This is a sharp contrast to the CDC’s stance during the pandemic
The email was a response to my inquiry re: data in the team’s 5/28/21 report. I asked about the diff (if any) btw 2 categories of vaxed patients cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
Researcher confirmed “asymp or hospitalized for a reason unrelated to COVID-19” are mutually exclusive
Evaluating reported breakthru infections, the CDC team distinguishes 3 kinds of hosp patients. Per email, Patients B & C are “cases [they] know are not related to infection…whose outcomes were clearly NOT related to C19.”
Patient A? Data “isn’t strong enough to say”
Per the team’s end of May report, nearly 30% of vaccinated hospitalized-for-some-reason patients tested positive for the virus.
Again, the lead researcher says these are “cases we know are not related to infection.”
This is a departure from the CDC’s implicit counting standards that have been applied throughout the pandemic
All three “positive patient types” are included in local, state, & national data — even tho there’s no reason Patient B or C should be in case, hosp, or death numbers
To be clear, I agree with the approach in the left image, as a starting point for reporting ALL data – not just breakthrough infections.
What would our national numbers look like if it were applied?
Hint: very different
Here’s a table view of the same information.
Again, there’s no earthly reason for the differential standards.
In many ways, the first sentence in the email is the most ?
Quite an admission from the agency that has liberally defined COVID cases, hospitalizations, & deaths for over a year – to the detriment of the economy, mental health, & societal fabric, among other things
I don’t wish COVID were smallpox, but the truth is, many deadly pathogens have clear-cut, telltale signs that leave little doubt about cause.
By contrast, for this virus, we have the “any death within x number of days of a positive test” definition.
Sloppy, at best. 10/ I stand by the assertions I made after reading the article a couple weeks ago
Neither “asymptomatic COVID hospitalization” nor “asyptomatic COVID death” is a thing.
Apparently, CDC’s Vaccine Breakthrough Team agrees with me.
Why aren’t the standards the CDC’s vaccine breakthrough team is using being used to audit & revised numbers from the entire pandemic?
We need more info about what standards various counties have been applying
How many more Almeda Counties are there?
https://oaklandside.org/2021/06/04/alameda-countys-new-covid-death-toll-is-25-lower-than-thought/
Honestly, we just need to STOP
?Stop PCR-testing every hospital patient for COVID.
?Stop testing – and encouraging the testing – of asymptomatic individuals, regardless of setting or situation. 13/
?Stop calling people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 a COVID “case”. Remove or provide a breakdown of asymptomatic positives in all data at the local, state, and federal levels. 14/
?Stop listing COVID as a cause of death when COVID clearly didn’t contribute to or cause the death.
?Stop the daily reporting of test, case, hospitalization, and death numbers. 15/ Finally,?pretending the virus isn’t endemic, seasonal, and eminently survivable.
(h/t @TTBikeFit for help with graphics)
cc: @EthicalSkeptic@andrewbostom@Hold2LLC@klfaber1@AlecMacGillis@AlexBerenson@TracyBethHoegClarification: I am NOT saying the CDC has changed standards for reporting Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
I’m showing that the CDC’s Vax Breakthrough team does not consider asymp/incidental-positive hospitalizations/deaths as related to SARS-CoV-2 infection… The point is, the team’s “criteria” for evaluating the breakthrough data should be applied retroactively and henceforth to all Covid data.
Throughout the pandemic, asymp & incidental positives hv been weaponized to justify bad public health policies.