Cure worse than the problem?

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

Post Reply
iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5026
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by iaafan » Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:55 am

The new projection says 80,000 in August. It’s 60,000 now with the fifth biggest day yesterday. About 2,000/day the last 15 days. Even if the next 15 days are only 1,000/day that’s 75,000 by mid May. The two biggest case days just happened last Thursday and Friday.

That’s a very rapid downturn based those numbers.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5026
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by iaafan » Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:28 pm

Fauci optimistic about remdesivir. “...clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing time of recovery.”



91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6928
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by 91catAlum » Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:53 pm

iaafan wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:28 pm
Fauci optimistic about remdesivir. “...clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing time of recovery.”
That's good news!


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6928
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by 91catAlum » Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:24 am

Article explains the down side of isolation.

https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ ... NDeEhP1OHk

"Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response - antibodies - so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by "herd immunity." Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases - to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing."


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

User avatar
technoCat
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Bozeman

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by technoCat » Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:59 am

91catAlum wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:24 am
Article explains the down side of isolation.

https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ ... NDeEhP1OHk

"Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response - antibodies - so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by "herd immunity." Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases - to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing."
Careful you could get banned from YouTube with this kind of talk...


DIE HARD CATS FAN SINCE 01/05/1984

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4346
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Mon May 04, 2020 5:55 pm

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/health/f ... index.html

In France they discovered another case a month before they first thought. I expect we’ll see more of this. The more research they’re able to do the longer we’ll see this thing has been around. Just my guess.



User avatar
codecat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: Laurel

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by codecat » Tue May 05, 2020 2:36 pm

wapiti wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:37 am
iaafan wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:26 am
Fauci says a second wave will happen. How bad depends on how prepared we are. That’s scary. Americans seem to never prepare well for anything as a group. Most auto deaths are from drinking, speeding or choosing to drive in bad conditions. Many flu deaths are from not getting vaccine. We do a crappy job of keeping guns away from mentally ill. We send soldiers into war with poor equipment.
Dr's often predict worst case scenarios. That is the case with Fauci. What are the odds of the 2nd wave being bad???

The first wave was nothing near to what was predicted. If you remember the flatten the curve graphs. We were supposed to put hospitals at max capacity with the measure we took. As far as I know only New York City had a hospital bed problem. Most hospitals were sending health care workers home due to a lack of work.
Good Doctors make Good Doctors, but the mainstream press likes to use experts in medicine as "experts" on social issues, which may or may not be an expertise of theirs, because their known expertise casts a perception of credibility. In fact, to consider a medical perspective only, without considering other fields of expertise which have some knowledge of the problem, is in fact by definition narrow-minded.

Larry P. Arnn, President, Hillsdale College - writes some of his thoughts on the current crisis in the latest Imprimis publication. Quoted below are a few paragraphs that place the problem we have had dealing with covid-19 in the proper place (but you won't here the mainstream press ever say this).
As I write, I am not confident that I know whether all of the current economic shutdowns in the United States are necessary to stop the virus. Every hour I read some authoritative person saying yes, and the next hour I read some authoritative person saying no. What I am confident about is that we were not prepared for this pandemic, and yet we spend an enormous amount of money on a centralized bureaucracy that now operates top down from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other agencies to Hillsdale, Michigan, and tens of thousands of other communities.

Why didn’t we have testing kits early on, which seems to have been one of the keys to South Korea’s success in dealing with the virus? Why didn’t we have masks? Why didn’t we have ventilators? I am told that our national stockpile of these things was depleted during the swine flu pandemic of 2009 and never built back up. I am told that there has been an unsuccessful push to produce a stockpile of ventilators going back to the end of the second Bush administration and extending through President Obama’s two terms, and that the FDA has delayed production recently by taking five years to approve a new ventilator design. There is no doubt that there are many people at fault, but above all the blame lies with the bureaucratic form of government that has developed in our country since the 1960s.

To take just one example, the CDC was created in 1942 as the Office of National Defense Malaria Control Activities, and in 1946 was renamed the Communicable Disease Center. For many decades it focused its full efforts on its original mission: viruses and communicable diseases. But by the 2000s, the CDC, like most executive agencies, had become largely independent of political control and lost its focus. It had widened its work to include chronic diseases and addictions, nutrition, school health, injuries, and—a telltale sign of ideological corruption and mission creep—racial and ethnic approaches to community health. It is a logical fact that if you favor some people you must disfavor others.

