3 ms·

I’ve heard that CDC has corrected down c19-related deaths to a merely 6% of the initially c19-reported deaths. The other 94% had other health issues as well and

I’ve heard that CDC has corrected down c19-related deaths to a merely 6% of the initially c19-reported deaths. The other 94% had other health issues as well and it can’t be said any longer that their death is related to c19. Isn’t that true?

bananabreakfast 6y ago
And I've heard that nothing you just said is true. Isn't that right? Hearsay is not an argument.
- blumomo 6y ago
  Exactly. Use your own rationale!
wtallis 6y ago
> I’ve heard that CDC has corrected down c19-related deaths to a merely 6% of the initially c19-reported deaths. That sounds like the kind of big news you should have no trouble finding a citation for. > The other 94% had other health issues as well and it can’t be said any longer that their death is related to c19. That's a funny definition of "related". The presence of other contributing factors does not mean that none of the blame lies with the coronavirus.
nocterro 6y ago
That doesn't appear to be correct https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-not-quietly-updated-covid-19-death-estimates-67902 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-no....
- blumomo 6y ago
  Ah, the URL has “scientist“ in its name. Must be true then!
dmix 6y ago
Only 6% of fatalities were listed as "only COVID-19 related", which means removing every fatality listed with a preexisting conditions. I don't see how that number is at all helpful for measuring the risk level to any general population. Besides the other 94%, simply not dying is not the best metric either. The better metric is causing any serious harm, not just fatalities.
- blumomo 6y ago
  That’s my point. It’s all about assumptions. Exactly as with the article being discussed in this thread. Such articles have little value to understanding truth. But they help with superspreading fear.
- azinman2 6y ago
  No, it means that 94% still died due to COVID, but had pre-existing conditions that made them more susceptible. These are not people that likely would have been on the brink of death otherwise... that is the common misunderstanding in this misinformation. Over 40% of the US is obese, for example, which increases your likelihood of a fatal outcome. So if you are obese and 40, it’s unlikely that you’d otherwise die in 2020. But if you get Covid and die from it, you’re a part of that 94%.
  - dmix 6y ago
    I said "besides the other 94%" meaning "even ignoring the others 94% who died with preexisting conditions" ... dying itself shouldn't be the only concern, even to those without existing conditions. As there is plenty of evidence of long-term harm to people who survived. I don't see how that is at odds with anything you said.
triyambakam 6y ago
Yes, only 6% of deaths attributed to covid can be /solely/ attributed to covid, otherwise the other 94% had other complications in addition to covid
- blumomo 6y ago
  Exactly. That’s the point —- it’s all about assumptions being made for the other 94%. And it’s easy to come up with assumptions. And it’s hard to understand the truth.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    No. The death being due to covid isn’t in dispute. It’s about characterizing who is at most risk. You can be young and have health problems while still living for many more decades, but then you got Covid, died, and now you’re part of the 94%. Given 40% of the US is obese and would fit into this 94%, that’s not something to then ignore and say therefore only 6% of the population could be affected by this. That’s an incorrect understanding of the statistics. This misrepresentation has been dangerously incorrectly stated either intentionally or ignorantly by people who have an agenda to push, and that agenda isn’t in service to public health.
    - blumomo 6y ago
      That's one way to interpret the story but that's not how would suggest to understand things. Given your explanation model we could easily argue that every dead person which tested positive for herpes will be accounted to herpes. And a huge chunk of the population has it.
      - azinman2 6y ago
        It’s not one way, it’s the way: https://www.axios.com/fauci-cdc-coronavirus-deaths-data-claim-7d0a7f98-b23a-4b77-b739-bf6629024fbb.html https://www.axios.com/fauci-cdc-coronavirus-deaths-data-clai...
csnover 6y ago
Can you please try a simple web search[0] instead of choosing to spread misinformation by couching it in a question? The CDC did not “correct down” anything; this bad faith argument is like saying that someone who was hit by a car didn’t die from getting hit by a car because the death certificate says they died from “brain haemorrhage”. (Direct links to fact checking sites: [1] [2]) [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+6%25 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+6%25 [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-mortality-statistics/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-mortality-statistics/ [2] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/cdc-did-not-admit-only-6-of-recorded-deaths-from-covid-19/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/cdc-did-not-admit-only-6-o...
- blumomo 6y ago
  Internet is full of bullshit these days. “Doing a simple/quick search” is NOT leading to a true understanding of things in 2020.
- dr-smooth 6y ago
  Another analogy: it's like saying that somebody who got stabbed 15 times but had hemophilia didn't die of a stabbing. This guy (blumomo) is arguing in bad faith and yet keeps doubling down. An all-too-common behavior pattern these days.

bananabreakfast 6y ago

And I've heard that nothing you just said is true. Isn't that right? Hearsay is not an argument.

blumomo 6y ago
Exactly. Use your own rationale!

wtallis 6y ago

> I’ve heard that CDC has corrected down c19-related deaths to a merely 6% of the initially c19-reported deaths. That sounds like the kind of big news you should have no trouble finding a citation for. > The other 94% had other health issues as well and it can’t be said any longer that their death is related to c19. That's a funny definition of "related". The presence of other contributing factors does not mean that none of the blame lies with the coronavirus.

nocterro 6y ago

That doesn't appear to be correct https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-not-quietly-updated-covid-19-death-estimates-67902 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-no....

blumomo 6y ago
Ah, the URL has “scientist“ in its name. Must be true then!

dmix 6y ago

Only 6% of fatalities were listed as "only COVID-19 related", which means removing every fatality listed with a preexisting conditions. I don't see how that number is at all helpful for measuring the risk level to any general population. Besides the other 94%, simply not dying is not the best metric either. The better metric is causing any serious harm, not just fatalities.

blumomo 6y ago
That’s my point. It’s all about assumptions. Exactly as with the article being discussed in this thread. Such articles have little value to understanding truth. But they help with superspreading fear.
azinman2 6y ago
No, it means that 94% still died due to COVID, but had pre-existing conditions that made them more susceptible. These are not people that likely would have been on the brink of death otherwise... that is the common misunderstanding in this misinformation. Over 40% of the US is obese, for example, which increases your likelihood of a fatal outcome. So if you are obese and 40, it’s unlikely that you’d otherwise die in 2020. But if you get Covid and die from it, you’re a part of that 94%.
- dmix 6y ago
  I said "besides the other 94%" meaning "even ignoring the others 94% who died with preexisting conditions" ... dying itself shouldn't be the only concern, even to those without existing conditions. As there is plenty of evidence of long-term harm to people who survived. I don't see how that is at odds with anything you said.

triyambakam 6y ago

Yes, only 6% of deaths attributed to covid can be /solely/ attributed to covid, otherwise the other 94% had other complications in addition to covid

blumomo 6y ago
Exactly. That’s the point —- it’s all about assumptions being made for the other 94%. And it’s easy to come up with assumptions. And it’s hard to understand the truth.
- azinman2 6y ago
  No. The death being due to covid isn’t in dispute. It’s about characterizing who is at most risk. You can be young and have health problems while still living for many more decades, but then you got Covid, died, and now you’re part of the 94%. Given 40% of the US is obese and would fit into this 94%, that’s not something to then ignore and say therefore only 6% of the population could be affected by this. That’s an incorrect understanding of the statistics. This misrepresentation has been dangerously incorrectly stated either intentionally or ignorantly by people who have an agenda to push, and that agenda isn’t in service to public health.
  - blumomo 6y ago
    That's one way to interpret the story but that's not how would suggest to understand things. Given your explanation model we could easily argue that every dead person which tested positive for herpes will be accounted to herpes. And a huge chunk of the population has it.
    - azinman2 6y ago
      It’s not one way, it’s the way: https://www.axios.com/fauci-cdc-coronavirus-deaths-data-claim-7d0a7f98-b23a-4b77-b739-bf6629024fbb.html https://www.axios.com/fauci-cdc-coronavirus-deaths-data-clai...

csnover 6y ago

Can you please try a simple web search[0] instead of choosing to spread misinformation by couching it in a question? The CDC did not “correct down” anything; this bad faith argument is like saying that someone who was hit by a car didn’t die from getting hit by a car because the death certificate says they died from “brain haemorrhage”. (Direct links to fact checking sites: [1] [2]) [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+6%25 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+6%25 [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-mortality-statistics/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-mortality-statistics/ [2] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/cdc-did-not-admit-only-6-of-recorded-deaths-from-covid-19/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/cdc-did-not-admit-only-6-o...

blumomo 6y ago
Internet is full of bullshit these days. “Doing a simple/quick search” is NOT leading to a true understanding of things in 2020.
dr-smooth 6y ago
Another analogy: it's like saying that somebody who got stabbed 15 times but had hemophilia didn't die of a stabbing. This guy (blumomo) is arguing in bad faith and yet keeps doubling down. An all-too-common behavior pattern these days.