That statement reduces it to third-hand, at best.
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
That statement reduces it to third-hand, at best.
Then you don’t know the difference.
I agree it’s possible to make bad comparisons. You can even get yourself into trouble with regressions, though it’s slightly harder.
That doesn’t mean I believe all comparisons and all regressions are bad. It just means you need some quality control on your data manipulations.
This is why I pay attention to your posts from research journals, and mock your Twitter posts. One is a serious effort to help grow our understanding of the world, and the other is blatant data manipulation by half-educated advocates.
No but know the attendings that have done/ordered it.
And your evidence of anyone doing that is what?
Science requires an objective search for the truth. When it comes to covid, as that ludricrous cdc county study or the school reopening guidelines show, there is no such thing
And you do pay attention as rather than ignore them you feel compelled to comment so that’s not true either
Uh uh. Not getting anyone fired. Let’s just say I’m part of a very very large medical family with relatives at all levels of the medical service industry.
Or you could just say that you misunderstood what someone told you.
Nope. Drilled down hard on it. They aren’t making stuff up. Just maximizing counts for a variety of reasons
Our local paper did an investigation on one case of a guy who died in a car crash. The counts all add up he was counted as a covid death. County citing privacy still refuses to say.
I said mock, not ignore. On my worse days, I also mock you for posting them.
Your complaint with CDC data is heavily repeated, but not well supported. It still strikes me as nitpicking because you don’t want it to be true.
Look at your analysis of the Roosevelt study. You see it as “we can’t say anything because mask wearers may also have avoided high risk places.”. I see it as “the combination of masks and risk avoidance was incredibly effective.”. Same data. No question about significance. The only question is how much was masks and how mich was avoiding high risk places. You can argue for either side of that question, but there is absolutely no reason to throw the data out entirely. At least one of the two was very effective. Why ignore the data?
Unless, as I suspect, you don’t want either one to be true. You don’t want a mask mandate to make sense. And you don’t want to close high risk places. Therefore, you use the mask / high risk area conflation as an excuse to pretend that neither one works.
There you go again. Ascribing bad motivations. I actually think risk avoidance is a highly effective technique for avoiding COVID, at least on a micro level. On a macro level it doesn't do a whole lot of good unless you are going to collapse your country like Peru and Argentina, and in any case it's not sustainable as both countries have shown. I just don't think the mask piece, particularly indoors in a place where people were sleeping in tight quarters, and it's bad science to conflate both and then declare "masks work!". No the only thing you've proven is masks + distancing work, at least on a micro level, and I don't really dispute that. I just think the mask part is somewhat superfluous
p.s. this is basic high school scientific principles 101 which you as a STEM person and educator no doubt have more experience than me, so I'll throw back one of your favorite lines "but you know that"
Faster or slower than the rate of unvaccinated?
Which hospital? Which doctor?
My relatives? Uh uh. Go f yourself.
For the local paper? The guy died at Los Robles Hospital in Thousand Oaks.
Here is something you might want to read --
Partly false claim: Hospitals get compensated 15% more when they admit, discharge, or lose a patient to COVID-19; New York City hospitals are inflating their case numbers to take advantage
Shared hundreds of times on Facebook, posts claim: “Every time a hospital admits, discharges, or loses a patient to Covid-19, they are compensated 15% more according to the CARES ACT, SEC 4409”. The posts also say that New York City hospitals are “inflating all of their...
www.reuters.com
An inrteresting rebuttal would be a link to the newspaper article you mentioned
Here is something you might want to read --
Partly false claim: Hospitals get compensated 15% more when they admit, discharge, or lose a patient to COVID-19; New York City hospitals are inflating their case numbers to take advantage
Shared hundreds of times on Facebook, posts claim: “Every time a hospital admits, discharges, or loses a patient to Covid-19, they are compensated 15% more according to the CARES ACT, SEC 4409”. The posts also say that New York City hospitals are “inflating all of their...
An inrteresting rebuttal would be a link to the newspaper article you mentioned
It happened in the April/May time frame. The editor of the paper's twitter handle is Kyle Jorrey. You are welcome to search his back twitter and his bilines for his reporting of it for the Acorn paper. In the printed version you'll only find that the county was unwilling, citing privacy concerns, to say whether the death was counted as COVID or not. His twitter elaborates on why it was probably counted as a COVID death (unless some 20 year old died at the same hospital of COVID on the same day).
There's nothing in the article that you posted that is wrong. The Medicare portion of it, however, is only a very small piece of it, particularly in some blue states like California. There are other factors at play including county directives, state aid, staying on the good side of the bureaucrats, and a desire for completeness. They aren't making things up...COVID is listed on the death certificate as one of the causes....presumably in the case of the auto accident because of the difficulty resuscitating him because of COVID...but the main cause anyone could see is the car accident.
That's just handwaving. And it appears you are attempting to quietly back away from your lie.