Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[BabaYaga 15532]

A virus being studied in a lab that may or may no have "escaped" =/= mean it was created in a lab.  That is the distinction I think most are making.  

[BabaYaga 15532]

18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This seems overtly political and mentions a politician by name. Just change the name of the thread already and stop pretending it’s most prolific posters are engaging in a discussion that isn’t political 

Fair enough.  I don't have the option to edit or alter the post.  But your point is taken.

[Enchubben 5598]

I like the theory that it was being studied in the lab on test animals, and that the test animals were later sold at the wet market for food.

Voila - both sides appeased.  And yes, China is still asshole. 

[Eskimohorn 5675]

A virus being studied in a lab that may or may no have "escaped" =/= mean it was created in a lab.  That is the distinction I think most are making.  

The so and so’s also dont believe it “escaped” from the lab.

[atomheartbevo 90548]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A virus being studied in a lab that may or may no have "escaped" =/= mean it was created in a lab.  That is the distinction I think most are making.  

The problem is, the Alex Jones of the world have a bullhorn that's arguably as loud as the experts.  Well, maybe not quite as loud as far as Jones is concerned, seeing as how Jones fucked up and got kicked off of a bunch of platforms.  I'm still seeing conspiracy shit being tossed around by relatives and a few friends.

The urge to create a conspiracy site and cash in on the moneys has been great over the past few months.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

25 minutes ago, Lobo said:

expertise on east asian bat viruses to bear

There's your problem right there. Anyone trying to create a bat/bear hybrid is just messing with nature.

[atomheartbevo 90548]

38 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And it's not BS to question where it originated, If it was a wet market so be it, but the fact they were studying this particular virus, in Wuhan is very suspicious.

What Brisket said:

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or, you can ask a simple question incorporating the obvious:

"How much sense does it make for a virology lab to be studying a type of virus that 1) is endemic to that very region when 2) that type of virus has an established record of becoming a threat to human health (SARS, MERS)?"

I mean....it's the same reason that Texas universities study hurricanes and coastal flooding, and California universities study earthquakes.  It's not because Texas universities have a secret "let's cause hurricanes" plan.

Coronaviruses are a long-known and established threat to human health, and becoming a pandemic.  They are endemic to that region.  It makes sense to have a local lab studying it, AND, because the type has shown that it can make the animal-human leap AND travel to become a potential pandemic, it likewise makes sense that other players -- like entities from other countries -- would be involved there.  Occam's razor and shit.

When you look back at it, we've been damn lucky since the 1910s.   We got damned lucked with H1N!, SARs/MERs/etc., ebola, etc., and given how interconnected we are, we should be putting a lot more resources into this stuff. 

Hell, maybe this will be what spurs us to invest more in it.

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The problem is, the Alex Jones of the world have a bullhorn that's arguably as loud as the experts.  Well, maybe not quite as loud as far as Jones is concerned, seeing as how Jones fucked up and got kicked off of a bunch of platforms.  I'm still seeing conspiracy shit being tossed around by relatives and a few friends.

The urge to create a conspiracy site and cash in on the moneys has been great over the past few months.

The internet abhors a vacuum....

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I like the theory that it was being studied in the lab on test animals, and that the test animals were later sold at the wet market for food.

Voila - both sides appeased.  And yes, China is still asshole. 

Good God, can you imagine the savings to be had on "Testing Animal Day" at the Wet Market?  Holy shit.

"I saw the Wuhan Labs trucking pulling up there last night.  We're gonna get in line now, the only thing better than the exoticism is the savings!"  

Like some kinda Black Friday at Wal-Mart from hell.  

 

And yes, the "so-and-so's" said neither man-made, nor jumped out of a Lab.  I love that the three guys in my post collectively have less trust on this thread than some youtube channels.  

[Hmmm 155]

Can we all agree that any lab (anywhere) studying viruses that could cause a pandemic should be located in the middle of nowhere, like a nuke test site.  Is that too much to ask?

[BabaYaga 15532]

Just now, Hmmm said:

Can we all agree that any lab (anywhere) studying viruses that could cause a pandemic should be located in the middle of nowhere, like a nuke test site.  Is that too much to ask?

