Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

It is seen by some as a good chance to radically transform our way of life (and I'm not quoting Obama - he got it from someone else). I'm talking about the crowd that has been slowly, incrementally undermining football, not because it can be characterized as dangerous, but because it is the number one reflection of an individual, competitive way of life. If they can kill football or radically undermine it, they are on their way faster to changing all that we hold dear.

They hadn't counted on Sweden not having wiped itself out by now.

How sick of this "shelter in place" are you? Have you obeyed orders explicitly? We went along in the short term because we wanted to gain time for the scientists to come up with tests, treatments and vaccines. That's now well underway. How much longer are you willing to sacrifice when nearly half the states and their populations are determined to open up and cope with the results? Don't forget that the steps taken so far are voluntary and would not survive even the merest of Constitutional challenges. Orange County has already figured that out. They, at least, will not take any more.

---

Wow. A lot of "interesting" ideas and statistics there. Let me guess, you are at least as sick of shelter-in-place as I am?

---

I'm on the board of an over 55 homeowners assn. We put in shelter in place two months ago and have enforced it almost rigidly. We've had no cases or deaths and only one owner has reported any family/friends as having come down with it (Colorado). I've been getting calls, stopped on the sidewalks by a lot of our owners and they are about to revolt. We're opening up next week on a gradual basis.

We are not alone. It appears that demonstrations to open up are increasing around the country. And, the governors in most of those places are taking notice.

I've also been in touch with the med community. Our town has had only 5 cases reported and no deaths. The data in-state and nationwide leaves me suspicious. Hyping the numbers with cause of death assumptions is criminal, especially when you realize that a hospital receives as much as 3 times the reimbursement for a CV19 case as for a non. Also, there are no national statistics being gathered on cases/deaths in nursing homes. Granted some states refuse to release them (mine included), but that leads me to think that this is where the bulk of the numbers are generated. If so, let's design strategies for that and ease up on the rest.

Yes, I'm sick of it, but also worried that our "leaders" may see a chance here to suppress our rights.

---

Hospitals want the pandemic to be over as soon as possible. They are losing a lot of money right now because they are unable to perform elective surgeries or people are putting off those surgeries because they are worried about being infected. It would be in their best financial interest to under report the number of covid 19 cases, so that normality can return, rather than over report the number of cases.

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

The CDC is the best tool we have for accurate projections, but you have to remember they are trying to predict the future. That is hard and there are a lot of variables and unknowns.

Further, much like predicting the weather, people tend to get focused on the extreme numbers rather than the middle numbers which are most likely. How many times have the weather reports say we may see 6 to 12 inches of snow for the mountains, but all the teasers for the weather segment say 'up to 12 inches', so everyone thinks a foot is coming.
Eventually 8 inches falls, and everyone says the weatherman was wrong, when it actually fell within their projection.

golden sloth said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

The CDC is the best tool we have for accurate projections, but you have to remember they are trying to predict the future. That is hard and there are a lot of variables and unknowns.

---

I disagree that the CDC is the best tool, or more properly stated, have the best tools. But even the CDC are officially disavowing this pessimistic projection https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/government-report-predicts-covid-19-cases-will-reach-200000-a-day-by-june-1/2020/05/04/02fe743e-8e27-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

Of course there is some justifiable fear that loosening will lead to more deaths, but there is not enough time to get to 3000 deaths by June 1 considering it is like 3 weeks from exposure to death. Today, Monday, there were fewer than 1000 deaths. There is a Monday effect where there fewer reported deaths on Monday because of the weekend, but death rates are going down in general. It would take time to reverse them.

I do think that projections of more than a week or two ahead are worthless. No better than predicting whether the stock market will go up or down. Too complicated, too many factors, unknowable.

Sluggo

We need Hari Seldon to predict what the world will do. Two points if you know who he is without looking him up.

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

IssyBear said:

---

Chabbear said:

---

The big elephant in the room is that without football revenues, other D-1 athletic programs die unless one of a few things happen:

1. Sport is fully endowed
2. College picks up the tab
3. Donations increase to support the sports kept.
4. Other revenues found.
5.???

Wild cards:
1. Title 9.
2. NCAA rules about the number of sports to remain eligible for D-1
3. Conference rules about sports that must be included to be in the conference (Pac 12: Football, Men and Women Basketball, Women Volleyball)
4. Tax support from Congress
5. ??

---

This is at a time when the university itself is having a tremendous loss of funding. Loss of student housing revenue is a real killer, costs to shift to on-line learning have been excessive, and with the State of California's own financial losses (we only get 40% of our education support from the state anyway) will prevent us from getting any help from Sacramento.

---

40% support for UC from the state? That number is a heck of a lot closer to 10%. Had not given enough thought to this topic to think about the shortfall from the lack of student housing fees. This is really going to turn the world of college on its head. How long until private schools of dubious quality start shutting down? What's the first "big name" private that isn't a for-profit commuter school to take a dirt nap? I'm thinking of places like Pacific.

HungryCalBear said:

---

I feel really bumped since this could be our year!!! :-(

---

This what it means to be the Bad News Bears! We literally have the worst luck of all. Remember when that SC player did not catch the ball in the end zone costing us the almost the perfect season with Aaron Rogers, or that hurricane hit and Mack Brown costed us our Rose Bowl? When you are a true bear, you just expect something bad to happen. And when it happens, you just accept it and move on as it was expected.

Professional rugby has already started training in Australia. But government here far more effective than America at addressing covid. That being strongly said, it still very possible for CFB season to go forward . . . or in worse-weak-case scenario, we could still have each team playing their rivals and 2-4 other games.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

This is far more complicated. For example, Newsom wants to move up the fall semester to summer since the virus will be diminished in warmer weather. The view is because we isolated, we are more susceptible to a repeat bad COVID season later in the fall. (I'm not going to get into the whole herd immunity the Swiss have it right thing - we did what we did and now have to deal with it). I'm not sure schools will be ready, and certainly don't know that summer football is even close to a reality for a lot of reasons. I don't even know if Newsom (and other governors?) will get his wish on an open campus in June/July. But if COVID does come back badly in the fall, that changes the equation even if the decision was made to have football as regularly scheduled. Long way of saying, what is decided in June, may not hold. This is a very fluid. Sorry to be the bearer of uncertainty. But anyone that tells you they know what is happening, doesn't know what is happening.

