|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
 Mon Oct 23, 2000 12:52 am
|
 |
|
Nola,
I have no quarrel with you and certainly don't remember addressing you the same way I do sore hump......
To me you have 2 main types of people involved here those who are interested in new info and curious, and those who run off rampantly at the mouth with no regard for facts, Sore hump has time after time used other peoples info to continue his mis-interpetation of the facts, he also taken information and left out key parts of text that would discredit the theme that he wishes to purport, that nola is the "true" definition of a "dis-information" agent.
Sorry Nola if you don't like what I say, he hasn't said much good about me either, but I post what I post...warts and all....
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Mon Oct 23, 2000 2:41 am
|
|
|
"I profoundly predict that in twenty years, by January 1st, 2200, no one will ever remember either contrails or chemtrails." Jay Reynolds
Have you ever read Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughter House 5" Rooster?
The protagonist of this novel was named Billy Pilgrim who became unstuck in time.
Any relation? You seem to have a real problem with dates? Need a calendar, or is this just a George W. form of dyslexia?
You just keep those predictions coming though.
Sooner or later you may get a date right...
|
| |
|
|
Nola30
Joined: 22 Jul 2000
Posts: 41
Location: Tuscaloosa AL U.S.A. |
|
Tue Oct 24, 2000 4:24 pm
|
|
|
Seeker,
I won't apologize for having feelings. It seems that most people posting here only have feelings of hatred and sarcasm. I, for one, am a tender heart . If you guys can't be rational , what's the point? Aren't we all adults here? |
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Wed Oct 25, 2000 10:14 pm
|
|
|
Throat, the change was apparently applied in 1999. I kept looking under 1993, so I couldn't find it.
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a3.htm
"In 1993, the WHO International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) coding guidelines were updated to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Public Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10), and were implemented by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in 1999 (1). For ICD-10, the application of a coding rule was broadened such that when pneumonia is listed by a certifying physician on a death certificate as the underlying cause of death, nosologoists should give preference to coding the cause of death to an alternative condition that might have led to the pnuemonia. Preliminary results from an NCHS comparability study have shown that the ICD-10 coding rule change will result in a substantial decrease in the number of reported pneumonia-related deaths (CDC, unpublished data, 1999).
In response to ICD-10, CDC requested that the 122 cities report pneumonia deaths to the surveillance system if pneumonia is listed anywhere on the death certificate. This may partially account for the observed increase in reported P&I deaths above threshold levels; baseline and threshold levels of P&I mortality are estimated using the previous 5 years' mortality data. CDC continues to evaluate the impact of these changes in reporting criteria on P&I mortality estimates."
My memory was a little off, but this is what I was remembering.
|
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Thu Oct 26, 2000 3:09 am
|
|
|
ST,
"Note: Since the "reporting changes" went into effect only before the 1999-2000 flu season, the 0.8% increase in the Seasonal Baseline and Epidemic Levels should only have been from that point forward. As even a child (but perhaps not a Rooster) could plainly see, this elevation of baseline levels have been extended back through the 1997, 1998, 1999 seasonal data, WHICH IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE!!!!"
Maybe this is too simplistic but, if they raised one year's baselines for whatever reason, wouldn't they also have to raise a previous year's baselines to make comparisons between the two years valid? Comparisons on a chart would not be valid if both baselines were not adjusted in the same manner, would they? If you don't make the adjustment, you'd have to have a footnote and calculations for each comparison to even them out. Much simpler to raise them all and say that's what you did. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 1:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
