Cancer death called Covid-19 death

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Love

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 3:06:12 AMOct 17
to
The young man contracted covid in hospital a few
days before dying of the cancer he had been
battling for months but he was counted as a covid
death anyway. The family was outraged because
that seemed to erase his nine month fight with
cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0d3Y_DRmWE

The government changed some procedures to
further reduce some similar instances in young
people who have died of other things and just
happened to get a covid infection at the same
time (hospitals being one of the riskiest
settings). But this was a response to family
outrage, which is hard to ignore, not a move
towards more general honesty in reporting
cause of death. There's still no enthusiasm
for honesty or accuracy over propaganda.


--
Love

Wilson

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 10:02:14 AMOct 17
to
It's not an unusual event to code anyone who dies with covid as dying of
covid.


DMB

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 11:41:15 AMOct 17
to
So, this is the question that needs an answer:
"Why is it important for the media to inflate the Covid death count?"

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 11:54:49 AMOct 17
to
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 08:41:14 -0700 (PDT), DMB <sgma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Why is it important to think that the media wants to do that?
--
Noah Sombrero

Love

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 12:16:37 PMOct 17
to
In article <skhad5$a8c$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...
Maybe not, and in some statistical sense it is
probably even valid, but it is entirely misleading
to allow that number to represent how many people
covid has killed, just as it is misleading to not
distinguish between symptomatic "cases" and
aysymptomatic infections and claim a "rise" in
cases when it is really just a rise in testing
driving the numbers up.

If we can see that those who inform us have no
allegiance to the truth, then why would we
continue believing anything they tell us, ever?

Dubya said it best...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A


--
Love

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 12:26:16 PMOct 17
to
Because there might be a difference between the source that tells you
biden won and the source that tells you he did not.

>Dubya said it best...
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A
--
Noah Sombrero

Wilson

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 12:39:23 PMOct 17
to
Approved.

Love

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 12:56:17 PMOct 17
to
In article <928c6c86-4980-4574...@googlegroups.com>,
sgma...@gmail.com says...
And a corollary question: why do health
authorities not make an effort to dispel such
inflation?

I think the media's possible motive is easier
to understand. The need for sensationalism is
always present in competitive media. Also,
why spoil the possible future story of how "it
has been discovered that we got it all wrong"?
Story + correction = two stories = better

Health authorities are perhaps like Noah and Ned,
and see the breakdown in public trust as only a
phenomenon of crazies and conspiracy theorists.
(That's a comforting and flattering explanation
for many people.) If this were the case then any
overstatement of the risk would be just a fair
counterbalance to the "disinformation" out there,
and they could see themselves as doing a net good
in this situation by permitting it. They could
even see correcting the record now as dangerous
to the public confidence they need to have in
order to manage the pandemic.

In either media or health authorities some could
even see deliberately promoting exaggerations
as a net good, for similar reasons, but that would
be too risky since one's peers would also have to
agree on it and it would in fact be a conspiracy.
Just allowing a climate of overstatement to be
normalised could be seen as the safest thing to
do. (I think that the rise of anti-vaxxers and
anti-maskers is evidence that this is an incorrect
view.)


--
Love

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 1:08:06 PMOct 17
to
Good. Yes, there might even be a unconspiratorial function at work. A
number of explanations occur to me. Why not to you?

>Also,
>why spoil the possible future story of how "it
>has been discovered that we got it all wrong"?
>Story + correction = two stories = better
>
>Health authorities are perhaps like Noah and Ned,
>and see the breakdown in public trust as only a
>phenomenon of crazies and conspiracy theorists.

I would say not only that. Perhaps not even that. Why would
acknowledged crazies and conspiracy theorists break anybody's public
trust?

>(That's a comforting and flattering explanation
>for many people.) If this were the case then any
>overstatement of the risk would be just a fair
>counterbalance to the "disinformation" out there,
>and they could see themselves as doing a net good
>in this situation by permitting it. They could
>even see correcting the record now as dangerous
>to the public confidence they need to have in
>order to manage the pandemic.

Do you suppose that anybody is thinking so precisely (other than you)
about the situation?