---

Colleges have shown absolutely zero indication to their students of any plan to open early. They are already under brutal timelines to figure out what to do about Fall under the current timelines.

I can only speak to my kids' school district, but 24 hours after what they called the somewhat confusing direction about opening schools in July, they sent out a tactful letter that basically between the lines said parents can stop calling them to scream, that teachers would have to agree, the school board would need to pass a resolution that as of this time there is no plan to change the already approved calendar for next school year. In other words it ain't happening.

I will be utterly shocked if anything comes of the proposed July opening. I don't see anyone making moves to actually do it, and none of it is up to Newsom.

---

The funny thing is I saw the logic of what Newsom wanted to do. Doesn't this guy check anything with the impacted parties before going public? It is like the great closure of the OC beaches that never happened. I guess he figured the OC Sheriff, would never dare say FU Governor. Well, he did. Which sounds like what the teachers and school boards did as well.

Chabbear said:

---

We need Hari Seldon to predict what the world will do. Two points if you know who he is without looking him up.

---

Foundation Series by Issac Asimov. He's the "inventor" of a method of social prediction that can predict large scale outcomes but not individual actions.

I didn't look it up, though I've no way to prove it.

Very good! One of my favorite sci-fi series. Easy to read!

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Pressure on drs., mes and hospital officials to label any death that can be even remotely a CV19 cause. One of the pressures is CDC forms, which dictate it. Another is the reimbursements to hospitals wherein a CV19 gets more $$ and use of a ventilator jacks it up even more. Given the other arguments that are voiced to make CV19 as big a threat to human life as possible, the numbers cannot be trusted.

It is my opinion that Alinsky's proscription never to waste a crisis in the promotion of "call it what you will", is in part at work here. It is also my opinion that the Dems are still smoldering over President Trump's win and his subsequent successes and are desperate to defeat him in November so they can pick up where they left off. That is a VERY unpopular opinion around here, but I've been in the inner workings of both parties for too long not to at least suspect it. I'm sure the fires of the damned will rain down on me for this on this Board, as they have in the past.

Sadly, the rationale be damned, I think we will not have football as scheduled and may not have it at all this year. I hate to say it, but those who predict it will turn out to be right.

bonsallbear said:

---

Very good! One of my favorite sci-fi series. Easy to read!

---

When I arrived at Barrington Hall in fall '71, the previous occupant of my room had left behind a hard-bound volume of the Foundation Trilogy. I still have it.

golden sloth said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

It is seen by some as a good chance to radically transform our way of life (and I'm not quoting Obama - he got it from someone else). I'm talking about the crowd that has been slowly, incrementally undermining football, not because it can be characterized as dangerous, but because it is the number one reflection of an individual, competitive way of life. If they can kill football or radically undermine it, they are on their way faster to changing all that we hold dear.

They hadn't counted on Sweden not having wiped itself out by now.

How sick of this "shelter in place" are you? Have you obeyed orders explicitly? We went along in the short term because we wanted to gain time for the scientists to come up with tests, treatments and vaccines. That's now well underway. How much longer are you willing to sacrifice when nearly half the states and their populations are determined to open up and cope with the results? Don't forget that the steps taken so far are voluntary and would not survive even the merest of Constitutional challenges. Orange County has already figured that out. They, at least, will not take any more.

---

Wow. A lot of "interesting" ideas and statistics there. Let me guess, you are at least as sick of shelter-in-place as I am?

---

I'm on the board of an over 55 homeowners assn. We put in shelter in place two months ago and have enforced it almost rigidly. We've had no cases or deaths and only one owner has reported any family/friends as having come down with it (Colorado). I've been getting calls, stopped on the sidewalks by a lot of our owners and they are about to revolt. We're opening up next week on a gradual basis.

We are not alone. It appears that demonstrations to open up are increasing around the country. And, the governors in most of those places are taking notice.

I've also been in touch with the med community. Our town has had only 5 cases reported and no deaths. The data in-state and nationwide leaves me suspicious. Hyping the numbers with cause of death assumptions is criminal, especially when you realize that a hospital receives as much as 3 times the reimbursement for a CV19 case as for a non. Also, there are no national statistics being gathered on cases/deaths in nursing homes. Granted some states refuse to release them (mine included), but that leads me to think that this is where the bulk of the numbers are generated. If so, let's design strategies for that and ease up on the rest.

Yes, I'm sick of it, but also worried that our "leaders" may see a chance here to suppress our rights.

---

Hospitals want the pandemic to be over as soon as possible. They are losing a lot of money right now because they are unable to perform elective surgeries or people are putting off those surgeries because they are worried about being infected. It would be in their best financial interest to under report the number of covid 19 cases, so that normality can return, rather than over report the number of cases.

---

having been in a very large hospital recently for a few nights. I can tell you its not made-up at Cedars Sinai. They have empty floors sitting there waiting for the serious patient COVID surge that never happened, they have very few patients not there for COVID (I was an emergency case with colitis and literally had to be begged by my long time GP to go). No one is getting near a hospital unless they have to. The only real business they have is in their isolated suites (and at Cedars they are suites) full of the rich and famous with mild COVID symptoms who want to be pampered. The doctors I talked to say it is like this at the Provident Hospitals, UCLA Santa Monica and Westwood, etc. All the big Los Angles hospitals. The so-called surge they were told to expect and rearranged their hospitals for just simply didn't happen. You may think the doctors are full of it, but they are the ones who don't have patients (and have plenty of time to talk with the few patients that are the hospital)

We have public officials that acted under imperfect and changing information. They listened to academics and went by theories. it is questionable the degree to which Newsom actually consults with people who are impacted by his decisions (the start schools in July being an example). He is starting to be simply ignored by local governments and swaths of people. There probably will be a lot of second guessing especially when the public sectors layoffs hit (they are starting already in Los Angeles), the announcements of the hit to different business sectors (residential reel estate is set to tank) becomes known, and public entity deficits become known. But I say this, the politicians didn't have a lot of solid information and were faced with a crises. Many probably overreached, and some underacted initially (thinking of the NYC mayor). But I don't think at the state and local level they acted with malice or political intent. They did the best they could.

