|
|
Post by beth on Apr 18, 2020 21:18:15 GMT -5
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 19, 2020 19:53:23 GMT -5
The numbers can't be trusted, as any thinking, intelligent being can tell you. There are gross financial incentives to exaggerate the rate of infection. Hospitals are getting billions of extra dollars from the federal government they wouldn't otherwise get simply by writing "COVID19" on billing forms, mostly illegitimately. This virus is the best thing that's ever happened for hospital administrators. Furthermore, if you did any research into the PCR test, you'd know the CDC doesn't even vouch for it. The test is horribly inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 20, 2020 4:30:06 GMT -5
The numbers can't be trusted, as any thinking, intelligent being can tell you. There are gross financial incentives to exaggerate the rate of infection. Hospitals are getting billions of extra dollars from the federal government they wouldn't otherwise get simply by writing "COVID19" on billing forms, mostly illegitimately. This virus is the best thing that's ever happened for hospital administrators. Furthermore, if you did any research into the PCR test, you'd know the CDC doesn't even vouch for it. The test is horribly inaccurate. If there is one grain of truth in all this.... The numbers can't be trustedData gathering has been atrocious. It's as good as useless. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 20, 2020 8:42:01 GMT -5
The numbers can't be trusted, as any thinking, intelligent being can tell you. There are gross financial incentives to exaggerate the rate of infection. Hospitals are getting billions of extra dollars from the federal government they wouldn't otherwise get simply by writing "COVID19" on billing forms, mostly illegitimately. This virus is the best thing that's ever happened for hospital administrators. Furthermore, if you did any research into the PCR test, you'd know the CDC doesn't even vouch for it. The test is horribly inaccurate. If there is one grain of truth in all this.... The numbers can't be trustedData gathering has been atrocious. It's as good as useless. I don't think anyone expects the numbers to be exact. They are to give us an idea of where things stand ... our part of the country compared to others. My guess is that the numbers are lower than they should be. Light cases can easily be shrugged off as allergies or spring colds. Fine for the patients, but they can then go out and expose the public or others in their families to the virus. Better to be too cautious than too careless. |
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 20, 2020 9:30:46 GMT -5
Better to be too cautious than too careless. That is a stupid statement. There would have been far less damage to the economy if this "virus" had been allowed to run its course. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 21, 2020 6:20:21 GMT -5
If there is one grain of truth in all this.... The numbers can't be trustedData gathering has been atrocious. It's as good as useless. I don't think anyone expects the numbers to be exact. They are to give us an idea of where things stand ... our part of the country compared to others. My guess is that the numbers are lower than they should be. Light cases can easily be shrugged off as allergies or spring colds. Fine for the patients, but they can then go out and expose the public or others in their families to the virus. Better to be too cautious than too careless. Indeed. If you want to have a scientific understanding you have to gather data in a scientific way. Some nations count those dying of the virus AND with the virus. Others don't. Some count only hospital cases, others don't. The Chinese have been providing false data. And that's been used without question. A precondition for a model to provide valid predictions is that the assumptions underlying it correspond to the reality. They don't. Like it or not, they're lying: The ineptitude of Western governments when keeping crucial statistics about the Chinese virus is becoming culpable. For a start, they are not even counting deaths either consistently or competently. In Britain, for instance, total reported deaths to April 17, 2020, were 14,576. However, a report issued April 16 by the Office for National Statistics points out that deaths are registered up to five days after they occur, and that the numbers given in HM Government’s daily briefings carefully exclude all deaths that do not occur in hospitals.
Correcting for these two serious errors indicates that the true number of deaths is about 50% greater than the Government’s cited figures, implying that in the UK the deaths from this dangerous pathogen are already approaching 22,000.wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/17/data-we-ought-to-know-and-dont-know-about-the-chinese-virus/ |
|
Omega