>In either media or health authorities some could
>even see deliberately promoting exaggerations
>as a net good, for similar reasons, but that would
>be too risky since one's peers would also have to
>agree on it and it would in fact be a conspiracy.
>Just allowing a climate of overstatement to be
>normalised could be seen as the safest thing to
>do. (I think that the rise of anti-vaxxers and
>anti-maskers is evidence that this is an incorrect
>view.)
--
Noah Sombrero

DMB

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 8:08:14 PMOct 17
to
On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 09:54:49 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
...
> >> > There's still no enthusiasm
> >> > for honesty or accuracy over propaganda.

> >> It's not an unusual event to code anyone who dies with covid as dying of
> >> covid.

> >So, this is the question that needs an answer:
> >"Why is it important for the media to inflate the Covid death count?"

> Why is it important to think that the media wants to do that?

It's important to see through the body-guard of lies to get to the truth (some poster told me that once).
https://freevoice.io/blog/2021/10/17/the-worst-crisis-actors-of-all-time-top-10-countdown/

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 8:16:58 PMOct 17
to
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 17:08:13 -0700 (PDT), DMB <sgma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That wasn't churchill's point. Besides which, you didn't answer my
question.
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 9:52:06 PMOct 17
to
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 20:16:56 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fed...@fea.st>
wrote:
I'm sure neither churchill nor anybody else at the time could have
imagined the pervasive falsehood of our times. But still, there is a
gem of truth for us in what he said. Covid statistics are the least
of our problems.
--
Noah Sombrero

DMB

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 11:01:42 PMOct 17
to
On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 18:16:58 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
...
> >> >> > There's still no enthusiasm
> >> >> > for honesty or accuracy over propaganda.

> >> >> It's not an unusual event to code anyone who dies with covid as dying of
> >> >> covid.

> >> >So, this is the question that needs an answer:
> >> >"Why is it important for the media to inflate the Covid death count?"

> >> Why is it important to think that the media wants to do that?

> >It's important to see through the body-guard of lies to get to the truth (some poster told me that once).

> That wasn't churchill's point. Besides which, you didn't answer my
> question.

1. I wasn't using Winston's point, I was using your addendum ("Or any other time")
2. I reframed the question so it can correlate to my post (I don't understand your original question).
https://freevoice.io/blog/2021/10/17/the-worst-crisis-actors-of-all-time-top-10-countdown/

DMB

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 11:02:50 PMOct 17
to
On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 19:52:06 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
...
> Covid statistics are the least
> of our problems.

How did you determine that?

Love

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 11:23:57 PMOct 17
to
In article <rplomgd0299k19gv7...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st says...
>On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:56:15 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I think the media's possible motive is easier
>>to understand. The need for sensationalism is
>>always present in competitive media.
>
>Good. Yes, there might even be a unconspiratorial function at work. A
>number of explanations occur to me. Why not to you?

They do occur to me, obviously. They have always
occurred to me. Why haven't you noticed? Why is
the caricature you hold more important to confirm
than to modify?


>>Health authorities are perhaps like Noah and Ned,
>>and see the breakdown in public trust as only a
>>phenomenon of crazies and conspiracy theorists.
>
>I would say not only that. Perhaps not even that. Why would
>acknowledged crazies and conspiracy theorists break anybody's public
>trust?

They don't, they are just claimed to by people
who want that easy answer as to why others
don't agree with them.

Othering. The explanations we use to dismiss
others we don't agree with are examples of
"othering" our opponents. In polarised America
it generally falls along liberal/Dem and
conservative/Rep lines. The former prides
itself on being the smarter ones, the educated
ones who have the best bead on reality, so
they "other" the latter with versions of them
being stupid and crazy, driven by conspiracy
theorists. The latter, in return, prides itself
on being moral, stable, honest and realistic, so
they "other" the former as being unserious
("women have penises!") and dishonest (deep
state deep corruption).

It's all about othering your opponents to
preserve your own view of yourself, and your
membership in your team. Your team rewards
you with affirmations.

So Ned doesn't just disagree with me, he
insluts me by reference to Wilson (a
conservative friend I happen to agree with
on many things). Othering.

So you don't just disagree with me, you attempt
to shame me by reference to my religious
commitments and thereby hinting at hypocrisy.
Othering.


