CDC guidelines issued march 24 say basically "Call every death covid".

Yup - this is yet another media scam. The american press are deliberately trying to destroy the american economy and thereby america. Why would they do that? Because all liberals are white-hating racists and as long as america is mostly white, they will hate america and try to destroy it.

America is among the prominent English-speaking nations whose rich linguistic heritage is widely documented. As such, it is expected that any terminology relating to the nation itself, its people or speech should adhere to strict grammatical rules.
So, is American Capitalized?
The simplest answer is yes since American, even when used as an adjective, is referencing a proper noun. However, before any explanation is provided, it is wise to explore which parts of speech the term pertains to as it will facilitate understanding.
1. It is a proper noun
Nouns are names of places, people and things, we all know that. The term “American” can be used as a noun and a proper noun for that matter. For example, if we say: “The American has just arrived,’ The word ‘American’ represents nationality. Rules of grammar place nationality under proper nouns. The term can just as well be replaced with a real name such as Donald, James or Sarah. This, therefore, forms one of the bases to why the word “American” should be capitalized.
2. It can also function as a proper adjective
Any word that modifies a noun is known as an adjective. They come before a noun and are used to give more information about the noun. The term “American” not only plays the role of a noun but can also be an adjective. For instance: “The American Currency is quite stable.” The noun, in this case, is the word Currency. However, once we add American to the sentence, then the currency is awarded an identity, an American one to be precise. Thus, the word American modifies the currency as a proper adjective. As per the rules of capitalization, proper adjectives should also be capitalized.
 
Not necessarily true. In any event, when was the last time you had a "flu test?" Never, amirite? The world is full of people who suffer flu and never seek professional treatment and even if they do, never
get a flu test. Doctor says, well you may have a flu, gives you z-pac in caution pats you on your noggin and sends you home.

Flu stats suffer from the same affliction you are using to make hay about with covid.

Try again. I like your slow ball BP. It's a home run derby for me.

It may not be ‘necessarily true’ but it’s very likely true that the *have had* number is considerably large because of the high percentage of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic carriers. Simply waving it off won’t score you too many hits if you plan on keeping up in the game.

As I said, that number is a critical value and it’s totally missing from the data. It’s critical because, again, COVID very likely has a low mortality rate. Any mortality rate that doesn’t account for the *have hads* is junk.

If you wanted to design a novel virus that would put itself on the fast track to herd immunity, you make it have a low mortality rate and couple it with a high rate of transmission. The first time around it plows through the population but leaves a high number of individuals in its wake that will be immune to it on the second go-round.

It would be VERY NICE to not have to shut our economy down when/if COVID comes around again in the Fall.

And speaking of data, they keep having to revise-down their projections. I would suggest plugging a herd immunity factor into it and then running it.

Just to see what happens. It might even better align with the actual data.
 
It may not be ‘necessarily true’ but it’s very likely true that the *have had* number is considerably large because of the high percentage of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic carriers. Simply waving it off won’t score you too many hits if you plan on keeping up in the game.

As I said, that number is a critical value and it’s totally missing from the data. It’s critical because, again, COVID very likely has a low mortality rate. Any mortality rate that doesn’t account for the *have hads* is junk.

If you wanted to design a novel virus that would put itself on the fast track to herd immunity, you make it have a low mortality rate and couple it with a high rate of transmission. The first time around it plows through the population but leaves a high number of individuals in its wake that will be immune to it on the second go-round.

It would be VERY NICE to not have to shut our economy down when/if COVID comes around again in the Fall.

And speaking of data, they keep having to revise-down their projections. I would suggest plugging a herd immunity factor into it and then running it.

Just to see what happens. It might even better align with the actual data.

Depends on the point you are making. Your sub optimal advice comment a few posts back was an insinuation leaning into a conspiracy theory, or am I wrong?