Hence our use in W.Virginny....

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Hence our use in W.Virginny....

Most of them are mutants anyway, so what is the actual damage that could be done anyway?

[BabaYaga 15532]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Most of them are mutants anyway, so what is the actual damage that could be done anyway?

Some mutations can be beneficial....

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

What Brisket said:

When you look back at it, we've been damn lucky since the 1910s.   We got damned lucked with H1N!, SARs/MERs/etc., ebola, etc., and given how interconnected we are, we should be putting a lot more resources into this stuff. 

Hell, maybe this will be what spurs us to invest more in it.

I fully admit that when I first started seeing stories on this new virus flaring up in China -- before this thread even started -- I was dismissive.  In my mind, I remembered SARS, which while scary, we contained relatively quickly and convincingly, and I just assumed this would be the same.

Turns out that a few relatively small differences in the virus -- more easily transferred, asymptomatic transfer -- made all the difference.

As humanity, our greatest threats in the future will be collective ones like this.  We can pretend that "strict immigration and travel controls" are a panacea, but unless we have NO international travel (and that's not going to happen), that discussion is pointless.  There will be travel between the US and Asia and Europe in the future.  We can't be an island.  And if we can't be an island, then we need to invest in species-wide protective measures.  We've gotten lucky with other viruses.  We ran out of luck.  Time to be prepared for the next one, instead of hoping to be lucky again.

[XYZ 2154]

5 minutes ago, Hmmm said:

Can we all agree that any lab (anywhere) studying viruses that could cause a pandemic should be located in the middle of nowhere, like a nuke test site.  Is that too much to ask?

No, let’s put them in the middle of cities of 11 million people.

[atomheartbevo 90548]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The internet abhors a vacuum....

But it loves clickbait.

[Royalfan5 2383]

Livestock runs continue to improve, cattle are up about 12-15% on the week, and about 78% of normal now, hogs are about 30% ahead week on week, and about 75% of normal as well. We look to be tracking to be back towards 85% of capacity by the end of the week, which should probably get fresh beef and pork trending a little lower in the stores next week assuming the gov't purchase program doesn't screw things up. Milk futures continue to climb as well as the dairy processors have adjusted better/not seen the slow down the packers had, mostly because it's much much less shoulder to shoulder labor. 

[squib 1131]

14 minutes ago, Hmmm said:

Can we all agree that any lab (anywhere) studying viruses that could cause a pandemic should be located in the middle of nowhere, like a nuke test site.  Is that too much to ask?

But Oklahoma is too close to Texas for my liking. 

[atomheartbevo 90548]

8 minutes ago, XYZ said:

No, let’s put them in the middle of cities of 11 million people.

To be fair, in China, towns have 5 million people, and villages have 1 million people.

[atomheartbevo 90548]

CDC says there's another 5,000 or so deaths that could be attributed to covid in NYC

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/cdc-finds-additional-5000-nyc-deaths-possibly-linked-to-coronavirus.html

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

One of the things I keep hearing  is so and so says this wasn't created in a lab.  I don't think most rational people think it was created in a lab, but a great many believe it was being studied in a lab, and protocol wasn't observed, or some other type of accident occurred. That's how it may have been released.  That or it did come from a wet market.

[Royalfan5 2383]

22 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Hence our use in W.Virginny....

They're building the animal biodefense lab right next to Bill Snyder Family Stadium too. 

[BabaYaga 15532]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

CDC says there's another 5,000 or so deaths that could be attributed to covid in NYC

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/cdc-finds-additional-5000-nyc-deaths-possibly-linked-to-coronavirus.html

 

In the middle of a pandemic.  At the epicenter of the domestic pandemic.  Fatalities with fatal symptoms aligned with those of the pandemic?  Were not tested at the time of death for the virus?  What am I missing here?

 

Quote

U.S. health officials have identified 5,000 additional deaths in New York City between March and early May that may have been caused by the coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday.