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Just to be 100% clear:

37k is the death certificates gathered by the CDC. 60k is the notifications of death from individual health departments. Certificates lag behind by 1 to 8 weeks.

It's in the footnotes of what you cite.

There is no debate. They didnt "admit" two different numbers. They admit they are tracking deaths two ways.

It's the difference between counting a murder when the body is found with bullet holes in it, and when the corner signs the certificate. It's the difference between counting the corpses in a northern California town as you pick them up, and counting them 8 weeks later when the autopsy is done.

If you understand company's reporting, 60k is income, 37k is cash. A balance sheet, income, and cash flow all work together to build a picture. They are not conflicting views of the same information. They are the same information from different views.

37k and 60k are NOT conflicting numbers. Dont base so much emphasis on something that has literally no meaning.

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Just to be 100% clear:

37k is the death certificates gathered by the CDC. 60k is the notifications of death from individual health departments. Certificates lag behind by 1 to 8 weeks.

It's in the footnotes of what you cite.

There is no debate. They didnt "admit" two different numbers. They admit they are tracking deaths two ways.

It's the difference between counting a murder when the body is found with bullet holes in it, and when the corner signs the certificate. It's the difference between counting the corpses in a northern California town as you pick them up, and counting them 8 weeks later when the autopsy is done.

If you understand company's reporting, 60k is income, 37k is cash. A balance sheet, income, and cash flow all work together to build a picture. They are not conflicting views of the same information. They are the same information from different views.

37k and 60k are NOT conflicting numbers. Dont base so much emphasis on something that has literally no meaning.

---

How come CDC was reporting 60K last week? And, the footnotes in the CDC form I posted say that presumed deaths should be included. Plus, your timeline for autopsy reporting doesn't make sense.

I get the analogy to a company's financial reporting. The difference is that the earnings numbers come in shortly after the revenue. Here, you're purporting an 8 week lag. Is the govt that inefficient? (Oh, wait, did I just ask that?).

Rushinbear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Pressure on drs., mes and hospital officials to label any death that can be even remotely a CV19 cause. One of the pressures is CDC forms, which dictate it. Another is the reimbursements to hospitals wherein a CV19 gets more $$ and use of a ventilator jacks it up even more. Given the other arguments that are voiced to make CV19 as big a threat to human life as possible, the numbers cannot be trusted.

It is my opinion that Alinsky's proscription never to waste a crisis in the promotion of "call it what you will", is in part at work here. It is also my opinion that the Dems are still smoldering over President Trump's win and his subsequent successes and are desperate to defeat him in November so they can pick up where they left off. That is a VERY unpopular opinion around here, but I've been in the inner workings of both parties for too long not to at least suspect it. I'm sure the fires of the damned will rain down on me for this on this Board, as they have in the past.

Sadly, the rationale be damned, I think we will not have football as scheduled and may not have it at all this year. I hate to say it, but those who predict it will turn out to be right.

---

Again you are implying that hospitals are exploiting the covid 19 pandemic and over reporting their covid numbers to get more money. This is wrong. It is not in the hospitals financial interest to over report the number of covid patients and deaths. I work with hospital planning departments everyday. This pandemic is causing severe financial loss. A lot of hospital staff has been furloughed and received pay cuts. They need elective surgeries to increase to restore their typical cash flows, and the hospitals I deal with have been discussing ideas to increase the number of surgeries per day to recoup the losses during the pandemic.

Californium and Bonsallbear,

Both correct! Issac Asimov's Foundation Series featured the concept that you could predict what a large (planet sized or more) population would do using psychology and math. The concept was called "psychohistory" and was invented by Hari Seldon who used it to both predict and change the future of humanity galaxy-wide. He used it to limit a oncoming 10,000 years of barbarity down to 1000 years by creating two Foundations. The trick was that no one could have a understanding of the concept of psychohistory. People who were settled in a far away planet and were eventually told that they were destined to be the be creators of a new galactic empire from the ashes of the old (ie. manifest destiny). Huge manipulation by Seldon of a planet full of humans.

I owe you both beers when Cal can play at Memorial.

Go Bears

Rushinbear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Just to be 100% clear:

37k is the death certificates gathered by the CDC. 60k is the notifications of death from individual health departments. Certificates lag behind by 1 to 8 weeks.

It's in the footnotes of what you cite.

There is no debate. They didnt "admit" two different numbers. They admit they are tracking deaths two ways.

It's the difference between counting a murder when the body is found with bullet holes in it, and when the corner signs the certificate. It's the difference between counting the corpses in a northern California town as you pick them up, and counting them 8 weeks later when the autopsy is done.

If you understand company's reporting, 60k is income, 37k is cash. A balance sheet, income, and cash flow all work together to build a picture. They are not conflicting views of the same information. They are the same information from different views.

37k and 60k are NOT conflicting numbers. Dont base so much emphasis on something that has literally no meaning.

---

How come CDC was reporting 60K last week? And, the footnotes in the CDC form I posted say that presumed deaths should be included. Plus, your timeline for autopsy reporting doesn't make sense.

I get the analogy to a company's financial reporting. The difference is that the earnings numbers come in shortly after the revenue. Here, you're purporting an 8 week lag. Is the govt that inefficient? (Oh, wait, did I just ask that?).

---

OK,

Above ALL, the CDC is still reporting 67,463 deaths (at 5/5/2020 10:15 pacific). They did NOT change their reporting. The added an additional resource. I believe that was a mistake, because a large percentage of the population is not educated enough to understand that there can be two methods to counting the same thing, at the same time.

Lets break this down potatohead style:

1. The CDC released a report showing 37k (now 39k) deaths. Everyone went wild about reporting adjustments to official numbers.

Here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

This number is the corner reported deaths.

It literally (as in literally) disclaims:

Quote:

---

NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.

---

and

Quote:

---

*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

---

emphasis mine

Presumed deaths are only counted if the corner reported COVID-19 as the cause of death (apparently ICD10 code U07.1). Presumed but not certificated deaths are not included.

2. The CDC also, still, has a report showing medical reported deaths. This is more timely.

here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

This data is provided by the 55 Health Departments in the country, using a known case and death (through testing) and probable through meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence.

