Now, just to be clear, before everyone gets enraged at me again for starting another controversial COVID-19 thread,
I do not know if the person in the video is telling the truth or not. He may be lying, or he may not be. I tend to think he is not lying, but I can't be sure. If what he is saying is true, how much is it actually inflating the death numbers? Again, I don't know. I'm not going to be arguing with people over this, because I don't know the answers. The only thing that I will say that I hope we all agree on is: This claim should
definitely be investigated, because if what he is saying is true, it is very concerning.
This clown in my representative. He is being a bit duplicitous. That video is from 4 April, early days of Covid outbreak when test kits were not available in rural areas because they were needed in the hotspots like New York and New Jersey. Dr. Jensen's district in Carver County, Minnesota is mostly rural, though it is a suburb of the Twin Cities. It has a population density of 275 per square mile.
He refers to a seven page document from the Minnesota Health Department. Actually, that department did not issue such a document, but linked to the CDC document which is indeed seven pages long. Here is the document to read for yourself if you really want to know what the guidance was at the time:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf
It looks like there is a gross misunderstanding of this document. Here is how I think this is being misread.
First, death certificates have two parts for reporting deaths. Part 1 is for reporting the immediate cause of death. Part 2 is for reporting underlying causes of death (UCOD). In some cases Covid is the underlying cause of death. In others it is the immediate cause of death. Errors are sometimes made about what line Covid should be reported on. The CDC is trying to straighten this out. From the document:
Common problems
Common problems in cause-of-death certification include:
1. reporting intermediate causes as the UCOD (i.e., on the lowest line used in Part I),
2. lack of specificity, and
3. illogical sequences.
Intermediate causes are those conditions that typically have multiple possible underlying etiologies and thus, a UCOD must be specified on a line below in Part I. For example, pneumonia is an intermediate cause of death since it can be caused by a variety of infectious agents or by inhaling a liquid or chemical.
Pneumonia is important to report in a cause-of-death statement but, generally, it is not the UCOD. The cause of pneumonia, such as COVID–19, needs to be stated on the lowest line used in Part I.
Additionally, the reported UCOD should be specific enough to be useful for public health and research purposes. For example, a “viral infection” can be a UCOD, but it is not specific. A more specific UCOD in this instance could be “COVID–19.” All causal sequences reported in Part I should be logical in terms of time and pathology. For example, reporting “COVID–19” due to “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” in Part I would be an illogical sequence as COPD cannot cause an infection, although it may increase susceptibility to or exacerbate an infection. In this instance, COVID–19 would be reported in Part I as the UCOD and the COPD in Part II. While there can be reasonable differences in medical opinion concerning a sequence that led to a particular death, the causes should always be provided in a logical sequence from the immediate cause on line a. back to the UCOD on the lowest line used in Part I."
"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible. "
Also, please notice that the last page of the CDC letter gives an example of an 86 year old woman who died and later it was determined that a member of her household had COVID. T
his is the same story that Jensen is referring too, but he doesn't tell you the entire story: This could not be his patient because his practice is in Carver County, Minnesota which has had 27 cases and NO DEATHS to date.
ArcGIS Dashboards
Scenario III: An 86-year-old female with an unconfirmed case of COVID–19 An 86-year-old female passed away at home. Her husband reported that she was nonambulatory after suffering an ischemic stroke 3 years ago. He stated that 5 days prior, she developed a high fever and severe cough after being exposed to an ill family member who subsequently was diagnosed with COVID–19. Despite his urging, she refused to go to the hospital, even when her breathing became more labored and temperature escalated. She was unresponsive that morning and her husband phoned emergency medical services (EMS). Upon EMS arrival, the patient was pulseless and apneic. Her husband stated that he and his wife had advanced directives and that she was not to be resuscitated. After consulting with medical command, she was pronounced dead and the coroner was notified. Comment: Although no testing was done, the coroner determined that the likely UCOD was COVID–19 given the patient’s symptoms and exposure to an infected individual. Therefore, COVID–19 was reported on the lowest line used in Part I. Her ischemic stroke was considered a factor that contributed to her death but was not a part of the direct causal sequence in Part I, so it was reported in Part II.
Now, WHERE IS THE CONSPIRACY?