In 2007, the late Senator Tom Coburn issued a well-documented report entitled, “CDC Off Center—A review of how an agency tasked with fighting and preventing disease has spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars for failed prevention efforts, international junkets, and lavish facilities, but cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.” In the years since, there have been reports documenting multi-million dollar CDC studies on topics like the prevention of gun violence, how parents should discipline children, and chronic health conditions among lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations.

In 2017 alone, the CDC spent over $1.1 billion on chronic disease prevention and health promotion, $215 million on environmental health, and $285 million on injury prevention—all purposes that are addressed by other federal agencies. That money could have been used to prepare for communicable diseases, including replenishment of our stockpile of masks and ventilators. In other words, it could have been used to do the work the CDC was created to do.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/thoughts-current-crisis/


Socialism - the financial model historically used to control the masses! It has noting to do with
freedom, and seriously erodes the primary constitutional freedom of free enterprise.

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4346
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Wed May 06, 2020 7:19 am

I hear people comparing the US to Sweden a lot in this pandemic, both pros and cons. They didn’t shut anything down and instead encouraged their citizens to be responsible and distance when they choose. Obviously we went the opposite route.

They have 280 deaths per million and we have about 205 per million. I’m not a science guy, but not only do these numbers seem small to me in general, the difference of 75 deaths doesn’t seem to warrant the actions we took.

Admittedly I could be missing something here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-5%3famp



MSU01
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4125
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:21 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by MSU01 » Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 7:19 am
I hear people comparing the US to Sweden a lot in this pandemic, both pros and cons. They didn’t shut anything down and instead encouraged their citizens to be responsible and distance when they choose. Obviously we went the opposite route.

They have 280 deaths per million and we have about 205 per million. I’m not a science guy, but not only do these numbers seem small to me in general, the difference of 75 deaths doesn’t seem to warrant the actions we took.

Admittedly I could be missing something here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-5%3famp
From a statistical perspective, it would be a mistake to directly compare Sweden's 280 deaths per million to the US 205 deaths per million due to the fairly large differences between the two countries. For one thing, Sweden started out with a healthier population than the US, so one would expect a lower death rate there if the two countries had similar rates of infections. The US also has a higher population density and more densely packed urban areas than Sweden, which as we've seen in New York City can lead to very high infection numbers that occur very quickly.

I simply don't think we have enough information yet to determine whether the measures that have been taken were "worth it", because we don't know how long this pandemic will last and what the end of the pandemic will look like or when it will occur. If it turns out that we're currently living in the first couple months of what ends up being a multi-year long process for whatever reason (no effective vaccine being found leading to multiple seasonal recurrences of COVID-19), then maybe a shutdown as extensive as what has occurred won't have been worth it if the virus will eventually spread through most of the population anyway. On the other hand, if a vaccine and/or effective treatment is found and the pandemic ends relatively quickly, then that changes the analysis drastically as lives saved early on become lives saved, period.

One thing I'd note is that I don't think people truly understand how bad things may have gotten if the exponential growth in cases that Montana saw during the first few weeks had been allowed to continue unchecked. By the end of March, Montana had 210 confirmed cases and had been seeing, on average, about a 20% increase in new cases each day since the first cases were reported on March 13. If this 20% daily growth rate had continued through the month of April, Montana would have had almost 50,000 confirmed cases by the end of April and almost 150,000 cases by today, May 6. In reality, we're sitting at 456 cases, just had a second consecutive day with zero new cases on the daily update, and only 23 active cases left in the state when recoveries and deaths are taken into account. Businesses are reopening and I'm pretty damn confident that unlike in some other states, it's safe for us to be reopening this early given the low case numbers we've got in our state. Exponential growth is incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous, and IMO something needed to be done to slow it down - did we do too much? Or not enough? The benefit of 20/20 hindsight will give us better answers, but it's impossible to know at this point while the pandemic is still ongoing.


Go Bobcats! 24-17 31-23 29-25 48-14

User avatar
catatac
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6153
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:37 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by catatac » Wed May 06, 2020 11:07 am

MSU01 wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 7:19 am
I hear people comparing the US to Sweden a lot in this pandemic, both pros and cons. They didn’t shut anything down and instead encouraged their citizens to be responsible and distance when they choose. Obviously we went the opposite route.

They have 280 deaths per million and we have about 205 per million. I’m not a science guy, but not only do these numbers seem small to me in general, the difference of 75 deaths doesn’t seem to warrant the actions we took.