I respect the advice Trump is getting far more than that which he is disseminating. The unknowns aren't known and concealed. Yes, it's a novel virus and we don't know
the mortality rate of those untreated. It can cut both ways, however. We prob have a handle on the rate in hospitals. While you can make assumptions,
and a fair one is people who go to a doc for covid 19 symptoms are sicker than those who do not, in hospitals we do have a population with the disease, and some leave and some don't.
The hospital number can underestimate the overall global mortality rate because people there are getting care, and the global population not in a hospital including your subset, is not.
I am unwilling to accept your suspicion. I can't assume the rate of mortality of covid patients with excellent care is greater than unknowns in the world which in addition to your immortal youths
with mild symptoms also includes untold millions of beggars and tenement residents found rigor mortised and shoved in ditches.

The answer will be known better as time goes by, as to the more or less than 1% or transmission rate that I agree is pivotal.
 
Last edited:
Oh shut up. I consider you a troll and unworthy of my time.

Yet here you are....again.

I have to shower shit shave and go to work. You will have to ruminate on your cud alone.

What happened, Admiral? Did your battleship sink in your bathtub?

As an esteemed member of the maritime community with years of experience commanding RORo, battleships and an admiral in the coast guard, I think this thread is silly.

:rofl2:
 
The coding memo says what it says. I read it and it seemed eminently reasonable. It contained terms of art, known by medical professionals, who exercise their sound
judgment in concluding cause of death. Nothing these nimrods say about it can make it sound like a political document.
 
Yet here you are....again.



What happened, Admiral? Did your battleship sink in your bathtub?



:rofl2:

Yep, at office. My large office. My very large office. Doing whatever the fuck I want and getting paid. It is gratifying to me that a small sum of my
considerable productivity is allotted to your welfare check. You are welcome.
 
Depends on the point you are making. Your sub optimal advice comment a few posts back was an insinuation leaning into a conspiracy theory, or am I wrong?

I respect the advice Trump is getting far more than that which he is disseminating. The unknowns aren't known and concealed. Yes, it's a novel virus and we don't know
the mortality rate of those untreated. It can cut both ways, however. We prob have a handle on the rate in hospitals. While you can make assumptions,
and a fair one is people who go to a doc for covid 19 symptoms are sicker than those who do not, in hospitals we do have a population with the disease, and some leave and some don't.
The hospital number can underestimate the overall global mortality rate because people there are getting care, and the global population not in a hospital including your subset, is not.
I am unwilling to accept your suspicion. I can't assume the rate of mortality of covid patients with excellent care is greater than unknowns in the world which in addition to your immortal youths
with mild symptoms also includes untold millions of beggars and tenement residents found rigor mortised and shoved in ditches.

The answer will be known better as time goes by, as to the more or less than 1% or transmission rate that I agree is pivotal.

It’s not a conspiracy theory so much as an over reliance on models.

What good are these models when they can easily be off by a factor of ten if the current trend holds? Trump had the shit scared out him by some outlandish numbers—he should have been scared by them. I’ve seen several pundits base a mortality rate on the number of confirmed cases—and of course, they’re ridiculously high, because they don’t take into account the X number of unreported cases that are simply not known.

Every bit of it, based on incomplete data. I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy theory but that only leaves the other alternative—incompetence on the part of the experts.
 
Yep, at office. My large office. My very large office. Doing whatever the fuck I want and getting paid. It is gratifying to me that a small sum of my
considerable productivity is allotted to your welfare check. You are welcome.

Shut up you fat bald ignorant tranny.
 
It may not be ‘necessarily true’ but it’s very likely true that the *have had* number is considerably large because of the high percentage of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic carriers. Simply waving it off won’t score you too many hits if you plan on keeping up in the game.

As I said, that number is a critical value and it’s totally missing from the data. It’s critical because, again, COVID very likely has a low mortality rate. Any mortality rate that doesn’t account for the *have hads* is junk.

Of course that's true. Nobody knows even approximately how many people have had covid but didn't go to a doctor. And the number of covid deaths is inflated by calling every death with covid a death because of covid. The mortality rate may be as high as 2% or as low as .01%
 
Back
Top