Bexar County reports 'biggest single day increase' of 436 new cases of COVID-19

[DMC]

I didn't say they likely died of covid, I flat out said they died of covid, per the local counts.

You're getting your information from the CDC who openly states they cannot guarantee accuracy.

[tholdren]

I have simply no reason to doubt that a death certificate that says covid is not. An estimate is a completely different thing.

Probable deaths are an estimate. Do you not know that a covid death doesn't have to test posotive for COVID-19?

[DMC]

I have simply no reason to doubt that a death certificate that says covid is not. An estimate is a completely different thing.

Death certs are wrong 50% of the time even without COVID. You have a reason to doubt a death cert just out of principle.

[ElNono]

You're getting your information from the CDC who openly states they cannot guarantee accuracy.

I'm not, I'm getting my information from the local counts, which then they transmit to the CDC. I don't trust the CDC in general, considering they were lagging in counts for a long ass time vis a vis the local counts (eventually they caught up).

[tholdren]

I'm not, I'm getting my information from the local counts, which then they transmit to the CDC. I don't trust the CDC in general, considering they were lagging in counts for a long ass time vis a vis the local counts (eventually they caught up).

Local counts include deaths marked as covid but have not tested positive for covid. Its the same issue

[ElNono]

Death certs are wrong 50% of the time even without COVID. You have a reason to doubt a death cert just out of principle.

50% sounds like an exaggeration, link?. But even with minimal error, I have no reason to believe a medical prac ioner has any reason to fudge death certificates. The CDC is a different story.

[ElNono]

Local counts include deaths marked as covid but have not tested positive for covid. Its the same issue

You just tried to lie on this thread, so I'm going to put you on timeout until you had the chance to re-think why you openly lie.

I'll consider giving you some of my attention if I see you change your ways.

[tholdren]

Source: NJ Spotlight analysis of data from the NJ Department of Health.

The number of people dead from COVID-19 in New Jersey is likely about 2,000 higher than the state had been reporting, as officials announced Thursday in their first count of probable deaths due to the virus.

During his daily media briefing, Gov. Phil Murphy announced that state health officials had combed through death data and are attributing an additional 1,854 deaths since March 4 — the day the first case was announced — to the novel coronavirus. On top of 26 new lab-confirmed deaths, the total number of New Jerseyans who have died as a result of the pandemic is now nearly 15,000

[DMC]

I'm not, I'm getting my information from the local counts, which then they transmit to the CDC. I don't trust the CDC in general, considering they were lagging in counts for a long ass time vis a vis the local counts (eventually they caught up).

Reporting Issues
On a daily basis, we encounter an increasing number of reporting issues. Some of these include official governmental channels changing or retracting figures, or publishing contradictory data on different official outlets. National or State figures with old or incomplete data compared to regional, local (counties, in the US) government's reports is the norm, so we try to compensate by collecting the missing data and maintaining an accurate and timely count. -Worldometer

Thanks for the discussion, time for bed.

[DMC]

50% sounds like an exaggeration, link?. But even with minimal error, I have no reason to believe a medical prac ioner has any reason to fudge death certificates. The CDC is a different story.

Results:
Of 601 original death certificates, 319 (53%) had errors; 305 (51%) had major errors; and 59 (10%) had minor errors. We found no significant differences by certifier type (physician vs nonphysician). We did find significant differences in major errors in place of death (P < .001). Certificates for deaths occurring in hospitals were more likely to have major errors than certificates for deaths occurring at a private residence (59% vs 39%, P < .001). A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5692167/

[ElNono]

Reporting Issues
On a daily basis, we encounter an increasing number of reporting issues. Some of these include official governmental channels changing or retracting figures, or publishing contradictory data on different official outlets. National or State figures with old or incomplete data compared to regional, local (counties, in the US) government's reports is the norm, so we try to compensate by collecting the missing data and maintaining an accurate and timely count. -Worldometer

Thanks for the discussion, time for bed.

Night!

As far as what you quoted, that's good. It's clear there are gaps in recording and transmission, and apparently whenever errors are found, data is corrected. That's the way it should be, so people can't go claiming they're largely bogus numbers.

[tholdren]

A probable case or death is defined as:

A person meeting clinical criteriaAND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19;
A person meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence;
A person meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.


Clinical Criteria

At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)

OR

At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing
*cdc also added runny nose and diarrhea*

Or you dont have to have any symptoms
Epidemiologic Linkage

One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:

Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease;
OR Close contact** with a person with:clinically compatible illness ANDlinkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.

Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.

[Trainwreck2100]

No I did. Here from usc.