Admittedly I could be missing something here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-5%3famp
From a statistical perspective, it would be a mistake to directly compare Sweden's 280 deaths per million to the US 205 deaths per million due to the fairly large differences between the two countries. For one thing, Sweden started out with a healthier population than the US, so one would expect a lower death rate there if the two countries had similar rates of infections. The US also has a higher population density and more densely packed urban areas than Sweden, which as we've seen in New York City can lead to very high infection numbers that occur very quickly.

I simply don't think we have enough information yet to determine whether the measures that have been taken were "worth it", because we don't know how long this pandemic will last and what the end of the pandemic will look like or when it will occur. If it turns out that we're currently living in the first couple months of what ends up being a multi-year long process for whatever reason (no effective vaccine being found leading to multiple seasonal recurrences of COVID-19), then maybe a shutdown as extensive as what has occurred won't have been worth it if the virus will eventually spread through most of the population anyway. On the other hand, if a vaccine and/or effective treatment is found and the pandemic ends relatively quickly, then that changes the analysis drastically as lives saved early on become lives saved, period.

One thing I'd note is that I don't think people truly understand how bad things may have gotten if the exponential growth in cases that Montana saw during the first few weeks had been allowed to continue unchecked. By the end of March, Montana had 210 confirmed cases and had been seeing, on average, about a 20% increase in new cases each day since the first cases were reported on March 13. If this 20% daily growth rate had continued through the month of April, Montana would have had almost 50,000 confirmed cases by the end of April and almost 150,000 cases by today, May 6. In reality, we're sitting at 456 cases, just had a second consecutive day with zero new cases on the daily update, and only 23 active cases left in the state when recoveries and deaths are taken into account. Businesses are reopening and I'm pretty damn confident that unlike in some other states, it's safe for us to be reopening this early given the low case numbers we've got in our state. Exponential growth is incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous, and IMO something needed to be done to slow it down - did we do too much? Or not enough? The benefit of 20/20 hindsight will give us better answers, but it's impossible to know at this point while the pandemic is still ongoing.
Agree with almost all of this, too early to tell what the proper measures should have been. Looking at "big picture" stuff... there are some indicators out there that are downright scary. I really hope we aren't headed for a full blown depression.


Great time to be a BOBCAT!

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4346
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Wed May 06, 2020 12:56 pm

MSU01 wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 7:19 am
I hear people comparing the US to Sweden a lot in this pandemic, both pros and cons. They didn’t shut anything down and instead encouraged their citizens to be responsible and distance when they choose. Obviously we went the opposite route.

They have 280 deaths per million and we have about 205 per million. I’m not a science guy, but not only do these numbers seem small to me in general, the difference of 75 deaths doesn’t seem to warrant the actions we took.

Admittedly I could be missing something here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-5%3famp
From a statistical perspective, it would be a mistake to directly compare Sweden's 280 deaths per million to the US 205 deaths per million due to the fairly large differences between the two countries. For one thing, Sweden started out with a healthier population than the US, so one would expect a lower death rate there if the two countries had similar rates of infections. The US also has a higher population density and more densely packed urban areas than Sweden, which as we've seen in New York City can lead to very high infection numbers that occur very quickly.

I simply don't think we have enough information yet to determine whether the measures that have been taken were "worth it", because we don't know how long this pandemic will last and what the end of the pandemic will look like or when it will occur. If it turns out that we're currently living in the first couple months of what ends up being a multi-year long process for whatever reason (no effective vaccine being found leading to multiple seasonal recurrences of COVID-19), then maybe a shutdown as extensive as what has occurred won't have been worth it if the virus will eventually spread through most of the population anyway. On the other hand, if a vaccine and/or effective treatment is found and the pandemic ends relatively quickly, then that changes the analysis drastically as lives saved early on become lives saved, period.

One thing I'd note is that I don't think people truly understand how bad things may have gotten if the exponential growth in cases that Montana saw during the first few weeks had been allowed to continue unchecked. By the end of March, Montana had 210 confirmed cases and had been seeing, on average, about a 20% increase in new cases each day since the first cases were reported on March 13. If this 20% daily growth rate had continued through the month of April, Montana would have had almost 50,000 confirmed cases by the end of April and almost 150,000 cases by today, May 6. In reality, we're sitting at 456 cases, just had a second consecutive day with zero new cases on the daily update, and only 23 active cases left in the state when recoveries and deaths are taken into account. Businesses are reopening and I'm pretty damn confident that unlike in some other states, it's safe for us to be reopening this early given the low case numbers we've got in our state. Exponential growth is incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous, and IMO something needed to be done to slow it down - did we do too much? Or not enough? The benefit of 20/20 hindsight will give us better answers, but it's impossible to know at this point while the pandemic is still ongoing.
That was a rock solid response. Really appreciate the perspective.