This also has a disclaimer:

Quote:

---

In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

---

This is the presumptive case count. The CDC gets the numbers reported from the 55 regional health systems, and aggregates them. As with my financial reporting analogy, there may be *some* bad debt that needs to be cleared, but it is more likely that they will revise revenue up as additional deferred revenue is paid.



As for the "Is the govt that inefficient?"
First; The government (CDC) is not that inefficient. It takes time to have a corner look at the people and confirm cause of death. Across 55 jurisdictions, the processes and timelines can be desperate. As Americans we demand this kind of decentralized government authority. But, the CDC still gives a centralized view of the totality: they dont make the data, they just collect and report the data, in this case.

Second; You think 1-8 weeks is a long time? Aapl takes about 5 weeks to report earnings. FedEx takes almost 13 weeks. My company takes about 8 weeks. VERY few companies turn around their data in less than 4 weeks.





FWIW, I agree with some of your points. Specifically that it is looking like a Swedish model may be a better model than our measures, and probably better than China's measures. I think the lockdown did not fundamentally impact mortality more significantly that less strict measures would have, but I have the luxury of not having to make that call, AND having an additional month and a half of data. Things are NOT better now (in California) than they were on March 22. They are MUCH worse (orders of magnitude more infected walking around, so more vectors for infection now), and we are relaxing measures. That tells me that my little opinion is shared by even the most careful people.

That doesnt change that your opener (37k vs 60k count adjustment) is just wrong in its assumption that they changed the numbers. They gave a new metric. TBH, you should absolutely drop the argument, because it is based on a misinterpretation of whatever you read. It also derails the point you are trying to make, by bringing in factually inaccurate arguments.

How many posts have you made espousing the core of your argument? Zero.
How many posts have you made arguing over a misinterpreted data point? 6. So far.

IssyBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

IssyBear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I'm talking about the crowd that has been slowly, incrementally undermining football, not because it can be characterized as dangerous, but because it is the number one reflection of an individual, competitive way of life. If they can kill football or radically undermine it, they are on their way faster to changing all that we hold dear.

---

Do you care to elaborate on this because I dont see this as happening at all, and I don't understand the logic behind the 'kill the football, change the world' sentiment?

---

I wonder who the "they" he is talking about are? I have never heard this position expressed by anyone until now. Especially as football is the ultimate TEAM sport, not an individual sport in any sense.

---

Are you new here? It's been debated off and on over the last two years, at least.

In football, each individual has their position to play and their role in the team, unlike BB or soccer where one player can dominate to a much greater degree. And, because of the physical demands, each individual must maximize his readiness to perform. And, overcoming fatigue and injury during play is much more important.

---

Thanks for the tip to check out the debate that has been held for the past two years on this issue. To save time I Googled the following: "football is reflection of an individual, competitive way of life". Surprisingly, all I got was your above post. You were #1! I could find no #2 on this topic.

---

I'm not sure of any specific conversations of "movements" to kill football. However, there is a clear new age spirituality teaching that focuses on competition as the root of many evils. It basically boils down to the argument that scarcity is a myth. The reality of the universe is unlimited abundance. If everyone would recognize this abundance and claim their piece of it, then competition for resources erroneously thought of as scare would cease to exist. This eliminates the crime, violence, and wars that almost all boil down to fear driven by false scarcity.

I could see an argument that competitive sports trains younger people into the old mindset of competition as is therefore an impediment to where society could evolve to if the greater truth of abundance was more universally excepted.

This along with many other fascinating theories are introduced and discussed in a book call Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch.

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Just to be 100% clear:

37k is the death certificates gathered by the CDC. 60k is the notifications of death from individual health departments. Certificates lag behind by 1 to 8 weeks.

It's in the footnotes of what you cite.

There is no debate. They didnt "admit" two different numbers. They admit they are tracking deaths two ways.

It's the difference between counting a murder when the body is found with bullet holes in it, and when the corner signs the certificate. It's the difference between counting the corpses in a northern California town as you pick them up, and counting them 8 weeks later when the autopsy is done.

If you understand company's reporting, 60k is income, 37k is cash. A balance sheet, income, and cash flow all work together to build a picture. They are not conflicting views of the same information. They are the same information from different views.

37k and 60k are NOT conflicting numbers. Dont base so much emphasis on something that has literally no meaning.

---

How come CDC was reporting 60K last week? And, the footnotes in the CDC form I posted say that presumed deaths should be included. Plus, your timeline for autopsy reporting doesn't make sense.

I get the analogy to a company's financial reporting. The difference is that the earnings numbers come in shortly after the revenue. Here, you're purporting an 8 week lag. Is the govt that inefficient? (Oh, wait, did I just ask that?).

---

OK,

Above ALL, the CDC is still reporting 67,463 deaths (at 5/5/2020 10:15 pacific). They did NOT change their reporting. The added an additional resource. I believe that was a mistake, because a large percentage of the population is not educated enough to understand that there can be two methods to counting the same thing, at the same time.

Lets break this down potatohead style:

1. The CDC released a report showing 37k (now 39k) deaths. Everyone went wild about reporting adjustments to official numbers.

Here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

This number is the corner reported deaths.

It literally (as in literally) disclaims:

Quote:

---

NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.

---

and

Quote:

---

*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

---

emphasis mine

Presumed deaths are only counted if the corner reported COVID-19 as the cause of death (apparently ICD10 code U07.1). Presumed but not certificated deaths are not included.

2. The CDC also, still, has a report showing medical reported deaths. This is more timely.

here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

This data is provided by the 55 Health Departments in the country, using a known case and death (through testing) and probable through meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence.

This also has a disclaimer:

Quote:

---

In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

---

This is the presumptive case count. The CDC gets the numbers reported from the 55 regional health systems, and aggregates them. As with my financial reporting analogy, there may be *some* bad debt that needs to be cleared, but it is more likely that they will revise revenue up as additional deferred revenue is paid.



As for the "Is the govt that inefficient?"
First; The government (CDC) is not that inefficient. It takes time to have a corner look at the people and confirm cause of death. Across 55 jurisdictions, the processes and timelines can be desperate. As Americans we demand this kind of decentralized government authority. But, the CDC still gives a centralized view of the totality: they dont make the data, they just collect and report the data, in this case.

Second; You think 1-8 weeks is a long time? Aapl takes about 5 weeks to report earnings. FedEx takes almost 13 weeks. My company takes about 8 weeks. VERY few companies turn around their data in less than 4 weeks.





FWIW, I agree with some of your points. Specifically that it is looking like a Swedish model may be a better model than our measures, and probably better than China's measures. I think the lockdown did not fundamentally impact mortality more significantly that less strict measures would have, but I have the luxury of not having to make that call, AND having an additional month and a half of data. Things are NOT better now (in California) than they were on March 22. They are MUCH worse (orders of magnitude more infected walking around, so more vectors for infection now), and we are relaxing measures. That tells me that my little opinion is shared by even the most careful people.

That doesnt change that your opener (37k vs 60k count adjustment) is just wrong in its assumption that they changed the numbers. They gave a new metric. TBH, you should absolutely drop the argument, because it is based on a misinterpretation of whatever you read. It also derails the point you are trying to make, by bringing in factually inaccurate arguments.

How many posts have you made espousing the core of your argument? Zero.
How many posts have you made arguing over a misinterpreted data point? 6. So far.

---

It's not which numbers are correct, but the discrepancy and its magnitude that erodes confidence.

Confidence is further eroded when we saw political leaders (including Trump) minimizing the infection in the early weeks and encouraging people to go about their lives as if nothing was happening. This was particularly true of Gov. Cuomo and his Director of Public Health pooh-poohing the danger and arguing that people had nothing to worry about. Pelosi's encouragement of attendance at the Chinese New Year (I think it was) celebration in SF didn't help her and her Party, either. And, if you have been paying attention, it can't have skipped your attention that both Fauci and Birx had been recorded supporting the Left/Dem perspective before the infection was uncovered. Granted, Fauci warned that Trump's first term would face an epidemic, but that was in the context of the history of every modern president having faced one. Still, he said it.

The data issue is further clouded by the presentation of Gov DeSantis of Florida when he announced the initial opening of the state last week. He presented figures which showed that the actual numbers on cases and deaths are 1/10 of what they were predicted to be and FL was not a lock-down state. It's stuff like that which makes the people wonder what they're bankrupting themselves personally for.

My biggest complaint is against those who deny that this thing came on fast, that President Trump took the first actions (CDC) before the first death in the US, that big states had foreclosed their readiness in favor of spending on pet social projects (even President Trump seems to have cleaned house in the epidemiological advisory group, although I took that as exercising his prerogative to put his own people in vs Obama's and I haven't followed whether he completed the transition there), that key leaders criticize him even while distracting him with impeachment and then stood in the way of action, and that there was no understanding in common about what we were facing.

Your presentation is persuasive on the merits of science and health practices, but it seems to ignore the social/political/economic context which infect them. I think everyone's doing a good job, except those who seem not to want a good job to be done.

As to financial reports, I was an implementation project manager for a financial management software company with over 1,000 clients. We had an interactive database across as many as 18 functions which gave real time calculations on big organizations (billion $ budgets). I could give you ye revenue and net figures in seconds and final reports in a day. It would take the finance team another couple days to meet and seal them. I suspect that the CDC and other databases are years out of date and slow, but that's no excuse.

Thank you. I didn't have the time nor inclination to explain this to him in detail. Especially considering he could've just googled this and got an answer. Life must be hard when you can't trust a single thing the evil mainstream media has to say.

ducky23 said:

---

Thank you. I didn't have the time nor inclination to explain this to him in detail. Especially considering he could've just googled this and got an answer. Life must be hard when you can't trust a single thing the evil mainstream media has to say.

---

ducky, if you're addressing me, yes, I am extremely frustrated that I can't trust a single thing that the evil mainstream media (your words, said in jest, I get) has to say. In case you care to mount a reply, I include Fox increasingly among them. Sadly, the media "on the other side" OANN, etc., are untrustworthy, too. Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him. I guess these days, news outlets can no longer sell neutral news reporting.

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Thank you. I didn't have the time nor inclination to explain this to him in detail. Especially considering he could've just googled this and got an answer. Life must be hard when you can't trust a single thing the evil mainstream media has to say.

---

ducky, if you're addressing me, yes, I am extremely frustrated that I can't trust a single thing that the evil mainstream media (your words, said in jest, I get) has to say. In case you care to mount a reply, I include Fox increasingly among them. Sadly, the media "on the other side" OANN, etc., are untrustworthy, too. Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him. I guess these days, news outlets can no longer sell neutral news reporting.

---

Many (Washington Post) have said that blueblood is really a very nice person.

BearinOC said:

---

HungryCalBear said:

---

I feel really bumped since this could be our year!!! :-(

---

This what it means to be the Bad News Bears! We literally have the worst luck of all. Remember when that SC player did not catch the ball in the end zone costing us the almost the perfect season with Aaron Rogers, or that hurricane hit and Mack Brown costed us our Rose Bowl? When you are a true bear, you just expect something bad to happen. And when it happens, you just accept it and move on as it was expected.

---

I know this is an identity that many of us adopt and even indoctrinate newer fans into. It is not true. We are not cursed. It is the results of a fan base that is too intelligent to ignore history but not wise enough to realize negative expectation and negative self-identity produces negative results.

We are the greatest public institution in the world. We are running clean programs in the the two revenue sports and both are in predictably upward trajectories. Can't wait to see the Bears take the field in whatever way and at whatever time it happens. They will be a special team and I will enjoy watching them prove that week after week.

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Thank you. I didn't have the time nor inclination to explain this to him in detail. Especially considering he could've just googled this and got an answer. Life must be hard when you can't trust a single thing the evil mainstream media has to say.

---

ducky, if you're addressing me, yes, I am extremely frustrated that I can't trust a single thing that the evil mainstream media (your words, said in jest, I get) has to say. In case you care to mount a reply, I include Fox increasingly among them. Sadly, the media "on the other side" OANN, etc., are untrustworthy, too. Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him. I guess these days, news outlets can no longer sell neutral news reporting.

---

If Walter Cronkite was in his prime right now and doing the CBS news every evening, what do you suppose he would be saying?

JSC 76 said:

---

bonsallbear said:

---

Very good! One of my favorite sci-fi series. Easy to read!

---

When I arrived at Barrington Hall in fall '71, the previous occupant of my room had left behind a hard-bound volume of the Foundation Trilogy. I still have it.

---

Isaac Asimov is just about my favorite author. The foundation series starting with prelude to foundation and ending with forward the foundation is seven books long. I finished reading this series in 1995. And now, with all this extra time on my hands I'll start back and reread the entire series. As my home gardening project is cutting into my free time, it may take me a while to get through all seven books. It's hard to fathom an author starting his story in 1951 and ending it 42 years later in 1993.

evanluck said:

---

BearinOC said:

---

HungryCalBear said:

---

I feel really bumped since this could be our year!!! :-(

---

This what it means to be the Bad News Bears! We literally have the worst luck of all. Remember when that SC player did not catch the ball in the end zone costing us the almost the perfect season with Aaron Rogers, or that hurricane hit and Mack Brown costed us our Rose Bowl? When you are a true bear, you just expect something bad to happen. And when it happens, you just accept it and move on as it was expected.

---

I know this is an identity that many of us adopt and even indoctrinate newer fans into. It is not true. We are not cursed. It is the results of a fan base that is too intelligent to ignore history but not wise enough to realize negative expectation and negative self-identity produces negative results.

We are the greatest public institution in the world. We are running clean programs in the the two revenue sports and both are in predictably upward trajectories. Can't wait to see the Bears take the field in whatever way and at whatever time it happens. They will be a special team and I will enjoy watching them prove that week after week.

---

I applied to only 2 universities, UCLA being the other. I just wonder if my life have been a little more fulfilling in terms of sports had i just decided to accept UCLA. Not really? IDK. I don't want to think about it. My head hurts.

I am excited for our Softball future. This is another income generating sport. With DN retired, I am expecting a huge turn around and much happier future sports outlook. I am hoping for Mike Smith hire. If not him, our Texas assistant, Chelsea Spencer.

bonsallbear said:

---

JSC 76 said:

---

bonsallbear said:

---

Very good! One of my favorite sci-fi series. Easy to read!

---

When I arrived at Barrington Hall in fall '71, the previous occupant of my room had left behind a hard-bound volume of the Foundation Trilogy. I still have it.

---

Isaac Asimov is just about my favorite author. The foundation series starting with prelude to foundation and ending with forward the foundation is seven books long. I finished reading this series in 1995. And now, with all this extra time on my hands I'll start back and reread the entire series. As my home gardening project is cutting into my free time, it may take me a while to get through all seven books. It's hard to fathom an author starting his story in 1951 and ending it 42 years later in 1993.

---

I liked Isaac Asimov tto. He spoke at my professional school graduation. (a TMI life experiance aside.)

Rushinbear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Just to be 100% clear:

37k is the death certificates gathered by the CDC. 60k is the notifications of death from individual health departments. Certificates lag behind by 1 to 8 weeks.

It's in the footnotes of what you cite.

There is no debate. They didnt "admit" two different numbers. They admit they are tracking deaths two ways.

It's the difference between counting a murder when the body is found with bullet holes in it, and when the corner signs the certificate. It's the difference between counting the corpses in a northern California town as you pick them up, and counting them 8 weeks later when the autopsy is done.

If you understand company's reporting, 60k is income, 37k is cash. A balance sheet, income, and cash flow all work together to build a picture. They are not conflicting views of the same information. They are the same information from different views.

37k and 60k are NOT conflicting numbers. Dont base so much emphasis on something that has literally no meaning.

---

How come CDC was reporting 60K last week? And, the footnotes in the CDC form I posted say that presumed deaths should be included. Plus, your timeline for autopsy reporting doesn't make sense.

I get the analogy to a company's financial reporting. The difference is that the earnings numbers come in shortly after the revenue. Here, you're purporting an 8 week lag. Is the govt that inefficient? (Oh, wait, did I just ask that?).

---

OK,

Above ALL, the CDC is still reporting 67,463 deaths (at 5/5/2020 10:15 pacific). They did NOT change their reporting. The added an additional resource. I believe that was a mistake, because a large percentage of the population is not educated enough to understand that there can be two methods to counting the same thing, at the same time.

Lets break this down potatohead style:

1. The CDC released a report showing 37k (now 39k) deaths. Everyone went wild about reporting adjustments to official numbers.

Here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

This number is the corner reported deaths.

It literally (as in literally) disclaims:

Quote:

---

NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.

---

and

Quote:

---

*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

---

emphasis mine

Presumed deaths are only counted if the corner reported COVID-19 as the cause of death (apparently ICD10 code U07.1). Presumed but not certificated deaths are not included.

2. The CDC also, still, has a report showing medical reported deaths. This is more timely.

here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

This data is provided by the 55 Health Departments in the country, using a known case and death (through testing) and probable through meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence.

This also has a disclaimer:

Quote:

---

In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

---

This is the presumptive case count. The CDC gets the numbers reported from the 55 regional health systems, and aggregates them. As with my financial reporting analogy, there may be *some* bad debt that needs to be cleared, but it is more likely that they will revise revenue up as additional deferred revenue is paid.



As for the "Is the govt that inefficient?"
First; The government (CDC) is not that inefficient. It takes time to have a corner look at the people and confirm cause of death. Across 55 jurisdictions, the processes and timelines can be desperate. As Americans we demand this kind of decentralized government authority. But, the CDC still gives a centralized view of the totality: they dont make the data, they just collect and report the data, in this case.

Second; You think 1-8 weeks is a long time? Aapl takes about 5 weeks to report earnings. FedEx takes almost 13 weeks. My company takes about 8 weeks. VERY few companies turn around their data in less than 4 weeks.





FWIW, I agree with some of your points. Specifically that it is looking like a Swedish model may be a better model than our measures, and probably better than China's measures. I think the lockdown did not fundamentally impact mortality more significantly that less strict measures would have, but I have the luxury of not having to make that call, AND having an additional month and a half of data. Things are NOT better now (in California) than they were on March 22. They are MUCH worse (orders of magnitude more infected walking around, so more vectors for infection now), and we are relaxing measures. That tells me that my little opinion is shared by even the most careful people.

That doesnt change that your opener (37k vs 60k count adjustment) is just wrong in its assumption that they changed the numbers. They gave a new metric. TBH, you should absolutely drop the argument, because it is based on a misinterpretation of whatever you read. It also derails the point you are trying to make, by bringing in factually inaccurate arguments.