New York City health officials reported 18,879 total Covid-19 deaths between March 11 and May 2, — 13,831 of which were confirmed by a lab and 5,048 of which were categorized as probable cases based on the patients’ symptoms and other factors, according to a new CDC report.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

 

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

CDC says there's another 5,000 or so deaths that could be attributed to covid in NYC

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/cdc-finds-additional-5000-nyc-deaths-possibly-linked-to-coronavirus.html

“might have been directly or indirectly attributable to the pandemic.”

WTF does that mean? I got WuFlu and also was in late stage cancer so "indirectly attributable"? 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8963]

CDC says there's another 5,000 or so deaths that could be attributed to covid in NYC

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/cdc-finds-additional-5000-nyc-deaths-possibly-linked-to-coronavirus.html

 

Lol. If anything comes out of this...Ive learned the cdc is just a guessing game and has a range to be off in the tens of thousands

[BabaYaga 15532]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

 

“might have been directly or indirectly attributable to the pandemic.”

WTF does that mean? I got WuFlu and also was in late stage cancer so "indirectly attributable"? 

With the growing desperation of hospitals, the tin foil hat brigade can make a compelling case for the perverse incentive baked into the stimulus for attribution.  Not saying that is the case, but you can't ignore how it is structured either.  We already known the UE pay is keeping people on the sidelines, but 5,000+ people diagnosed (assume those that passed were put on a ventilator as a last ditch to try and save them), that's $39,000 X 5,000......or $195M.  In a state that saw a $6B deficit grow to $13B in two months.  Lots a hinky stuff has gone down for a lot less than $100+M.  

[JBJ 3780]

I haven't made a snapshot post of my model in a while.  There's two causes (1) I'm exceptionally busy with my real life (2) it's essentially the same as the last time I posted: slow slope downward on infections/day.  Transmission rate at 0.09.  IFR at 0.65%.

------

Instead I'll opine on the melange of popular topics:

Origin -  The virus seemingly to went from a horseshoe bat to either a pangolin (chinese armadillo) or some kind of snake then to humans.

Live market: This hypothesis is very much plausable.  This certain snake and bat are uncommon but actual foods and the pangolins are sold because the scales have medicinal value.

Natural contact: No idea.  Someone needs to get a bat, pangolin, and snake expert into a room to figure out if and how much these specific species may or may not interact in nature.  Bats tend to cover large distances and are immune to the natural boundries that inhibit those of us walking around.

Lab (accident): I think this is actually equally or more likely a scenario than above.  The SARS-COV family of viruses is actually one of the most studied viruses in the world right now and part of that research does create new strains. Many of these varieties are accessible down to even the graduate/doctoral level even if the access is controlled and monitored.  I'm not sure exactly what the safety and security protocols are in China, but they in the past at least did not meet the US standard.  The two biggest labs heading up this type of research are in Wuhan and somewhere in the US that I can't remember (California?).  There's no record of a similar strain in online databases before 2020 (besides the bat one itself), but China gonna China.

Lab (purposeful): I don't think there's much evidence to support this.  Much of the evidence used against it, I don't find compelling either.  I've seen two "studies" telling us what a bioweapon would look like and how this doesn't look like one.  Ironically, the studies had differing criteria for what a bioweapon should look like to begin with.  At best they were telling us how much better their bioweapon would be.  They are also assuming that someone had infinite resources before releasing this and didn't get grab whatever they could get their hands on.  It would be expected to quickly mutate into something else after the inital release anyway.  I'm not a big fan of this hypothesis, but it's also not patently false.  I will say that there would be no better cover than to release this in Wuhan, where there are several other origins as distractions.

----

What this thing looks like in a month: No one knows, everyone will claim they were right.  We are staring into a blackhole just like we were in March.

It's not clear how much reduction was social driven and how much is policy driven.  I'm leaning towards social being more important overall, but one also does inform the other.  You should be very skeptical of "government does X and we get Y" hindcasting or projection.  We are very unlikely to go back to anything close to the inital surge of the virus in any scenario cooked up by governmental leadership.

We should start to see some data following the effects of lifted restrictions as early as next week.

[Pato del Muerto 53332]

59 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A virus being studied in a lab that may or may no have "escaped" =/= mean it was created in a lab.  That is the distinction I think most are making.  

That’s a distinction without a difference when the topic is where did this outbreak originate. 