>>(That's a comforting and flattering explanation
>>for many people.) If this were the case then any
>>overstatement of the risk would be just a fair
>>counterbalance to the "disinformation" out there,
>>and they could see themselves as doing a net good
>>in this situation by permitting it. They could
>>even see correcting the record now as dangerous
>>to the public confidence they need to have in
>>order to manage the pandemic.
>
>Do you suppose that anybody is thinking so precisely (other than you)
>about the situation?

I don't know. Precision doesn't imply accuracy,
in any event, but imprecision can definitely lead
to inaccuracy, so it's still a worthwhile habit.
Reality is lopsided that way, it seems.


--
Love

Love

unread,
Oct 17, 2021, 11:33:32 PMOct 17
to
In article <hjjomg9i2obghqnrn...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st
says...
Don't wander off on us Noah. The topic was
covid not fricken American presidential
races.


--
Love

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 18, 2021, 10:42:54 AMOct 18
to
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 20:02:49 -0700 (PDT), DMB <sgma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hmm, look around, admit when problems exist, rather than deny. It
might be a hierarchy thing. Is covid less important than climate
change? Yes it is in my hierarchy.
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 18, 2021, 10:46:14 AMOct 18
to
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 20:01:41 -0700 (PDT), DMB <sgma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 18:16:58 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>...
>> >> >> > There's still no enthusiasm
>> >> >> > for honesty or accuracy over propaganda.
>
>> >> >> It's not an unusual event to code anyone who dies with covid as dying of
>> >> >> covid.
>
>> >> >So, this is the question that needs an answer:
>> >> >"Why is it important for the media to inflate the Covid death count?"
>
>> >> Why is it important to think that the media wants to do that?
>
>> >It's important to see through the body-guard of lies to get to the truth (some poster told me that once).
>
>> That wasn't churchill's point. Besides which, you didn't answer my
>> question.
>
>1. I wasn't using Winston's point, I was using your addendum ("Or any other time")

I did say that there is a pertinent gem of truth for us, any old time.

>2. I reframed the question so it can correlate to my post (I don't understand your original question).
>https://freevoice.io/blog/2021/10/17/the-worst-crisis-actors-of-all-time-top-10-countdown/

Don't understand:
>Why is it important to think that the media wants to do that?

No help for that.
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 18, 2021, 11:04:50 AMOct 18
to
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 23:23:54 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <rplomgd0299k19gv7...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st says...
>>On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:56:15 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I think the media's possible motive is easier
>>>to understand. The need for sensationalism is
>>>always present in competitive media.
>>
>>Good. Yes, there might even be a unconspiratorial function at work. A
>>number of explanations occur to me. Why not to you?
>
>They do occur to me, obviously. They have always
>occurred to me. Why haven't you noticed?

I guess I simply noticed the emphasis, to exclusion of other
possibilities.

>Why is
>the caricature you hold more important to confirm
>than to modify?

I'm all for modifying.

>>>Health authorities are perhaps like Noah and Ned,
>>>and see the breakdown in public trust as only a
>>>phenomenon of crazies and conspiracy theorists.
>>
>>I would say not only that. Perhaps not even that. Why would
>>acknowledged crazies and conspiracy theorists break anybody's public
>>trust?
>
>They don't, they are just claimed to by people
>who want that easy answer as to why others
>don't agree with them.

So, not me.

>Othering. The explanations we use to dismiss
>others we don't agree with are examples of
>"othering" our opponents. In polarised America
>it generally falls along liberal/Dem and
>conservative/Rep lines. The former prides
>itself on being the smarter ones, the educated
>ones who have the best bead on reality, so
>they "other" the latter with versions of them
>being stupid and crazy, driven by conspiracy
>theorists. The latter, in return, prides itself
>on being moral, stable, honest and realistic, so
>they "other" the former as being unserious
>("women have penises!") and dishonest (deep
>state deep corruption).

Some of that. Tribal politics.

>It's all about othering your opponents to
>preserve your own view of yourself, and your
>membership in your team. Your team rewards
>you with affirmations.

Yup.

>So Ned doesn't just disagree with me, he
>insluts

inslut. Copyright Dharmatroll.

>he by reference to Wilson (a
>conservative friend I happen to agree with
>on many things). Othering.