How many posts have you made espousing the core of your argument? Zero.
How many posts have you made arguing over a misinterpreted data point? 6. So far.

---

It's not which numbers are correct, but the discrepancy and its magnitude that erodes confidence.

Confidence is further eroded when we saw political leaders (including Trump) minimizing the infection in the early weeks and encouraging people to go about their lives as if nothing was happening. This was particularly true of Gov. Cuomo and his Director of Public Health pooh-poohing the danger and arguing that people had nothing to worry about. Pelosi's encouragement of attendance at the Chinese New Year (I think it was) celebration in SF didn't help her and her Party, either. And, if you have been paying attention, it can't have skipped your attention that both Fauci and Birx had been recorded supporting the Left/Dem perspective before the infection was uncovered. Granted, Fauci warned that Trump's first term would face an epidemic, but that was in the context of the history of every modern president having faced one. Still, he said it.

The data issue is further clouded by the presentation of Gov DeSantis of Florida when he announced the initial opening of the state last week. He presented figures which showed that the actual numbers on cases and deaths are 1/10 of what they were predicted to be and FL was not a lock-down state. It's stuff like that which makes the people wonder what they're bankrupting themselves personally for.

My biggest complaint is against those who deny that this thing came on fast, that President Trump took the first actions (CDC) before the first death in the US, that big states had foreclosed their readiness in favor of spending on pet social projects (even President Trump seems to have cleaned house in the epidemiological advisory group, although I took that as exercising his prerogative to put his own people in vs Obama's and I haven't followed whether he completed the transition there), that key leaders criticize him even while distracting him with impeachment and then stood in the way of action, and that there was no understanding in common about what we were facing.

Your presentation is persuasive on the merits of science and health practices, but it seems to ignore the social/political/economic context which infect them. I think everyone's doing a good job, except those who seem not to want a good job to be done.

As to financial reports, I was an implementation project manager for a financial management software company with over 1,000 clients. We had an interactive database across as many as 18 functions which gave real time calculations on big organizations (billion $ budgets). I could give you ye revenue and net figures in seconds and final reports in a day. It would take the finance team another couple days to meet and seal them. I suspect that the CDC and other databases are years out of date and slow, but that's no excuse.

---

The way to address a pandemic is by being proactive rather than reactive. Unless you are fully prepared to take immediate action (i.e., have all necessary supplies, including testing materials, ready to be disseminated across a wide geographic expanse, have all necessary plans to distribute and utilize those supplies in place, etc. etc.), once it manifests itself, it is too late. IMO, that Is where the incumbent President dropped the ball and the American public, in particular small business, is paying the price.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-disbanded-nsc-pandemic-unit-experts-praised-69594177


[url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-disbanded-nsc-pandemic-unit-experts-praised-69594177][/url]

Big C said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Thank you. I didn't have the time nor inclination to explain this to him in detail. Especially considering he could've just googled this and got an answer. Life must be hard when you can't trust a single thing the evil mainstream media has to say.

---

ducky, if you're addressing me, yes, I am extremely frustrated that I can't trust a single thing that the evil mainstream media (your words, said in jest, I get) has to say. In case you care to mount a reply, I include Fox increasingly among them. Sadly, the media "on the other side" OANN, etc., are untrustworthy, too. Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him. I guess these days, news outlets can no longer sell neutral news reporting.

---

If Walter Cronkite was in his prime right now and doing the CBS news every evening, what do you suppose he would be saying?

---

I hate to speculate, but I know that he would be reporting events - what happened/what people did - and quoting directly. And, that's the way it would have been.

And Impeached President Trump would be vilifying him regularly. CBS is fake news in the Trump fantasy.

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence.

---

Cmon man. That's been debunked for awhile

---

I linked the image of the CDC form, with footnotes about a week ago. The 37,000 number has been made public much more recently. "Awhile" hasn't had time to transpire.

---

Ok first off, you do understand that your 37k stat is not accurate, correct?

second, things move fast in covid world. while you are spouting 37k deaths, the CDC is now projecting that by June, we could see 3000 deaths PER DAY

---

There is no accurate.

The CDC must be taken with a grain of salt, especially "projecting" and "we could see."

---

Sigh. Now you're making a whole different argument, which is fine I suppose.

Heres what you originally wrote: "No football would be a huge mistake. We see how this situation is being managed, globally, nationally and on a state level. The recent admission by the CDC that the number of deaths is 37,000, not 60,000, is the latest evidence."

You were making the argument that the CDC was more or less incompetent because their so called "admission" that their original number of deaths was inaccurate. We now know the reason for the discrepancy (something you have yet to admit).

Now that you've been called out, you're now making a completely DIFFERENT argument that no numbers are accurate. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue with you there. But again, that's a completely different argument than you were making before.

---

what is the reason for the inaccuracy?

---

Just to be 100% clear:

37k is the death certificates gathered by the CDC. 60k is the notifications of death from individual health departments. Certificates lag behind by 1 to 8 weeks.

It's in the footnotes of what you cite.

There is no debate. They didnt "admit" two different numbers. They admit they are tracking deaths two ways.

It's the difference between counting a murder when the body is found with bullet holes in it, and when the corner signs the certificate. It's the difference between counting the corpses in a northern California town as you pick them up, and counting them 8 weeks later when the autopsy is done.

If you understand company's reporting, 60k is income, 37k is cash. A balance sheet, income, and cash flow all work together to build a picture. They are not conflicting views of the same information. They are the same information from different views.

37k and 60k are NOT conflicting numbers. Dont base so much emphasis on something that has literally no meaning.

---

How come CDC was reporting 60K last week? And, the footnotes in the CDC form I posted say that presumed deaths should be included. Plus, your timeline for autopsy reporting doesn't make sense.

I get the analogy to a company's financial reporting. The difference is that the earnings numbers come in shortly after the revenue. Here, you're purporting an 8 week lag. Is the govt that inefficient? (Oh, wait, did I just ask that?).

---

OK,

Above ALL, the CDC is still reporting 67,463 deaths (at 5/5/2020 10:15 pacific). They did NOT change their reporting. The added an additional resource. I believe that was a mistake, because a large percentage of the population is not educated enough to understand that there can be two methods to counting the same thing, at the same time.

