{"id":235883,"date":"2021-06-12T06:01:18","date_gmt":"2021-06-12T06:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=235883"},"modified":"2021-06-14T06:51:28","modified_gmt":"2021-06-14T06:51:28","slug":"the-nhs-just-changed-how-they-count-covid-casesheres-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=235883","title":{"rendered":"The NHS just changed how they count Covid \u201ccases\u201d\u2026here\u2019s why."},"content":{"rendered":"

Above: looking like a scene from a dystopian science fiction movie \u2013 complete with \u201csafe spacing\u201d and wall mounted video \u2013 staff listen to an address at the opening of the NHS Nightingale in Birmingham (which has since closed without treating a single patient<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Kit Knightly \u2013 Off-Guardian June 11, 2021<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The UK\u2019s National Health Service has received new instructions from the government on how it should record Covid19 \u201ccases\u201d, separating those who are actually sick from those who just test positive.<\/p>\n

From the beginning of the \u201cpandemic\u201d last spring, the NHS (and other countries all over the world) have defined a \u201ccase\u201d as anyone who tests positive for the Sars-Cov-2 virus, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms.<\/p>\n

Given that as many as 80% of those who have been infected have no symptoms<\/a>, and the propensity for the flawed PCR tests <\/a>to return false-positive results<\/a>, this lead to likely massively inflated numbers of \u201ccases\u201d.<\/p>\n

Now, though, the NHS is going to attempt to differentiate between patients who actually have the alleged disease \u201cCovid19\u201d, and those who are in hospital for other reasons and only \u201cincidentally\u201d tested positive for the virus.<\/p>\n

According to a report in the Independent [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

NHS England has instructed hospitals to make the change to the daily flow of data sent by NHS trusts [\u2026] Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The distinction between \u201cwith\u201d and \u201cfrom\u201d in Covid deaths \u2013 and \u201cwith\u201d and \u201cfor\u201d in hospitalisations \u2013 has been one Covid sceptics all over the world have been keen to make for over a year, but this is the first time any institution has really recognised the difference. And, certainly, it\u2019s the first time any healthcare service has endeavoured to actually catalogue them differently.<\/p>\n

So what does the NHS expect the impact of this change to be? Again, from the Independent:<\/p>\n

One NHS source said the new data would be \u201cmore realistic\u201d as not all patients were sick with the virus, adding: \u201cBut it will make figures look better as there have always been some, for example stroke [patients], who also had Covid as an incidental finding\u201d.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a frank admission, and an important one.<\/p>\n

For the last eighteen months, voices all over the alternate media have been saying the Covid numbers are unrealistic, specifically because they include people who were never actually sick<\/em>. We have been called \u201cdeniers\u201d and \u201cconspiracy theorists\u201d for our trouble.<\/p>\n

But now an NHS source has actually said, going forward, the Covid data will be \u201cmore realistic\u201d<\/em> as it will discount all the patients where Covid was only \u201can incidental finding\u201d<\/em>. This is a bigger story than the media coverage suggests \u2013 only the Indy and Telegraph<\/a> are covering it right now, and neither with the focus it deserves.<\/p>\n

NHS England is, essentially, tucking away a covert admission that a lot of their fear-mongering statistics were never \u201crealistic\u201d.<\/p>\n

Why would they do this? And why now?<\/p>\n

Well, here\u2019s what they claim [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

[The NHS said] the move was being done to help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme<\/strong> and whether it was successfully reducing Covid-19 sickness.<\/p>\n

But it doesn\u2019t really make any sense, when you think about it.<\/p>\n

It will \u201chelp analyse the effect of the vaccine programme\u201d<\/em>? How so?<\/p>\n

How does changing the definition at this point possibly help \u201canalyse\u201d anything? Doesn\u2019t it confuse the issue?<\/p>\n

Won\u2019t it, in fact, effectively reduce the numbers of official \u201ccovid cases\u201d? Doesn\u2019t making the numbers \u201clook better\u201d<\/em>, at this stage, make the \u201cvaccine\u201d appear more effective?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also important to note that the changes in data collection will only apply to new patients<\/em>, it will not<\/strong> be retroactive. Prof Keith Willett, NHS England\u2019s Covid incident director, was very clear on that in a quote for the Telegraph [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

