CDC’s COVID-19 classification criteria raise questions about public health numbers

CDC’s COVID-19 classification criteria raise questions about public health numbers
CDC's Roybal Campus in Atlanta. Wikipedia: By James Gathany, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - https://www.cdc.gov/media/subtopic/library/building.htm, Public Domain, Link

[Ed. – As Michael Thau says, the criteria, which have applied only to classifying COVID-19 interactions, are so loose they can be called preposterous.  Merely presenting with a cough is enough to get a patient fatality entered as a COVID fatality.  Since the criteria were published, the CDC budget affected by them has been increased six-fold.  The whole read is worth the time.]

[I]n March of 2020, the CDC announced some changes to the way they wanted doctors to start filling out death certificates. And a few weeks later, the CDC issued some new diagnostic guidelines.

But these changes turned out to be very narrowly focused, indeed.

The[y] didn’t affect how heart disease or cancer deaths were diagnosed or reported.

Trending: Cartoon of the Day: Blind trust

Nor did physicians need to change the way they report or diagnose the flu or any other manner of disease, accident, homicidal intention, act of God, or any other conceivable way that a human being can wind up meeting his maker any differently except for just one special ailment.

For some strange reason, the CDC decided that COVID-19 alone among all mortal perils was to get its own unique method of accounting devised especially for it. …

As an outfit called Children’s Health Defense (CHD) noted way back in July, these new criteria for diagnosing COVID-19 and listing it on death certificates turn out to so preposterously loose that they were bound to create a massive but wholly illusory increase in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths …

Continue reading →

Comments

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.