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That’s a distinction without a difference when the topic is where did this outbreak originate. 

Lobo has discussing the absurdity of the suggestion it was engineered in a lab, citing multiple papers as sources.  

[Pato del Muerto 53332]

37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I fully admit that when I first started seeing stories on this new virus flaring up in China -- before this thread even started -- I was dismissive.  In my mind, I remembered SARS, which while scary, we contained relatively quickly and convincingly, and I just assumed this would be the same.

Turns out that a few relatively small differences in the virus -- more easily transferred, asymptomatic transfer -- made all the difference.

As humanity, our greatest threats in the future will be collective ones like this.  We can pretend that "strict immigration and travel controls" are a panacea, but unless we have NO international travel (and that's not going to happen), that discussion is pointless.  There will be travel between the US and Asia and Europe in the future.  We can't be an island.  And if we can't be an island, then we need to invest in species-wide protective measures.  We've gotten lucky with other viruses.  We ran out of luck.  Time to be prepared for the next one, instead of hoping to be lucky again.

We still got lucky with this one. The death rate is still low, relatively speaking and it prefers to kill those that are past the age of procreation. 

[dcar00 14904]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

In the middle of a pandemic.  At the epicenter of the domestic pandemic.  Fatalities with fatal symptoms aligned with those of the pandemic?  Were not tested at the time of death for the virus?  What am I missing here?

 

 

the CDC already had these in their numbers.  They were counting 5300 deaths as the maybes and documenting them as the maybes on their website.  about 2 weeks ago the maybes "disappeared" from CDC.  NYC did a catch up/maybes day in earlier April when they reported 6000 people died.  now they are going to want to count them again? my assumption is that 8-10% of the deaths you see on 1point3/worldometers are maybes.  1point3 had a 3778 number for maybes on their website and it changed numbers for a few days and then the number of deaths on the comment disappeared but the comment about maybes remained.

Here's the issue. the CDC is going to want to do what they did with other virus death info and extrapolate death counts.  the problem is that this is the most heavily tracked virus in history with obvious tests.  I'd like to see a state by state breakdown of covid 19 tested deaths and maybe covid 19 deaths.  They need to get all the maybes in now because they won't be able to revise it upward later.

[jimmyjazz 46976]

25 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

“might have been directly or indirectly attributable to the pandemic.”

WTF does that mean? I got WuFlu and also was in late stage cancer so "indirectly attributable"? 

Seems like the article points out what it means -- excess deaths for say, colon cancer, above the seasonal expectation in patients who also exhibit covid symptoms.  I don't think that's an unreasonable way to approach it.

[clapclapclap 9000]

Da stwuggle is weal:

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by clapclapclap

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

the CDC already had these in their numbers.  They were counting 5300 deaths as the maybes and documenting them as the maybes on their website.  about 2 weeks ago the maybes "disappeared" from CDC.  NYC did a catch up/maybes day in earlier April when they reported 6000 people died.  now they are going to want to count them again? my assumption is that 8-10% of the deaths you see on 1point3/worldometers are maybes.  1point3 had a 3778 number for maybes on their website and it changed numbers for a few days and then the number of deaths on the comment disappeared but the comment about maybes remained.

Here's the issue. the CDC is going to want to do what they did with other virus death info and extrapolate death counts.  the problem is that this is the most heavily tracked virus in history with obvious tests.  I'd like to see a state by state breakdown of covid 19 tested deaths and maybe covid 19 deaths.  They need to get all the maybes in now because they won't be able to revise it upward later.

Yet there's also very clear evidence that there have been many COVID cases and deaths that were never tested (which makes sense, as we still don't have a very high testing rate at all).

There are sound arguments that there are some places where there might be overcounts.  And other sound arguments that there have been undercounts.  We'll never have an exact number, and my suspicion is that errors in accounting both directions mean the numbers largely come out as a wash -- I think the CDC estimated number is pretty close to accurate, +/- 10 to 20%.  And honestly, that's about as accurate as we could ever hope for.  Even for a closely tracked virus.