In lay terms this could be considered as a binary split between those in hospital \u2018for Covid-19\u2019 and those in hospital \u2018with Covid-19\u2019. We are asking for this binary split for those patients newly admitted to hospital<\/strong> and those newly diagnosed with Covid while in hospital<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, the old (and now admitted unrealistic) data, will not be subject to change. The Covid \u201ccase\u201d numbers before<\/em> June 7th are etched in stone \u2013 everyone who tested positive was a \u201ccase\u201d.<\/p>\n

But after<\/em> June 7th they will be separating Covid cases who are actually hospitalised due to Covid19<\/em>, from other patients who only have \u201cincidental covid\u201d.<\/p>\n

Any good scientist will tell you you can\u2019t change the way you measure or collect your data halfway through an experiment, and you can\u2019t compare data gathered in one way to data gathered in another. That is not \u201canalysing the effect\u201d of anything, it\u2019s altering the experiment conditions.<\/p>\n

The difference between \u201cwith\u201d and \u201cfor\u201d has always existed<\/strong>, but by applying that filter only to new data<\/em> they will make it appear that it\u2019s a new phenomenon, caused by the vaccination programme.<\/p>\n

It is incredibly bad science.<\/p>\n

\u2026but it\u2019s also totally in keeping with the trend of altering Covid practices to create the impression the \u201cvaccine\u201d is having a positive impact.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve already reported that WHO changed their Covid diagnosis guidelines<\/a>, and their PCR test guidelines<\/a>, in late 2020 and early 2021, right in line with the first vaccination programs being launched. The US CDC has likewise been repeatedly fiddling<\/a> their definition of \u201cbreakthrough infection\u201d<\/a> in order to make the vaccines appear more effective.<\/p>\n

This NHS change is just more of the same \u2013 altering the experimental conditions to achieve the desired outcome. A total, complete inversion of the scientific method, by the same people who zealously scream about \u201cfollowing the science\u201d.<\/p>\n

It is deliberate manipulation of the data, being done brazenly in the public eye.<\/p>\n

But what impact will it actually have? Throughout the pandemic, how many patients were ever sick with only<\/em> Covid, and how many had cancer, or a stroke or Alzheimers along with \u201cincidental covid\u201d?<\/p>\n

Well, official figures on deaths have shown that well over 80% of so-called \u201cCovid deaths\u201d had at least one serious pre-existing condition<\/a>, and Bernard Marx did a great breakdown of how the cause of death figures are manipulated<\/a>. But that\u2019s deaths, what about hospital admissions?<\/p>\n

Although only anecdotal, we have been sent results of several Freedom of Information Act requests that UK citizens submitted to their local NHS trusts. These FOI requests ask for the number of people currently in hospital being treated for Covid, or numbers who died solely due to Covid or variations on that theme. Here\u2019s 1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 4<\/a> them. There are a lot more available.<\/p>\n

The numbers are uniformly small. So, it\u2019s entirely possible that, under this new method of \u201canalysis\u201d, the NHS\u2019s list of \u201cCovid cases\u201d will shrink to almost nothing.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t worry though, should that happen we will likely never be told about it, because NHS England has made it quite plain that they might never release this data to the public. Both the Independent and Telegraph say so, with almost word-for-word the exact same sentence:<\/p>\n

NHS England has not yet confirmed whether the data will be made public, as it must be checked and verified first.<\/p>\n

They need to \u201ccheck\u201d and \u201cverify\u201d the data before we\u2019re allowed to see it, huh? It\u2019s almost as if they\u2019ve got something to hide.<\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

Can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media<\/h3>\n

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.<\/p>\n

Patreon<\/a><\/p>\n

Paypal<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NHS source claims new data will be \u201cmore realistic\u201d in the future, by removing \u201cincidental\u201d Covid from the records.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":206519,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[105],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-coronavirus"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235883","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=235883"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235883\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":235886,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235883\/revisions\/235886"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/206519"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=235883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=235883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=235883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}