More fraud from the CDC under Biden. Over counted children's deaths.

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,918
15,344
1
Appointment of Walensky is proof that Biden regime is anti-science. Here is what CDC did:

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 966,575 deaths from COVID-19 on Friday after it corrected the data earlier this week, which reduced the death tallies in all age-groups, including children.
The health agency, in a statement to Reuters, said it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker's mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.
The adjustment resulted in removal of 72,277 deaths previously reported across 26 states, including 416 pediatric deaths, CDC said.
The reduction cut the CDC's estimate of deaths in children by 24% to 1,341 as of March 18."

 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,724
729
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
Appointment of Walensky is proof that Biden regime is anti-science. Here is what CDC did:

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 966,575 deaths from COVID-19 on Friday after it corrected the data earlier this week, which reduced the death tallies in all age-groups, including children.
The health agency, in a statement to Reuters, said it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker's mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.
The adjustment resulted in removal of 72,277 deaths previously reported across 26 states, including 416 pediatric deaths, CDC said.
The reduction cut the CDC's estimate of deaths in children by 24% to 1,341 as of March 18."

So instead of 966,000 deaths it was really only 894 000 deaths… and instead of about 1,700 children it was really about 1,350. Wow is that a huge difference! Makes all the difference in the world in recognizing this as obvious fraud….. give me a break… how does the CDC benefit from reporting numbers that are marginally similar? You are really stretching it to label that as fraud.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,165
8,401
1
So instead of 966,000 deaths it was really only 894 000 deaths… and instead of about 1,700 children it was really about 1,350. Wow is that a huge difference! Makes all the difference in the world in recognizing this as obvious fraud….. give me a break… how does the CDC benefit from reporting numbers that are marginally similar? You are really stretching it to label that as fraud.

About total deaths, I agree.

About children - they went down to 933 from ages 0-17. The removal of 415 or so deaths is huge.

Of that 933, I bet more than half are fraudulent. Germany has reported exactly ZERO Covid deaths among children, last I checked.

They tried to force a justification for masking children and vaccination for children.

The correction to the other deaths (which Florida is disputing, by the way) is just designed to throw people off.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,724
729
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
About total deaths, I agree.

About children - they went down to 933 from ages 0-17. The removal of 415 or so deaths is huge.

Of that 933, I bet more than half are fraudulent. Germany has reported exactly ZERO Covid deaths among children, last I checked.

They tried to force a justification for masking children and vaccination for children.

The correction to the other deaths (which Florida is disputing, by the way) is just designed to throw people off.
I'm just not sure what they have gained by purposely inflating their original numbers. I doubt that people would have been any less effected by learning that instead of 966,000 deaths there were really only about 900,000... the same with children... instead of 1,700 there were really only about 1,200. I'm not sure where and what they gain by purposely inflating their numbers by such low levels. Either way the numbers represent significant loss of life. In order for there to be some type of conspiracy to misrepresent numbers, there has to be some sort of payoff for doing so. What is their payoff? Why didn't they inflate their numbers to even higher levels that are certainly more significant than what they initially reported... especially if they were trying to cause what ever result that you may think they are trying to achieve?
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,165
8,401
1
I'm just not sure what they have gained by purposely inflating their original numbers. I doubt that people would have been any less effected by learning that instead of 966,000 deaths there were really only about 900,000... the same with children... instead of 1,700 there were really only about 1,200. I'm not sure where and what they gain by purposely inflating their numbers by such low levels. Either way the numbers represent significant loss of life. In order for there to be some type of conspiracy to misrepresent numbers, there has to be some sort of payoff for doing so. What is their payoff? Why didn't they inflate their numbers to even higher levels that are certainly more significant than what they initially reported... especially if they were trying to cause what ever result that you may think they are trying to achieve?

I agree completely. You must ask yourself, "Well, what is the motive?" I'm entirely dismissive of the change in total. There is no policy difference between 989.000 deaths and 898,000 deaths (making up numbers). None. Zero.

But for children, the change was significant, and I think it is a little more concentrated than you're showing. We are now under 1000 deaths for 0-17. And honestly, I think it is less than that. As I say, Germany had ZERO deaths for children.