[BabaYaga 15532]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

the CDC already had these in their numbers.  They were counting 5300 deaths as the maybes and documenting them as the maybes on their website.  about 2 weeks ago the maybes "disappeared" from CDC.  NYC did a catch up/maybes day in earlier April when they reported 6000 people died.  now they are going to want to count them again? my assumption is that 8-10% of the deaths you see on 1point3/worldometers are maybes.  1point3 had a 3778 number for maybes on their website and it changed numbers for a few days and then the number of deaths on the comment disappeared but the comment about maybes remained.

Here's the issue. the CDC is going to want to do what they did with other virus death info and extrapolate death counts.  the problem is that this is the most heavily tracked virus in history with obvious tests.  I'd like to see a state by state breakdown of covid 19 tested deaths and maybe covid 19 deaths.  They need to get all the maybes in now because they won't be able to revise it upward later.

I'm not questioning the numbers.  I"m questioning a lack of testing as it relates to attribution.  The time period here precludes a scarcity of tests. 

[gmr548 16681]

Ok, this is cool.  Pollen burn, but the grass does not?  Can we do this in Texas, keep the sneezing a little more under control.  
 

Woah.

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet there's also very clear evidence that there have been many COVID cases and deaths that were never tested (which makes sense, as we still don't have a very high testing rate at all).

For 300+ dispersed million people spread across tens of thousands of miles, yes.  For attribution at the epicenter of the domestic pandemic covering less than 11 miles, no.  Access to testing doesn't seem a viable explanation here.  

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Seems like the article points out what it means -- excess deaths for say, colon cancer, above the seasonal expectation in patients who also exhibit covid symptoms.  I don't think that's an unreasonable way to approach it.

I don't disagree with you, but I do believe that waters down the "real impact" of the virus. 

[Brisketexan 106627]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

For 300+ dispersed million people spread across tens of thousands of miles, yes.  For attribution at the epicenter of the domestic pandemic covering less than 11 miles, no.  Access to testing doesn't seem a viable explanation here.  

Yet there was an abnormally high number of "deaths at home" during that period, in that location (particularly early in the outbreak).  As the outbreak exploded, testing was a challenge in NY, and again, some people just flat-out died at home, without every having obtained a test, and the authorities weren't wasting tests on corpses.

It was and remains a relatively fast-moving pandemic, still with limited testing available.  We were never going to have exact numbers, and we won't going forward, either.

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

and the authorities weren't wasting tests on corpses.

That makes absolutely zero sense.  You have the epicenter of a global pandemic, people dying left and right, and you don't test them?  

[Brisketexan 106627]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That makes absolutely zero sense.  You have the epicenter of a global pandemic, people dying left and right, and you don't test them?  

I don't know if it makes sense or not.  I just know that they weren't doing it.  And for that matter, yeah, it actually does make sense.  Again, dead people weren't a priority -- I mean, they were stacking them in refrigerated trucks.

The 20/20 hindsight here is something else.  Having worked in an unfolding crisis or two, I can tell you that "accurate data collection" is item 5,987,453 on the list of shit the authorities are managing.  That's just reality.

[dcar00 14904]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet there's also very clear evidence that there have been many COVID cases and deaths that were never tested (which makes sense, as we still don't have a very high testing rate at all).

There are sound arguments that there are some places where there might be overcounts.  And other sound arguments that there have been undercounts.  We'll never have an exact number, and my suspicion is that errors in accounting both directions mean the numbers largely come out as a wash -- I think the CDC estimated number is pretty close to accurate, +/- 10 to 20%.  And honestly, that's about as accurate as we could ever hope for.  Even for a closely tracked virus.

+/- 10% of the confirmed tested is probably reasonable

Edited May 11, 2020 by dcar00

[drt 645]

uh, yeah...if a dude gets brought in to a strapped ER in cardiac arrest and can't be revived, do you really think it makes sense for an already stretched staff reusing PPE to further risk infection to swab a dead guy?  they're already in the next room trying to save the next guy.

[BabaYaga 15532]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I don't know if it makes sense or not.  I just know that they weren't doing it.  And for that matter, yeah, it actually does make sense.  Again, dead people weren't a priority -- I mean, they were stacking them in refrigerated trucks.