Uncalled for. Did Ned get affirmations for that?

>So you don't just disagree with me, you attempt
>to shame me by reference to my religious
>commitments and thereby hinting at hypocrisy.
>Othering.

Did I do that? Scuse me. Regardless, my affirmations are even rarer
than ned's.

>>>(That's a comforting and flattering explanation
>>>for many people.) If this were the case then any
>>>overstatement of the risk would be just a fair
>>>counterbalance to the "disinformation" out there,
>>>and they could see themselves as doing a net good
>>>in this situation by permitting it. They could
>>>even see correcting the record now as dangerous
>>>to the public confidence they need to have in
>>>order to manage the pandemic.
>>
>>Do you suppose that anybody is thinking so precisely (other than you)
>>about the situation?
>
>I don't know. Precision doesn't imply accuracy,
>in any event, but imprecision can definitely lead
>to inaccuracy, so it's still a worthwhile habit.
>Reality is lopsided that way, it seems.

The way I heard it, an inaccurate calculation can be ever so precise
(to10+ significant digits). And a accurate one can be so imprecise as
to not be useful.

But the argument above relates to a common response to paranoid
thinking: do you imagine that other people have nothing better to do
than to conspire against you, that you are so allfired important to
them? In this case, do you imagine that people would devolve into
such complex thinking about covid that they would construct such a
rationalization?
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 18, 2021, 11:07:45 AMOct 18
to
True. I do think the above criterion is useful though in evaluating
relative reliability of various news sources. Others can be brought
to play, as in the case of foxnews, but still this is one useful
standard.
--
Noah Sombrero

Wilson

unread,
Oct 18, 2021, 11:13:18 AMOct 18
to
On 10/17/2021 11:33 PM, Love wrote:
> In article <hjjomg9i2obghqnrn...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st
> says...
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:16:35 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <skhad5$a8c$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...
>>>>
>>>> It's not an unusual event to code anyone who dies with covid as dying of
>>>> covid.
>>>
>>> Maybe not, and in some statistical sense it is
>>> probably even valid, but it is entirely misleading
>>> to allow that number to represent how many people
>>> covid has killed, just as it is misleading to not
>>> distinguish between symptomatic "cases" and
>>> aysymptomatic infections and claim a "rise" in
>>> cases when it is really just a rise in testing
>>> driving the numbers up.
>>>
>>> If we can see that those who inform us have no
>>> allegiance to the truth, then why would we
>>> continue believing anything they tell us, ever?
>>
>> Because there might be a difference between the source that tells you
>> biden won and the source that tells you he did not.
>
> Don't wander off on us Noah. The topic was
> covid not fricken American presidential
> races.

But of course there is a difference between sources. It's about who you
trust.

It's all of a part for Noah and while I try to avoid it, often even
myself.

Team sports means you can root for your side even whey they call bad
plays. My team is the best because they are my team. When they win I
win. When they lose I feel bad because of the emotional energy I've
invested into making them my team.

It's SUCH an easy thing to fall into.

The players on team Dem today are big media, the administrative state,
academia, big finance, big tech, the local governments of major metro
areas, and people who agree with an agenda of greater centralization.

Traditionally Team Dem included unions and the people who worked in
them, but while the union leadership remains, the workers have been
slowly trickling away as it becomes clear the Dems have embraced a
globalist approach that is seen as promoting multi-national systems that
are probably harmful to high wages for the working class.

Team Republican today has small and medium sized business that's not
multi-national, smaller cities, rural areas, and the people who grow our
food and fix whats broken and who agree with the agenda of
decentralization.

Traditionally Team Repub has also been in charge of the portion of the
governing apparatus that is happy being the selected losers, the
Washington Generals to the perennial winner Harlem Globetrotters. Those
Repubs are possibly in the process of leaving along with the big budget
war party neo-cons.

Ideas on what to do about Covid are sorted by team players so that the
potential responses can be more easily portrayed as falling into one of
these two camps.

Noah Sombrero

unread,
Oct 18, 2021, 11:26:17 AMOct 18
to
This begins to border on an honest assessment of the situation. I am
encouraged. Maybe things can improve.
--
Noah Sombrero
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages