"With" Covid has been conflated with "from" Covid from the start. The same twisted logic applied to people dying from gunshot wounds or car crash that were classified as Covid deaths 'cause they had it when they died.
At the very least, the article title was sloppily chosen by an editor who didn't even read the article. So they are a bunch of sloppy doofuses, and that's giving them the maximum amount of credit.
This article is poorly written; the title is about the 10 year old, the last paragraph is about the 15 year old. It does appear true that at some time sin the past they said a 15 year old died of covid and he did not. But nothing in this article says the 10 year old DIDN'T die of covid.
I suppose they at least clarified he died with it and not from it, but it gets recorded as a covid death.
"With" Covid has been conflated with "from" Covid from the start. The same twisted logic applied to people dying from gunshot wounds or car crash that were classified as Covid deaths 'cause they had it when they died.
Must have died of the vax.
Journalists write like sh$t these days.
problem is most people only read the headlines and a few sentences into the article
People just read the headlines, or so they think...
At the very least, the article title was sloppily chosen by an editor who didn't even read the article. So they are a bunch of sloppy doofuses, and that's giving them the maximum amount of credit.
This article is poorly written; the title is about the 10 year old, the last paragraph is about the 15 year old. It does appear true that at some time sin the past they said a 15 year old died of covid and he did not. But nothing in this article says the 10 year old DIDN'T die of covid.
That said, it's all bullish*t, absolutely.
It says WITH multiple times... not OF.