Reclassification of earlier U.S. coronavirus deaths causes record 24-hour number
wsj.com
wsj.com
CDC mandated that all localities, not just NYC/NYS, count probable deaths in addition to those where a covid positive test was available. These figures are not part of the 'official' covid death totals but instead are a separate category.
The reason this has been done is likely due to the reports coming from NYFD/PD concerning the much higher incidence of finding dead people when called. Those bodies are not being brought to hospitals for autopsie or anything else if there are no suspicious circumstances. By one report I read a few days back, a year ago it was typical to have encounter 25 dead on 911 calls over a 24 hour period. They are now seeing upwards of 200.
Do you have a link?
"New York City raised its likely death toll from coronavirus by 3,778 people on Tuesday afternoon"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nursing-homes-remain-a-concern-...
So, many, many more people are counted than those who died directly from complications arising from Covid-19.
This is not altogether unreasonable; we want to know how many people are dying after contracting the virus. However, it is being reported as though the virus is the cause of death, when nobody doing the reporting is claiming that it is. It's a total mess.
Here's the actual data sheet: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-d...
I don't know if that is "discounting the severity", but so far we've watched the CFR go from the announcement at the WHO of 3.4% to paper after paper finding below 1% (sometimes far below). I don't think that these researchers are discounting the severity, I think they're doing the best they can with limited data.
They weren't including these results previously as they were overwhelmed with testing the living, so weren't testing suspected deaths at home
In a normal flu season there are 8k daily flu deaths [2].
The ones that are the worst affected should be in the hospital. The cumulative rate of hospitalization is 12.3 per 100k, which adds up to 39k. So that puts an upper bound on known risk. [3]
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6826a5.htm
[3] https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html?fbclid=IwA...
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1250917711586168835
If R0 was 2.5, a virus with Rt of 1.9 (*0.85, and then a little seasonal benefit) is still scary, but it's a completely different ball game.
On the other hand, if we don't experiment with reopening a little soon, we'll lose the chance to effectively use the time where weather is on our side...
Emphasis on "a little". Slightly increase the set of permitted activities, designate an industry or two more as permitted, and continue to encourage mask wearing.
I'm in the SF Bay Area which has had a fairly steady daily case count in the face of increased testing, but a declining number of COVID cases in ICU over the past 10 days. The latter is a lagging indicator, so whatever trend is there is going to continue for 10+ more days. IMO, we should slightly loosen controls, but I do not think public health will even consider that before a couple weeks have expired.
New York reclassified a bunch of folks that died over the last few days as COVID deaths under their new methodology, where all deaths are covid deaths if there is even a hint that they might have had COVID.
These are not deaths that occurred in a 24-hour period. These are deaths that were reported in a 24-hour period, and covers basically everyone with any respiratory illness who died at home on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
Trying to compare that to a rate of deaths in hospital of likely or confirmed cases (the methodology used from last week until Tuesday), or hospital deaths of confirmed cases (the methodology used before last week) is meaningless.
If you change methodology, you really have to go back and recast historic numbers. But that isn't being done.
That is completely inaccurate. The deaths were added to historic numbers, and the "garbage number" is what was added to the total cumulatively to-date, and did not represent a 24 hour number on official stats. See the graphs on these pages. As you can see there is no discontinuous jump.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronav...
This makes sense~ without some kind of reporting standard, every jurisdiction is free to apply their own methodology and we're prone to receive inaccurate (or politically biased) information. That might mean inflating numbers, or deflating (as is the case with China, an enormous country with miraculously no infections or deaths since the day they coincidentally kicked all western journalists out).
New York changing their methodology out of the blue this week puts a curious asterisk on both the numbers we're getting from them now and the numbers we got from them previously. Why the sudden change?
The article linked to doesn't mention that but what NY is doing makes sense. It lets us see the general trends using the old methodology while still being smart about counting going forward.
It is very open and every state + country should do something similar.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronav...
Where are you getting your information? There has not been a single day since the outbreak where China has reported no new cases or deaths. They just added ~1000 deaths today in a move similar to TFA.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/
They also did not "kick all western journalists out". Here's a report from the BBC with interviews of people in Wuhan that was published a week ago:
Democrats want to keep the lockdowns through at least June 1st, with major restrictions on movement at least through 2022, and some restrictions forever (see the "new normal" propaganda push)
Republicans see an opportunity to compare these lockdowns with authoritarian policies from history, and are pushing to end restrictions quickly, and make it harder for states and counties to impose lockdowns in the future.
As a result, virtually nobody has an interest in just reporting how the virus is going. Everyone has a narrative in mind, and chooses facts based more or less solely on how they promote that narrative.
New York wants high numbers. Many Midwest states want low numbers. So they produce them.
As from the virus in China, as person who have many relatives and friends near wuhan and in Beijing, from all information sources I can gather, there is no massive spread in China right now. They staying highly alert but there isn't a large number of infections right now. And my anecdotal observation on the severity of the issue during February matches with the official count. So I don't believe there is massive under-reporting. All my friends and family don't buy there is massive deliberate under reporting as well.
If anything, this crisis has drawn visible lines between those with unwavering trust in mass media and those without. Those who have good reasons to distrust authority have been the least likely to comply with orders and recommendations from both government agencies and mass media outlets. On the other hand, those who benefit from the current power structure have taken to their advice with great enthusiasm.
Between these groups are those like yourself who try to sift through the sensationalism for good information. Even then, international authorities like WHO have revealed clear political bias in regards to issues like Taiwanese independence. Who can we trust?
Where is our John Quincy Adams?