So, New Zealand publishes 33 deaths due to COVID. These deaths include a person that died from a gunshot wound, and a bunch of others that died from their underlying medical conditions. The Gunshot Wound death just highlights, in a way that is easily understandable to most people, that wherever the numbers can be inflated, they will be inflated.
Except when I go to the WHO website and look at their stats, I see they already have the data feed up showing 33 deaths in NZ due to COVID, using their warped reporting rules. So every single number going into these totals will be similarly tainted. Not by Gunshot Deaths per se, but by the practice of counting many forms of death as COVID deaths.
COVID is much like influenza, impacting certain segments of the population more severely than others. In particular the elderly. It is likely that COVID19 could be taking weeks, months or years from the aged and infirm, so this is a serious disease. Is it serious enough to warrant the complete lockdown of cities and countries for months at a time, and forcing vaccination on a small group of people that don't want it? Some of the logic supporting this must depend on the numbers. Those numbers need to reflect the complexity of balancing the cost in lives lost in delayed surgeries, cancellation of early screening programmes, mental health issues arising from loss of job and family home and so on. It should also reflect the benefits of natural immunity, percentage of the population recovered and more.
Sure, Dr Bloomfield mentions that they will track this somehow in a way that the figures are all explainable, and wont be manipulated or misconstrued. Besides, (he says) it is the World Health Organisation that wants NZ and every other country to count these numbers in a way that may make them seem higher, so when such a reputable organisation requests this, there is no need to think that there is anything strange about counting Gun Shot deaths, or heart attacks, or cancer deaths as anything but COVID deaths.
Except when I go to the WHO website and look at their stats, I see they already have the data feed up showing 33 deaths in NZ due to COVID, using their warped reporting rules. So every single number going into these totals will be similarly tainted. Not by Gunshot Deaths per se, but by the practice of counting many forms of death as COVID deaths.
I think counting deaths in this way inflates the numbers, amplifies the fear factor, and ultimately, increases distrust for those examining the figures.
Interestingly, I read an article about a research paper looking into deaths by the Flu in New Zealand. It noted that the flu contributed to deaths in a way that is the opposite of how the numbers are now reported with COVID. Whilst the Flu probably contributed to a death, hastening it at the least, the death was often recorded as the cause of the major health issue.
All of these studies show that increasing age is the single most important risk factor for influenza mortality. In New Zealand, 86 per cent of deaths occurred in those 65 years of age and over, a rate of 90.3 per 100,000.Link to Source
COVID is much like influenza, impacting certain segments of the population more severely than others. In particular the elderly. It is likely that COVID19 could be taking weeks, months or years from the aged and infirm, so this is a serious disease. Is it serious enough to warrant the complete lockdown of cities and countries for months at a time, and forcing vaccination on a small group of people that don't want it? Some of the logic supporting this must depend on the numbers. Those numbers need to reflect the complexity of balancing the cost in lives lost in delayed surgeries, cancellation of early screening programmes, mental health issues arising from loss of job and family home and so on. It should also reflect the benefits of natural immunity, percentage of the population recovered and more.
So those numbers do become significant. The reporting mechanisms of those numbers are therefore worth scrutiny. An excerpt from the WHO website, where they freely admit that increasing the count is the way to go. Surely, our media will only use such numbers in a balanced discourse? Surely, people will not act as if the death count, measured in millions in a population of billions, seems to generate reactions imagining a 50% death rate, rather than perhaps less than 1%?
This means a positive COVID-19 test result is not required for a death to be registered as COVID-19. In some circumstances, depending on national guidelines, medical practitioners can record COVID-19 deaths if they think the signs and symptoms point towards this as the underlying cause. The US CDC guidelines also make this clear with an example: the death of an 86-year-old female with an unconfirmed case of COVID–19. It was reported that the woman had typical COVID-19 symptoms five days prior to suffering an ischemic stroke at home. Despite not being tested for COVID-19, the coroner determined that the likely underlying cause of death was COVID–19 given her symptoms and exposure to an infected individual.
Link to source
It is a great shame that debate has been shut-down. As this goes on, the controls and measures are becoming more authoritarian, even as the numbers start to send conflicting information that should generate debate in a free society. In a democracy, the protection of individual rights are at the heart of a functioning society. This point is not well-understood by people. When we get to the end of this project, it may well be better understood, but by then the damage will have been done.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.