4 ms·

> Just because you've never seen something happen firsthand So are you arguing that, because I've never seen it, then it must be common? > I don't deny that r

> Just because you've never seen something happen firsthand So are you arguing that, because I've never seen it, then it must be common? > I don't deny that ransomware is really common today. You'll need to be more precise for this to mean much of anything. I don't know a single person who has ever had a single personal computer affected by ransomware. Clearly ransomware must be a governmental conspiracy and/or the common flu. > This feels like asking why you should bother voting It wasn't intended to feel like that. It was intended to feel like asking whether you think one news report -- or even several individual news reports -- are meaningful evidence of widespread fraud in the setting of a very large denominator of deaths. > Yes, and it makes my point even stronger. No, it doesn't. It means your point may not be a point at all, and it seems like you have no evidence behind your speculation that this was ultimately counted as a COVID death. > If we can't get details of the death, why should we default to the assumption that it really was because of COVID? Do you really think that the details of an individual patient's medical record should be opened up to try (likely in vain) to satisfy the curiosity of some dude on HN -- who is likely so entrenched in his or her position that the results of the inquisition will be of little consequence regardless?

josephcsible 4y ago
> So are you arguing that, because I've never seen it, then it must be common? No. I'm saying that it's not necessarily rare just because you've never seen it. > You'll need to be more precise for this to mean much of anything. I don't know a single person who has ever had a single personal computer affected by ransomware. Clearly ransomware must be a governmental conspiracy and/or the common flu. You're making my point for me. I acknowledge ransomware is a real problem even though I've never personally been exposed to it. I'm saying you should acknowledge that incorrect COVID death labeling is a real problem even though you've never personally been exposed to it. > It was intended to feel like asking whether you think one news report -- or even several individual news reports -- are meaningful evidence of widespread fraud in the setting of a very large denominator of deaths. But the whole point is that the "very large denominator" is inflated and untrustworthy. > It means your point may not be a point at all, and it seems like you have no evidence behind your speculation that this was ultimately counted as a COVID death. We have solid evidence that it was originally counted as a COVID death. People then looked for evidence that it was ever corrected but failed to find any. How is that "no evidence behind [my] speculation"? > Do you really think that the details of an individual patient's medical record should be opened up to try (likely in vain) to satisfy the curiosity of some dude on HN -- who is likely so entrenched in his or her position that the results of the inquisition will be of little consequence regardless? Are you saying I should just blindly trust that all of the ones we don't have information on are correct? That seems like it'd be a stretch even if we didn't have any evidence that any were ever misclassified.
- n8henrie 4y ago
  I apologize for my most recent reply, which was hasty and poorly thought-out. I was post-night shift and should have been sleeping instead of HNing. Thank you for your nonetheless level-headed reply. > I'm saying that it's not necessarily rare just because you've never seen it. Agreed. Though my prior is that physician-committed fraud on death certificates is probably rare in general (having seen many deaths and gone through the process myself many times), and that my personal experience also confirms that it seems rare (with respect to COVID), so hopefully you can see why an analogy to a very unrelated topic doesn't feel like particularly convincing evidence. > You're making my point for me. I acknowledge ransomware is a real problem even though I've never personally been exposed to it. I'm saying you should acknowledge that incorrect COVID death labeling is a real problem even though you've never personally been exposed to it. No, I don't think I'm making your point, I think you're moving the goalposts. Your words were "really common," which is what I pushed back on. I didn't say anything about whether or not it's a problem (for either case). > But the whole point is that the "very large denominator" is inflated and untrustworthy. Again, it would be interested to get your guesses at what kind of numbers we're talking about, it's hard to know how much we're disagreeing here. The CDC lists total deaths at 1,018,578. What percentage of this do you think are likely to be fraudulent? Feel free to speculate wildly. 1% 10%? 30%? 50%? Even 50% -- which seems wildly imaginative to me, having cared for extremely sick COVID patients regularly for years now -- would leave us with 500,000 deaths... a "very large denominator" to me. And given the single news report that's been submitted as evidence so far... Again, even if there were 10,000 such cases of fraud, we'd be talking about a mere 1% of deaths. And I don't see why physicians would be so motivated to commit widespread fraud in such a discoverable fashion (medical examiners reviewing cases -- physicians are generally leery about legal entanglements), and I don't see why my individual experience would be systematically biased to hide this from me as compared to the general physician experience. > We have solid evidence that it was originally counted as a COVID death. People then looked for evidence that it was ever corrected but failed to find any. How is that "no evidence behind [my] speculation"? So far, you have a single news story from Fox Orlando, which admits that it's unknown whether or not the issue was corrected. How is that evidence? For example, I don't know if my dead great grandmother cast fraudulent votes for Biden. Is this evidence of widespread election fraud? > Are you saying I should just blindly trust that all of the ones we don't have information on are correct? That seems like it'd be a stretch even if we didn't have any evidence that any were ever misclassified. No. I'm saying that it's a "stretch" to assume that the common case is a bad faith attempt to pull the wool over your eyes. Have you ever seen a death certificate form, or been part of filling one out? I think there is also room for misunderstanding and miscommunication based on how these work (which I assume varies by state).