Lets break this down potatohead style:

1. The CDC released a report showing 37k (now 39k) deaths. Everyone went wild about reporting adjustments to official numbers.

Here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

This number is the corner reported deaths.

It literally (as in literally) disclaims:

Quote:

---

NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.

---

and

Quote:

---

*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

---

emphasis mine

Presumed deaths are only counted if the corner reported COVID-19 as the cause of death (apparently ICD10 code U07.1). Presumed but not certificated deaths are not included.

2. The CDC also, still, has a report showing medical reported deaths. This is more timely.

here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

This data is provided by the 55 Health Departments in the country, using a known case and death (through testing) and probable through meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence.

This also has a disclaimer:

Quote:

---

In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

---

This is the presumptive case count. The CDC gets the numbers reported from the 55 regional health systems, and aggregates them. As with my financial reporting analogy, there may be *some* bad debt that needs to be cleared, but it is more likely that they will revise revenue up as additional deferred revenue is paid.



As for the "Is the govt that inefficient?"
First; The government (CDC) is not that inefficient. It takes time to have a corner look at the people and confirm cause of death. Across 55 jurisdictions, the processes and timelines can be desperate. As Americans we demand this kind of decentralized government authority. But, the CDC still gives a centralized view of the totality: they dont make the data, they just collect and report the data, in this case.

Second; You think 1-8 weeks is a long time? Aapl takes about 5 weeks to report earnings. FedEx takes almost 13 weeks. My company takes about 8 weeks. VERY few companies turn around their data in less than 4 weeks.





FWIW, I agree with some of your points. Specifically that it is looking like a Swedish model may be a better model than our measures, and probably better than China's measures. I think the lockdown did not fundamentally impact mortality more significantly that less strict measures would have, but I have the luxury of not having to make that call, AND having an additional month and a half of data. Things are NOT better now (in California) than they were on March 22. They are MUCH worse (orders of magnitude more infected walking around, so more vectors for infection now), and we are relaxing measures. That tells me that my little opinion is shared by even the most careful people.

That doesnt change that your opener (37k vs 60k count adjustment) is just wrong in its assumption that they changed the numbers. They gave a new metric. TBH, you should absolutely drop the argument, because it is based on a misinterpretation of whatever you read. It also derails the point you are trying to make, by bringing in factually inaccurate arguments.

How many posts have you made espousing the core of your argument? Zero.
How many posts have you made arguing over a misinterpreted data point? 6. So far.

---

It's not which numbers are correct, but the discrepancy and its magnitude that erodes confidence.

Confidence is further eroded when we saw political leaders (including Trump) minimizing the infection in the early weeks and encouraging people to go about their lives as if nothing was happening. This was particularly true of Gov. Cuomo and his Director of Public Health pooh-poohing the danger and arguing that people had nothing to worry about. Pelosi's encouragement of attendance at the Chinese New Year (I think it was) celebration in SF didn't help her and her Party, either. And, if you have been paying attention, it can't have skipped your attention that both Fauci and Birx had been recorded supporting the Left/Dem perspective before the infection was uncovered. Granted, Fauci warned that Trump's first term would face an epidemic, but that was in the context of the history of every modern president having faced one. Still, he said it.

The data issue is further clouded by the presentation of Gov DeSantis of Florida when he announced the initial opening of the state last week. He presented figures which showed that the actual numbers on cases and deaths are 1/10 of what they were predicted to be and FL was not a lock-down state. It's stuff like that which makes the people wonder what they're bankrupting themselves personally for.

My biggest complaint is against those who deny that this thing came on fast, that President Trump took the first actions (CDC) before the first death in the US, that big states had foreclosed their readiness in favor of spending on pet social projects (even President Trump seems to have cleaned house in the epidemiological advisory group, although I took that as exercising his prerogative to put his own people in vs Obama's and I haven't followed whether he completed the transition there), that key leaders criticize him even while distracting him with impeachment and then stood in the way of action, and that there was no understanding in common about what we were facing.

Your presentation is persuasive on the merits of science and health practices, but it seems to ignore the social/political/economic context which infect them. I think everyone's doing a good job, except those who seem not to want a good job to be done.

As to financial reports, I was an implementation project manager for a financial management software company with over 1,000 clients. We had an interactive database across as many as 18 functions which gave real time calculations on big organizations (billion $ budgets). I could give you ye revenue and net figures in seconds and final reports in a day. It would take the finance team another couple days to meet and seal them. I suspect that the CDC and other databases are years out of date and slow, but that's no excuse.

---

The way to address a pandemic is by being proactive rather than reactive. Unless you are fully prepared to take immediate action (i.e., have all necessary supplies, including testing materials, ready to be disseminated across a wide geographic expanse, have all necessary plans to distribute and utilize those supplies in place, etc. etc.), once it manifests itself, it is too late. IMO, that Is where the incumbent President dropped the ball and the American public, in particular small business, is paying the price.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-disbanded-nsc-pandemic-unit-experts-praised-69594177


[url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-disbanded-nsc-pandemic-unit-experts-praised-69594177][/url]

---

Too late taking action?

Dec. 31 - China announced their CV19 investigation.
Jan. 7 - CDC established their incident management system.
Jan. 17 - CDC sends 100+ staff to screen all incoming Wuhan travelers at key airports.
Jan. 21 - CDC activated the emergency operations center.
Jan. 29 - President Trump established the Presidential CV19 Task Force.
Jan. 30 - President Trump declares travel ban to China.
Jan. 31 - WHO declared the virus an international contagion.
Jan. 31 - President Trump suspended entry into the US from China.
Jan. 31 - President Trump declared the Public Health Emergency.
Feb. 1 - President Trump bans all flights from China
etc.
etc.
Feb 29 - FIRST DEATH IN THE US FROM CV 19.

Each state was responsible to prepare itself and establish stores of equipment and supplies to confront a health emergency. Some did. That's never been the US govt.'s job - states rights and national govt must prepare for action with national admin/military re an epidemic. President Trump has repeatedly reported that the Obama administration left the cupboard bare. That has never been responsibly contradicted.

Meanwhile, the House Democrats were preoccupied with impeachment and did nothing.

Then, when impeachment failed, they repeatedly stalled President Trumps' efforts to take financial action. Having no further pretexts for undermining President Trump, this virus came as manna from Heaven for them.