The 20/20 hindsight here is something else.  Having worked in an unfolding crisis or two, I can tell you that "accurate data collection" is item 5,987,453 on the list of shit the authorities are managing.  That's just reality.

How do we have definitive proof this wasn't happening?  News articles?  It's virtually SOP to test cases that may be related (outside of acute incidents like accidents, drowning, trauma, etc) to better glean the impact and scope of a pandemic.  Further, during this time period testing was not rampant, but it wasn't scarce either.  This sounds too much like conjecture.  

[dcar00 14904]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet there was an abnormally high number of "deaths at home" during that period, in that location (particularly early in the outbreak).  As the outbreak exploded, testing was a challenge in NY, and again, some people just flat-out died at home, without every having obtained a test, and the authorities weren't wasting tests on corpses.

It was and remains a relatively fast-moving pandemic, still with limited testing available.  We were never going to have exact numbers, and we won't going forward, either.

I saw Cuomo claim 66% of NY deaths at home.

In this day and age,  IMO it should be pretty easy to track. the CDC is severely antiquated.   if it is confirmed tested say it is and report it as such, if it is a probable, say it is and report it as such.

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

How do we have definitive proof this wasn't happening?  News articles?  It's virtually SOP to test cases that may be related (outside of acute incidents like accidents, drowning, trauma, etc) to better glean the impact and scope of a pandemic.  Further, during this time period testing was not rampant, but it wasn't scarce either.  This sounds too much like conjecture.  

I mean, I'm not gonna spend a half hour on google, but yes there were and are several articles discussing the phenomenon.  And even though tests were more available in NY than in other places, they still weren't just sitting around, you'd have to prioritize testing corpses that never even made it to a hospital, etc.  Recall that NY was using ambulances from other states at the peak of this -- this was not exactly a well-oiled, well-organized machine.

You're making absolute sense in talking about the way things SHOULD be done.  I'm just observing that in messy reality world, the way things should be done is rarely what's actually done.  This outcome doesn't surprise me at all.  There's nothing sinister here.  It's just how human systems work in these situations.

[Armybrat 41321]

54 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

We still got lucky with this one. The death rate is still low, relatively speaking and it prefers to kill those that are past the age of procreation. 

For some odd reason that doesn’t make me feel better about the situation. 

[Dahobbs 18190]

 

49 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

the CDC already had these in their numbers.  They were counting 5300 deaths as the maybes and documenting them as the maybes on their website.  about 2 weeks ago the maybes "disappeared" from CDC. 

That didn't happen. I've responded to this claim before. The CDC has different systems for tracking mortality. The "disappeared" numbers are just from a different system that is less up-to-date.

On 5/4/2020 at 11:04 AM, Dahobbs said:

Guys, it is not a revision. You're just looking at estimates from different systems in the federal government with different lag times. Here is the Covid tracking from the main tracking site showing >65,000 deaths. Notably, it is updated as of May 3rd as opposed to May 1 the other link. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

The other link (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm) is data specific to the National Vital Statistics System. I believe this is the same data used in the FluView system, and it is not as up-to-date as the other tracking. From the link:

I put some important bits in bold. You can see this isn't as up-to-date because it goes from 10,000 deaths on the week ending on 18th to 3,000 deaths on the week ending on the 25th. Basically, the prior CDC numbers are more real-time reporting, while the smaller CDC number lags by quite a bit because it requires more robust records to be submitted to the system and reviewed by the National Center for Health Statistics. 

 

 

Quote

 

The provisional counts for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths are based on a current flow of mortality data in the National Vital Statistics System. National provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia that have been received and coded as of the date specified. It is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated. Therefore, the data shown on this page may be incomplete, and will likely not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for the more recent time periods. Death counts for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks.

* * * 

*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

 

 

[dcar00 14904]

47 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm not questioning the numbers.  I"m questioning a lack of testing as it relates to attribution.  The time period here precludes a scarcity of tests. 

agreed.  my point was that they did that make up already even if you give them the benefit of agreeing with potential lack of test availability. 

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13386]

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It wouldn’t be an issue if young people only interacted with other young people. It’s the damage they can do as carriers. 

We should release more prisoners. That would keep the kids inside and make the country a safer place.