I think their motive was to try to push for mandates for children (both masking and vaccination).
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,918
15,344
1
I'm just not sure what they have gained by purposely inflating their original numbers. I doubt that people would have been any less effected by learning that instead of 966,000 deaths there were really only about 900,000... the same with children... instead of 1,700 there were really only about 1,200. I'm not sure where and what they gain by purposely inflating their numbers by such low levels. Either way the numbers represent significant loss of life. In order for there to be some type of conspiracy to misrepresent numbers, there has to be some sort of payoff for doing so. What is their payoff? Why didn't they inflate their numbers to even higher levels that are certainly more significant than what they initially reported... especially if they were trying to cause what ever result that you may think they are trying to achieve?
You are assuming that they are acting logically and have some measure of good faith and competence. They don't. Who in their right minds would advocate masking 3 year-olds. Dishonest Leftie political hacks were given jobs and they are doing what comes natural to them, which has the added benefit for them of establishing power over other people's lives. In another thread, I pointed out that Florida health department couldn't even get them on the phone for a week. CDC has published multiple embarrassing and fraudulent masking studies. Complete sh*tshow.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,165
8,401
1
You are assuming that they are acting logically and have some measure of good faith and competence. They don't. Who in their right minds would advocate masking 3 year-olds. Dishonest Leftie political hacks were given jobs and they are doing what comes natural to them, which has the added benefit for them of establishing power over other people's lives. In another thread, I pointed out that Florida health department couldn't even get them on the phone for a week. CDC has published multiple embarrassing and fraudulent masking studies. Complete sh*tshow.
But fbh1 is (in my view) correct about the total death count. There's no difference between 989,00 and 898,000.

But I think he's wrong on the children. I know that Germany was reporting zero covid deaths for children for the longest time. Not sure if still the case.

And there, the change was significant, and the motive is clear - get them damned kids in masks and vaccinated.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,918
15,344
1
But fbh1 is (in my view) correct about the total death count. There's no difference between 989,00 and 898,000.

But I think he's wrong on the children. I know that Germany was reporting zero covid deaths for children for the longest time. Not sure if still the case.

And there, the change was significant, and the motive is clear - get them damned kids in masks and vaccinated.
Per se, I am not disputing the death count. I am saying that if it is accurate, it is only by accident. CDC has no competence or integrity.
 

john4psu

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2003
11,191
7,661
1
I agree completely. You must ask yourself, "Well, what is the motive?" I'm entirely dismissive of the change in total. There is no policy difference between 989.000 deaths and 898,000 deaths (making up numbers). None. Zero.

But for children, the change was significant, and I think it is a little more concentrated than you're showing. We are now under 1000 deaths for 0-17. And honestly, I think it is less than that. As I say, Germany had ZERO deaths for children.

I think their motive was to try to push for mandates for children (both masking and vaccination).
Depopulation at work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

gjbankos

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2006
58,935
37,117
1
But fbh1 is (in my view) correct about the total death count. There's no difference between 989,00 and 898,000.

But I think he's wrong on the children. I know that Germany was reporting zero covid deaths for children for the longest time. Not sure if still the case.

And there, the change was significant, and the motive is clear - get them damned kids in masks and vaccinated.
I don't think anyone is arguing the overall death count, other than to say why do we trust them now when the original number was wrong?

But he is totally wrong on the children. The change was about a 24% change. That is not trivial.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,165
8,401
1
I don't think anyone is arguing the overall death count, other than to say why do we trust them now when the original number was wrong?

But he is totally wrong on the children. The change was about a 24% change. That is not trivial.
Fbh can speak for himself, but I think he would say that the childhood death count doesn’t justify any policy change if the number is 1350 or 933. And so there is no motive, other than accuracy, behind the change.

But I am not convinced. I expect another adjustment, quietly made, before the next election.

But I cannot prove it. And I’m not sure I believe it myself yet.

That’s the problem for the CDC - once you start lying, who believes you on any other topic?
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,391
7,714
1
I'm just not sure what they have gained by purposely inflating their original numbers. I doubt that people would have been any less effected by learning that instead of 966,000 deaths there were really only about 900,000... the same with children... instead of 1,700 there were really only about 1,200. I'm not sure where and what they gain by purposely inflating their numbers by such low levels. Either way the numbers represent significant loss of life. In order for there to be some type of conspiracy to misrepresent numbers, there has to be some sort of payoff for doing so. What is their payoff? Why didn't they inflate their numbers to even higher levels that are certainly more significant than what they initially reported... especially if they were trying to cause what ever result that you may think they are trying to achieve?

We hear the semi-rhetorical question often, "How many pediatric Covid deaths are ok?" Obviously on an individual level, none are "ok" -- But from a pubic policy development perspective, where many variables/factors must be weighed and considered, inherently it is a consideration.

