Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   John (johnzajac@dice.camp)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 02:05:28 JST John

   I am *begging* COVID advocates to stop citing the precipitously dropping "official death" numbers when they try to remind people of the pandemic.

   The reason weekly deaths are now at 1,300 is because *hospitals no longer test or record or report COVID deaths*. Not because deaths have just stopped happening.

   Playing into that by citing those numbers as legitimate will bite us all in the ass in the end.

   All we have is excess deaths and wastewater, now. And wastewater's on the chopping block.

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 02:05:27 JST feld

     in reply to
     > The reason weekly deaths are now at 1,300 is because *hospitals no longer test or record or report COVID deaths*. Not because deaths have just stopped happening.
     
     wait a minute, if that's true where are the numbers coming from? Who is counting?
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 02:22:54 JST feld

     in reply to
     Here's the AHA's page on it which wasn't published until April 27th
     
     https://www.aha.org/special-bulletin/2023-04-27-cdc-streamline-hospital-covid-19-data-reporting-requirements
     
     It specifically says "Fewer data elements and weekly reporting coming soon".
     
     I can find no indication that the reporting changes have been implemented before April 27th, so the weekly deaths for all of 2023 so far should be fairly accurate.
     
     Do you have any information indicating that there was a change in reporting earlier than this announcement date?
   • Embed this notice
     John (johnzajac@dice.camp)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 02:22:56 JST John

     in reply to

     • feld

     @feld They're no longer *required* to test or report. Some hospitals are still doing it. It's a data clusterfuck being cited as legitimate. At least in the US. Every country has their own thing.

     The point is that the number - regardless of what it is - isn't a reflection of anything. It's could be 3,000 or 100 and it would still mean very little.

     I guess you could see it as a minimum?

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 02:43:23 JST feld

     in reply to

     • feld
     I found the updated spreadsheet format for the data reporting from hospitals and deaths are no longer on there because:
     
     > The CDC will change how it collects death data, switching from current systems to one that relies on provisional death certificate data. Officials said data is updated when a local public health jurisdiction reports deaths. The new system will more accurately reflect the timing of deaths, officials said.
     
     This seems fine to me?
     
     https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/05/05/cdc-changes-covid-data-tracking-end-public-health-emergency/70185271007/
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 06:17:49 JST feld

     in reply to
     Everyone on the planet is going to encounter COVID much like the common cold, so everyone is going to have a chance at getting Long COVID.
     
     There is no way around this. We can't put this genie back in its bottle.
   • Embed this notice
     John (johnzajac@dice.camp)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 06:17:50 JST John

     in reply to

     • feld

     @feld I was referring to recent reporting (post US emergency declaration ending).

     Personally, I've never thought death counts were the best measure of the pandemic's severity anyway. Long COVID incidence is much more concerning to me, because it's 10-20x more likely than dying, and the underlying mechanisms are only now starting to be understood, and there are no proven treatments.

     But showing death counts going down is a great way to get more people infected and more Long COVID.

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 07:16:13 JST feld

     in reply to
     Has there been consensus that they're getting more dangerous? Normally they get less dangerous over time. That would be news to me
   • Embed this notice
     John (johnzajac@dice.camp)'s status on Saturday, 06-May-2023 07:16:14 JST John

     in reply to

     • feld

     @feld

     🤷♂️

     The WHO itself says that 1 out of 10 *infections* will lead to long-term illness. If we keep infecting ourselves with ever-increasingly dangerous variants, eventually we'll all be chronically ill or disabled, or at least most of us will be.

     It seems to me like the options are buckle down and stop it, or it will stop us (in the more ominous sense of the term). I prefer the former to the latter, is all.