Blames coding error.
Another “Slight” miscount 305.
1 Like
I’m not sure I understand this.
First off, there’s no “miscount” or adjustment of total covid deaths.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be a difference in counts from some nebulous “data tracker”, which I’m not sure what that is, and the official NCHS numbers?
Are you saying the official NCHS numbers were adjusted?
so funny…Every correction gonna prove to be one-sided
But yeah…We somehow “undercounted”…Wake up idiots
Ah, so it’s not a correction, it’s the 2 systems, the “data tracker”, whatever that is, and the official numbers. The official numbers were never “corrected.”
From GSC’s tweet:
Thanks for following up with the confirmation.
Owned. 
Yea- I have yet to read this as I’ve been out all day/night but even if this is the case it was used for political purposes to keep children masked and to push vaccines on them.
No. It wasn’t. This literally explained the process in two separate systems. It makes complete sense.
But again, it doesn’t fit your narrative so you won’t read any of it. You’ll just refuse to believe it.
Not surprising, as you were the one who linked it.
1 Like
Lol- 305, just like you I have kids and a social life.
I find it amazingly convenient for the CDC to use a separate database for real time deaths (which they know is unreliable) and then set policy using it. Highly highly irresponsible.
Notice how these numbers ALWAYS GO IN ONE DIRECTION.
But you keep on acting like games weren’t played, and as a result, peoples lives weren’t affected.
So don’t link it then, right? If you link something without reading it, then yes, you will get shit for it.
It is convenient because the alternative would be waiting for 2-8 weeks for death certs to go through.
Not always. Florida does the opposite. They wait until weeks later and then backfill the old data.
It’s been longer than 2-8 weeks. My understanding is that this data goes back months.
Again- the ONLY reason CDC would use an alternative data source is to be able to provide guidance (create policy).
What other reason?
So even if deaths didn’t come off the top in the end, policy was created using unreliable numbers. Number THEY ADMIT IN THEIR RESPONSE are unreliable.
If the lag is longer than 2-8 weeks, then it makes even more sense to use a separate data set.
It could be policy, it could be to predict trends, etc.
I don’t understand your problem with wanting an estimation of real-time data.
Only if they used the unreliable numbers in drawing up policy. Maybe they used the more reliable numbers, right?
The only reason you’d want to predict trends as an agency is to produce policy. You need to justify the policy to the public.
My problem is that it’s highly unreliable. They admit that. Why would anyone want bad data?
Oh- I know. Justification for lock downs, mandates, closures, vaccines, and all sorts of emergency powers.
They used all the data. Do you really dispute that?
Because it’s better than no data.
You don’t know what data was used for which decisions. Do you dispute that?
Even then, do you dispute that it’s better to have 75% correct data then 0% data? Come on, what are you even arguing?
When it comes to suppressing constitutional rights it better be within a hair of 100% reliable data.
I have a kid that is having issues reading. I had to literally spend hours with him to catch him up.
I have another one who is terrified of not wearing a mask now.
People have lost their jobs and put foreign substances in their bodies. They’ve been denied access to restaurants and places of leisure. Kicked off airplanes and fired and shamed over this.
I’m not ok with 75 or 85%. It’s fucking criminal.
Not when you are making ridiculously drastic, extreme decisions and policy. You can give me a fact and some proof or you can go fuck yourself…
One of my kids was so used to it she had a hard time letting go. We just took it.
Constitutional rights were not suppressed over a 25% over-estimate of pediatric deaths.
Don’t forget that the overall count didn’t change.
Interesting timing