1. Recording COVID-19 on the medical certificate of cause of death

COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.
2. Terminology

The use of official terminology, as recommended by the World Health Organization (i.e. COVID-19) should be used for all certification of this cause of death.
As there are many types of coronaviruses it is recommended not to use “coronavirus” in place of COVID-19. This will help to reduce uncertainty for coding and monitoring these deaths which may lead to underreporting.
3. Chain of events

Due to the public health importance of COVID-19, when it is thought to have caused or contributed to death it should be recorded in Part I of the medical certificate of cause of death.
Specification of the causal sequence leading to death in Part I of the certificate is also important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.

Example:

Immediate cause: Acute respiratory distress syndrome
Conditions leading to the cause: Pneumonia, COVID-19
4. Co-morbidities

There is increasing evidence that people with existing chronic conditions or compromised immune systems due to disability are at greater risk of death due to COVID-19. Chronic conditions may be non-communicable diseases such as coronary artery disease, COPD, and diabetes or disabilities. If the decedent had existing chronic conditions, such as those listed above, these should be listed in Part II of the medical certificate of cause of death.

Example:
Other significant conditions contributing to death but not related to the disease or conditions causing it:

Coronary artery disease
Type 2 diabetes
COPD​

https://www.cpsbc.ca/news/publicatio...2-mar-apr-2020

Reporting guidelines from CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

Where can u watch the full video?

I believe that is a rule for Britain/UK data collection... Anyone who died within 28 days of positive test is considered a covid death

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...ovid-19-deaths

Here in America I believe you have to either test positive at the time of death or die during a hospital stay for covid, even if you'd technically beaten the disease by the time you passed.

Good stuff, JLC, I completely disagree with your strong stance on vaccines, but I'll go through the links. I think it's good for all sides to come to some kind of agreement on basics before engaging in specifics.

Here, probably step 1, let's talk and agree on how covid deaths were calculated. Then vaccines. After that, then go into the woods and talk about the nuance of big tech shutting down certain speech or overly promoting others, which is more of an opinion than hard fact.

I don't have a strong stance on vaccines. But there are a lot of sensationalized claims used to support anti vaccination views, which seem difficult to support.

It is a very common and well known TACTIC used here all the time by the usual subjects, it goes like this.

1. YOU ARE WRONG!
2. OKAY assuming that i am wrong.... provide me data and examples and links so i can revisit my hypothesis.
3. You are a poopy face and wrong!
4. Okay provide me anything at all, so i can take another look at my hypothesis.
5. You suck, i wont do that..... because you are not worth the time.

rinse and repeat
It is like a script
Best of luck!

Don't know, but here is a link where you can download the book he wrote -

https://book4you.org/book/11187957/9519a4

Are they made up if it's just a misplaced decimal point? Or is that an arithmetic error? The other edit was due to copying the Moderna data from the calculator when I was editing my mistake with the Pfizer. Again, not made up, just a boozy copy paste mistake. Made up implies fabrication.

It's all laid out there for you, man. If you can't get past it, I suppose that's unfortunate.

Lies are generally intentional. Errors and mistakes are generally accidental.

Perhaps you're stuck on the arithmetic errors because you don't have anything else to offer to the discussion?

My typos don't really support your position, so it's an odd thing upon which to rely.

Lol this thread went south ............Good luck in your choice ...personally i will take my naturally acquired immunity over a vax, eventually all will have to get infected one way or other, just hope that if you haven't its a benign variant and not a more aggressive one in terms of bodily impact, history would suggest it will get weaker and then endemic , but seeing as this chit most likely came out of a lab this cannot be assured

Most reasonable people post a link(verifiable) and copy and paste the information to the page.

how many times have you said pfizer stock didnt go up on this forum?

i said it went up a little in *another* thread; when i last checked it was about 8-10 bucks.
Moderna was much more.

You use google, click on cnbc, select 5 year to get the last 18 months, and look at the ranges.

that's because you're looking at the wrong ticker

you are definitely uninformed, i'll forgive your ignorance

Thanks for posting the link, bwaaaa, so helpful, and proof!

lol use google

...Looking like a bit of a hypocrite Benny. It certainly wouldn't be the first time though.

Individuals will vary risk to risk.

We don't fully understand the risk associated with getting covid, but have some knowledge there. Short term more than the potential long haul/term sides.

Same with vaccines, just less so. I think we have less understanding of the risks there, although at least short-term, we're not seeing 1 out of 100 dropping dead or anything.

With that base of knowledge, we can make some assumptions. For some individuals, you factor the potential benefits/threat of the vaccine against the potential threat of covid.

Like, take myself for example. Not super young, not super old. Not obese if you factor just fat and ignore my overall weight (ie. a little muscle). No other comorbidities. My overall threat to covid is very small. If I left it there, I could not say with any certainty the vaccines were a greater threat than covid and one could make a strong argument that I might want to consider vaccination. While covid is not a great threat, the known threat of the vaccine is also not great. I would counter-argue the known threat(s) might push me towards it but as covid itself is such a non-threat I might want to not be vaccinated simply because of the unknown potential for long-term damage/harm.

And at that point, it's a coin toss. Run the risk of covid, which is small, vs. some level of protection with a small chance of short-term harm and an unknown potential for long-term harm.

However, in my case - I have actually had and fully recovered from covid. Studies suggest vaccination offers no real benefit and the already low risk of covid is now almost nothing. So, for me - as small as the known short-term threat of vaccines (the rare instances of blood clots, bells palsy, heart issues, also taking some in account for all the odd 'coincidental' perfectly healthy people having issues that are unexplained and correlated with vaccination), even if that is small - it's not smaller than my chances of getting covid twice and getting fuked there. Those odds are statistically near zero. I also factor that my experience with covid was mild and lower than a flu by a huge margin. I rate it as 'bad allergies' level.

So, for me... I do not want nor need vaccination and I do not think it is a wise choice to get it, regardless of the risk being mild or not.

Which studies suggest no benefit from vaccines?

None that I am aware of.

I believe that "benefit net of risk" is at least questionable for those at low risk from the virus.

For those who have already had it, Israel recently dropped one. I made a thread about it in the randp, don't care to dig around and find it. The gist, if you've had covid and recovered, this one study found no benefit to vaccination.

How do you define recent?

Well it's relevant in the sense that seroreversion has been shown to occur at 7-8 months post infection.

Well, you said there's no metric, but seroconversion and seroreversion are time-dependent metrics.

So you're sticking to the no metric argument?

IMO, I think both you guys are kind of past the point of having any kind of debate. Seems too personal.

Addressing this, and my personal bias leans against the vaccines, but this is a novel virus and one that seems to not play by standard rules. So, getting it and then gaining some level or complete immunity is not a no-brainer. Many, most I believe, viruses might work that way but let's make sure here.

Has anyone much looked into this? I know there is some study that measures antibodies, as if that's all that matters, and they appear to last at least up to a year for those who recover. JLC, are you aware of something I am not (and that is entirely possible)?

For now, short term, talking within 12m, everything I've seen points that natural immunity lasts and is superior to the vaccine by a large margin in it's protection.

There is one study I know of (it'll take me a bit to find it again) that looked at Delta effects on those previously infected by Alpha and benefit of Pfizer.