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

I. Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II. Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

Consider the likelihood that no one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results [“why didn't I think of that?”]. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings in the results section.

III. Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated.

IV. Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V. Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study did not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why.

VI. Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [this can be done in the overall conclusion of your paper]. Although your study may offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight previously hidden questions that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.



Recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section

This isn't a social science issue, dumbass. I don't know if social science means what you think it means. Also you didn't read the scientific paper that we are talking about, that i linked, you went to your facebook group to get some random bull , go back ask them to explain the paper to you, in their moonbat way

[ElNono]

Results:
Of 601 original death certificates, 319 (53%) had errors; 305 (51%) had major errors; and 59 (10%) had minor errors. We found no significant differences by certifier type (physician vs nonphysician). We did find significant differences in major errors in place of death (P < .001). Certificates for deaths occurring in hospitals were more likely to have major errors than certificates for deaths occurring at a private residence (59% vs 39%, P < .001). A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5692167/

That's just Vermont though. (Conclusions: Error rates on death certificates in Vermont are high and extend to ICD-10 coding).

My understanding is that nationally it's much closer to 30%, and when reduced to actual diagnosis errors (which is what matter here), even lower.

[ElNono]

Plus the point of error rates is moot, as it goes both ways, it could mean some deaths were marked as covid that were not, and the other way around (this why error rates are marked as plus minus). Thus, even if the error rate is 25%, that would put the death count between 100k and 160k. Neither number is really flattering.

[tholdren]

This isn't a social science issue, dumbass. I don't know if social science means what you think it means. Also you didn't read the scientific paper that we are talking about, that i linked, you went to your facebook group to get some random bull , go back ask them to explain the paper to you, in their moonbat way

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

Medical Library Association

How to write an original research paper (and get it published)


Always note limitations that matter, not generic limitations.

Point out unanswered questions and future directions. Give the big-picture implications of your findings, and tell your readers why they should care. End with the main findings of your study, and do not travel too far from your data. Remember to give a final take-home message along with implications

[Trainwreck2100]

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

Medical Library Association

How to write an original research paper (and get it published)


Always note limitations that matter, not generic limitations.

Point out unanswered questions and future directions. Give the big-picture implications of your findings, and tell your readers why they should care. End with the main findings of your study, and do not travel too far from your data. Remember to give a final take-home message along with implications

Ok the final take home message was they need more people for the study. Also how do you know what limitations were listed if you didn't read the paper. Also if you wouldn't mind please explain why you used a social science rubric to prove your point.

[Trainwreck2100]

I await your facebook group's response

[tholdren]

I await your facebook group's response

Just giving you multiple sources. S.a. have limitations and future research direction.
You were wrong. Its ok

[Trainwreck2100]

.

[Trainwreck2100]

Just giving you multiple sources. S.a. have limitations and future research direction.
You were wrong. Its ok

/
from usc, no hyperlink and you expect me to take your word on it. And what does that have do to with the facebook group which is what you quoted, also why did you link a social science rubric to back up your point

[tholdren]

/
from usc, no hyperlink and you expect me to take your word on it. And what does that have do to with the facebook group which is what you quoted, also why did you link a social science rubric to back up your point

You dont have to take my word for it. Thinking that published research doesn't have limitations or future implications is your error not mine. You can keep posting. I'll watch

[TimDunkem]

Metro Health director cracks.

Metro Health director resigns as COVID-19 cases surge in San Antonio

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020...n-san-antonio/

[DMC]

That's just Vermont though. (Conclusions: Error rates on death certificates in Vermont are high and extend to ICD-10 coding).

My understanding is that nationally it's much closer to 30%, and when reduced to actual diagnosis errors (which is what matter here), even lower.

There's no reason to believe Vermont has inherently flawed death cert recording that es it above other states. "No significant differences by certifier type. It stands to reason that if there are no significant difference between doctor vs non doctor, then state by state wouldn't be the deciding factor.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23588178/

Does Quality Control of Death Certificates in Hospitals Have an Impact on Cause of Death Statistics?

Interpretation: The continuous correction of death certificates in the hospital was important for adjustments at the individual level and as a quality control of cause of death statistics, but had only minor effects on the general statistics from the hospital.

The point is that death certificates are quite often wrong, and so to use numbers as a concrete proof for anything without first questioning and verifying the veracity of the numbers is to begin going down the wrong road. Bad data leads to bad conclusions.

[tholdren]

Metro Health director cracks.

Metro Health director resigns as COVID-19 cases surge in San Antonio

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020...n-san-antonio/

Great news