It's impossible, and frankly not ethical, for any person to establish what that number is, or should be.

So then, for the purposes of public policy, how do we determine the number of pediatric deaths from Covid that society would deem ok?

While there is no way to know for sure, a good (and generally accepted) estimate is the yearly pediatric flu deaths.

Prior to 2020, while individually extremely heartbreaking, we as a society established that on the population level, we would accept AT LEAST 500-600 pediatric flu deaths per year without applying (or even mentioning) broad measures/restrictions to try to lower that number.

So, for those arguing against CDC (Public Health) measures/restrictions (remote learning, school closures, wearing masks all day in school, being forced to eat lunch outside in the cold or rain, etc.) on children, that yearly pediatrics flu deaths number became a good, objective, measuring stick in the argument against hurting children with widespread restrictions/measures in order to try to lower the total pediatric deaths from Covid.

This "adjustment" puts those pediatric deaths right back in that range where we never hurt children with those other restrictions/measures in an effort to lessen deaths on a population level.

So, after this adjustment, the damage done to children by the CDC and PH becomes a lot more difficult to justify -- Especially since they're going to be adjusted down again in the future, and if you look at them closely now, many of them aren't even from Covid.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,165
8,401
1
We hear the semi-rhetorical question often, "How many pediatric Covid deaths are ok?" Obviously on an individual level, none are "ok" -- But from a pubic policy development perspective, where many variables/factors must be weighed and considered, inherently it is a consideration.

It's impossible, and frankly not ethical, for any person to establish what that number is, or should be.

So then, for the purposes of public policy, how do we determine the number of pediatric deaths from Covid that society would deem ok?

While there is no way to know for sure, a good (and generally accepted) estimate is the yearly pediatric flu deaths.

Prior to 2020, while individually extremely heartbreaking, we as a society established that on the population level, we would accept AT LEAST 500-600 pediatric flu deaths per year without applying (or even mentioning) broad measures/restrictions to try to lower that number.

So, for those arguing against CDC (Public Health) measures/restrictions (remote learning, school closures, wearing masks all day in school, being forced to eat lunch outside in the cold or rain, etc.) on children, that yearly pediatrics flu deaths number became a good, objective, measuring stick in the argument against hurting children with widespread restrictions/measures in order to try to lower the total pediatric deaths from Covid.

This "adjustment" puts those pediatric deaths right back in that range where we never hurt children with those other restrictions/measures in an effort to lessen deaths on a population level.

So, after this adjustment, the damage done to children by the CDC and PH becomes a lot more difficult to justify -- Especially since they're going to be adjusted down again in the future, and if you look at them closely now, many of them aren't even from Covid.
Excellent post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoulderFish

kts136

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2013
2,242
1,658
1
We hear the semi-rhetorical question often, "How many pediatric Covid deaths are ok?" Obviously on an individual level, none are "ok" -- But from a pubic policy development perspective, where many variables/factors must be weighed and considered, inherently it is a consideration.

It's impossible, and frankly not ethical, for any person to establish what that number is, or should be.

So then, for the purposes of public policy, how do we determine the number of pediatric deaths from Covid that society would deem ok?

While there is no way to know for sure, a good (and generally accepted) estimate is the yearly pediatric flu deaths.

Prior to 2020, while individually extremely heartbreaking, we as a society established that on the population level, we would accept AT LEAST 500-600 pediatric flu deaths per year without applying (or even mentioning) broad measures/restrictions to try to lower that number.

So, for those arguing against CDC (Public Health) measures/restrictions (remote learning, school closures, wearing masks all day in school, being forced to eat lunch outside in the cold or rain, etc.) on children, that yearly pediatrics flu deaths number became a good, objective, measuring stick in the argument against hurting children with widespread restrictions/measures in order to try to lower the total pediatric deaths from Covid.

This "adjustment" puts those pediatric deaths right back in that range where we never hurt children with those other restrictions/measures in an effort to lessen deaths on a population level.

So, after this adjustment, the damage done to children by the CDC and PH becomes a lot more difficult to justify -- Especially since they're going to be adjusted down again in the future, and if you look at them closely now, many of them aren't even from Covid.
I was simply thinking that the more "deaths" they report the more times they can get pediatric deaths in the news cycle and scare the crap out of people. One here this day...two more the next day...eventually people think it's out of control.

This was a much more thought out and insightful post and I could 100% get behind this being their logic.

Nice work.
 

Latest posts