The administration orders hospitals to bypass the C.D.C. with key virus data, alarming health experts.

nytimes ^ | 7/14/2020

[little jeremiah]

That's not what I read directly on the CDC within the last couple of weeks. I'll try to find. Attempting to search CDC is not easy, naturally. Let's see what I can dig up.

Link, which I did see on the CDC site but can't find now, seems they may not want people to know this, please click link to see all the info, I can't copy it. And probable cases are mixed with positive tests although this document may not state that:

NEW Covid-19 Case Definions.pdf

And in case anyone wants more evidence, read the article below.

CDC Grossly Overcounting Active China Coronavirus Cases Causing States to Keep Their Economies Closed Indefinitely

Snip, more at link:

A report released Thursday from the Government Accountability Office levied criticism at the CDC for combining active cases of the coronavirus and positive antibody tests, which may give a misleading view of nationwide testing and spread.

[little jeremiah]

Trump’s CDC? It’s an agency that has not been cleaned out yet.

Hopefully soon. It’s basically an arm of the pharmaceutical companies with the mission to get people vaccinated.

[Cobra64]

Too late. Besides, everyone in the chain gets paid for their fraud participation.

Trump reminds me of Mr. Rogers. “A beautiful day in the neighborhood.”

He misses the rampant fraud and illegal activity all around the country.

[Renkluaf]

Anything that alarms the NY Times is OK in my book.

[little jeremiah]

(None so blind as he who doesn’t wanna see.)

So you gonna vote for Bitem? Or write in Sanders?

[mdmathis6]

And that is how you make 300 votes appear for Hillary vs 6 votes for Trump from 51 actual vote scan ballots as was what had happened in a voting precinct in Detroit...

The Dems really don’t change their methods...do they?

[spacejunkie2001]

Yes, 100%. Please, please, PLEASE...gut the CDC soon.

[semimojo]

That's not what I read directly on the CDC within the last couple of weeks. I'll try to find.

I gave you the link. Here it is again:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

And probable cases are mixed with positive tests although this document may not state that:

That's from a local government presentation given in Collin County, TX weeks ago. The current definition from the CDC, which is the agency setting the rules and reporting the cases, is at the link I gave you.

A report released Thursday from the Government Accountability Office levied criticism at the CDC for combining active cases of the coronavirus and positive antibody tests...

Yes, six weeks ago when that report came out there was still some mixing of PRC and serology test reporting. I notice there's nothing here about this idiotic notion that they're counting random contacts as cases.

[Cobra64]

Huh?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Projecting much cdc?

[semimojo]

Who’s this kinky so-and-so?

Bon marche as far as she can tell.

[AmericanMermaid]

Wonderful idea! Would really like to see this happen. I wish President Trump had caught on to them sooner.

[The Toddler]

Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19 Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19""

How very naive to think that clinical criteria and epidemiological evidence can not be in the eye of the beholder. We know for a fact that the numbers are being inflated for political reasons (vote by mail, harm the economy, instill fear). So your defence of the CDC rings hollow.

[AppyPappy]

It’s already distorted

[mewzilla]

Close contacts of positives are considered probable cases, and at least some state and local governments have been including probable cases in the new case counts.

Who the heck knows what the damn CDC is doing.