josephcsible 4y ago

> So are you arguing that, because I've never seen it, then it must be common? No. I'm saying that it's not necessarily rare just because you've never seen it. > You'll need to be more precise for this to mean much of anything. I don't know a single person who has ever had a single personal computer affected by ransomware. Clearly ransomware must be a governmental conspiracy and/or the common flu. You're making my point for me. I acknowledge ransomware is a real problem even though I've never personally been exposed to it. I'm saying you should acknowledge that incorrect COVID death labeling is a real problem even though you've never personally been exposed to it. > It was intended to feel like asking whether you think one news report -- or even several individual news reports -- are meaningful evidence of widespread fraud in the setting of a very large denominator of deaths. But the whole point is that the "very large denominator" is inflated and untrustworthy. > It means your point may not be a point at all, and it seems like you have no evidence behind your speculation that this was ultimately counted as a COVID death. We have solid evidence that it was originally counted as a COVID death. People then looked for evidence that it was ever corrected but failed to find any. How is that "no evidence behind [my] speculation"? > Do you really think that the details of an individual patient's medical record should be opened up to try (likely in vain) to satisfy the curiosity of some dude on HN -- who is likely so entrenched in his or her position that the results of the inquisition will be of little consequence regardless? Are you saying I should just blindly trust that all of the ones we don't have information on are correct? That seems like it'd be a stretch even if we didn't have any evidence that any were ever misclassified.

n8henrie 4y ago
I apologize for my most recent reply, which was hasty and poorly thought-out. I was post-night shift and should have been sleeping instead of HNing. Thank you for your nonetheless level-headed reply. > I'm saying that it's not necessarily rare just because you've never seen it. Agreed. Though my prior is that physician-committed fraud on death certificates is probably rare in general (having seen many deaths and gone through the process myself many times), and that my personal experience also confirms that it seems rare (with respect to COVID), so hopefully you can see why an analogy to a very unrelated topic doesn't feel like particularly convincing evidence. > You're making my point for me. I acknowledge ransomware is a real problem even though I've never personally been exposed to it. I'm saying you should acknowledge that incorrect COVID death labeling is a real problem even though you've never personally been exposed to it. No, I don't think I'm making your point, I think you're moving the goalposts. Your words were "really common," which is what I pushed back on. I didn't say anything about whether or not it's a problem (for either case). > But the whole point is that the "very large denominator" is inflated and untrustworthy. Again, it would be interested to get your guesses at what kind of numbers we're talking about, it's hard to know how much we're disagreeing here. The CDC lists total deaths at 1,018,578. What percentage of this do you think are likely to be fraudulent? Feel free to speculate wildly. 1% 10%? 30%? 50%? Even 50% -- which seems wildly imaginative to me, having cared for extremely sick COVID patients regularly for years now -- would leave us with 500,000 deaths... a "very large denominator" to me. And given the single news report that's been submitted as evidence so far... Again, even if there were 10,000 such cases of fraud, we'd be talking about a mere 1% of deaths. And I don't see why physicians would be so motivated to commit widespread fraud in such a discoverable fashion (medical examiners reviewing cases -- physicians are generally leery about legal entanglements), and I don't see why my individual experience would be systematically biased to hide this from me as compared to the general physician experience. > We have solid evidence that it was originally counted as a COVID death. People then looked for evidence that it was ever corrected but failed to find any. How is that "no evidence behind [my] speculation"? So far, you have a single news story from Fox Orlando, which admits that it's unknown whether or not the issue was corrected. How is that evidence? For example, I don't know if my dead great grandmother cast fraudulent votes for Biden. Is this evidence of widespread election fraud? > Are you saying I should just blindly trust that all of the ones we don't have information on are correct? That seems like it'd be a stretch even if we didn't have any evidence that any were ever misclassified. No. I'm saying that it's a "stretch" to assume that the common case is a bad faith attempt to pull the wool over your eyes. Have you ever seen a death certificate form, or been part of filling one out? I think there is also room for misunderstanding and miscommunication based on how these work (which I assume varies by state).