attributed to COVID-19. 2. Documentation of co-morbidities is standard, be it for COVID-19, or any other disease, "where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death". > The reason this matters is because WA’s governor, Jay Inslee, has instituted the nation’s most strict restrictions, going well beyond what other cautious states like CA have implemented. For example he has banned fishing, hunting, residential construction, prevented rural areas from advancing in reopening phases, etc. Even as some restrictions (like closing all state parks or banning fishing) were reversed, Inslee continues to retain strange nonsensical bans on activities like camping. The entirety of Eastern Washington is in Phase 2 or eligible (and the decision to go to Phase 2 in Adams and Spokane County is on those Counties, not the State, who has said they're eligible), which allows fishing, hunting, construction and camping: https://q13fox.com/2020/05/19/10-more-counties-including-thurston-kitsap-and-clallam-can-apply-for-phase-2-reopening/ https://q13fox.com/2020/05/19/10-more-counties-including-thu...

throwawaysea 6y ago
I am not contesting that the documentation of comorbidities is reasonable or standard. I am however pointing out that the state has said contradictory things when it comes to which deaths are counted as COVID-caused deaths. Their guidance doc reads as follows: > “Coronavirus Disease 2019 or 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.” The phrasing "assumed to have caused" is key here and it suggests that at least some deaths were assumed to be COVID-caused even without explicit confirmation (via a PCR test). This means that this prior statement from the state was false: > “All of the deaths currently attributed to COVID-19 had a positive PCR (polymerise chain reaction) test at some point. A PCR test is required in order to classify something as a confirmed case.” If the standards for what counts as a COVID-death have changed to be more permissive, then that would have the effect of inflating mortality metrics. But either way the contradicting statements don't help with trust or confidence in their decision making. As for your statement about Eastern Washington... > The entirety of Eastern Washington is in Phase 2 or eligible This literally just came out today. These counties have been asking for this variance for at least a couple weeks and have been rebuffed without any clear reason. Inslee's reopening plans and conferences have historically been vague (without clear metrics or goals) despite claims of being data driven and science based. And then there's the question of why so many counties in central Washington are not given variances...
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  > The phrasing "assumed to have caused" is key here and it suggests that at least some deaths were assumed to be COVID-caused even without explicit confirmation (via a PCR test). Not so much - while the _suggestion_ may be there, I grant you, it doesn't negate the PCR testing. "COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate" refers to co-morbidities, not (necessarily) cause of death. However, if COVID-19 _is_ considered the cause of death, it should a) be reported, and b) be confirmed by PCR testing. I'll grant you that the wording may not be clear in inference (particularly read separately, and piecemeal). But one of these statements doesn't and hasn't "supplanted" the other. AND, not OR, in programming parlance. My understanding of this comes from being involved at a practitioner level working with my County's Public Health, Medic One, and the state DOH. I'm not a physician, but I have been privy to these discussions. > This literally just came out today. These counties have been asking for this variance for at least a couple weeks From the article: "This includes Spokane, Adams, Thurston, Mason, Lewis, Clark, Kitsap, Clallam, San Juan and Island counties." With the exception of Spokane and Adams, all those Eastern counties were already in Phase 2.