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?
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.