User avatar
RickRund
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4215
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Post Falls ID

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by RickRund » Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm

Have been hearing this a lot. Just haven't seen a site post it from...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals ... us/5709720



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5026
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by iaafan » Thu May 07, 2020 3:10 pm

RickRund wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Have been hearing this a lot. Just haven't seen a site post it from...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals ... us/5709720
Have been hearing the same. Here's another site talking about it...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-g ... s-covid19/



User avatar
BigBruceBaker
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3391
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Sidney

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by BigBruceBaker » Thu May 07, 2020 3:42 pm

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 3:10 pm
RickRund wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Have been hearing this a lot. Just haven't seen a site post it from...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals ... us/5709720
Have been hearing the same. Here's another site talking about it...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-g ... s-covid19/

This comment is frightening:

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.

That comment is taken right out of the guidelines they are reporting and from the Snopes sight posted above. In no way shape or form should it be acceptable to "guess" on the cause of death. A realistic scenario could be "guy had a bad cough, cant find a test so it is probable he died of COVID-19". That's insane.


I love the Bobcats and the Miami Hurricanes an unhealthy level

iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5026
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by iaafan » Thu May 07, 2020 3:48 pm

BigBruceBaker wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 3:42 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 3:10 pm
RickRund wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Have been hearing this a lot. Just haven't seen a site post it from...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals ... us/5709720
Have been hearing the same. Here's another site talking about it...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-g ... s-covid19/

This comment is frightening:

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.

That comment is taken right out of the guidelines they are reporting and from the Snopes sight posted above. In no way shape or form should it be acceptable to "guess" on the cause of death. A realistic scenario could be "guy had a bad cough, cant find a test so it is probable he died of COVID-19". That's insane.
:lol:
Rapier sarcastic wit!! Good job BBB! Wait a minnnnnute...you are BBB, aren't you.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4346
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 07, 2020 5:40 pm

RickRund wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Have been hearing this a lot. Just haven't seen a site post it from...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals ... us/5709720
There have been several publishing’s about just this very thing. I mentioned it before but I have heard directly from the horses mouth, (relative working in Mayo Clinic) that this is in fact true. Not trying to be intentionally misleading I don’t believe, but it IS happening.

We need to remember that we put billions of funding into Covid resources for hospitals all over the country. Other than Some “hotspots” almost no hospitals has had to use these resources. In fact, many hospitals are in serious jeopardy and people are losing their jobs. To justify the spending the manner of death is important. Covid deaths will always draw more money.

Because it’s asymptomatic, anyone who dies for any reason and is found to have the virus will be listed as a Covid death. I only know this for fact at this one hospital but I personally believe it’s probably the same at all.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5026
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by iaafan » Thu May 07, 2020 5:58 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:40 pm
RickRund wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Have been hearing this a lot. Just haven't seen a site post it from...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals ... us/5709720
There have been several publishing’s about just this very thing. I mentioned it before but I have heard directly from the horses mouth, (relative working in Mayo Clinic) that this is in fact true. Not trying to be intentionally misleading I don’t believe, but it IS happening.

We need to remember that we put billions of funding into Covid resources for hospitals all over the country. Other than Some “hotspots” almost no hospitals has had to use these resources. In fact, many hospitals are in serious jeopardy and people are losing their jobs. To justify the spending the manner of death is important. Covid deaths will always draw more money.

Because it’s asymptomatic, anyone who dies for any reason and is found to have the virus will be listed as a Covid death. I only know this for fact at this one hospital but I personally believe it’s probably the same at all.
Snopes says it’s false. Link above.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4346
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 07, 2020 7:10 pm

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:58 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:40 pm
RickRund wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Have been hearing this a lot. Just haven't seen a site post it from...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals ... us/5709720
There have been several publishing’s about just this very thing. I mentioned it before but I have heard directly from the horses mouth, (relative working in Mayo Clinic) that this is in fact true. Not trying to be intentionally misleading I don’t believe, but it IS happening.

We need to remember that we put billions of funding into Covid resources for hospitals all over the country. Other than Some “hotspots” almost no hospitals has had to use these resources. In fact, many hospitals are in serious jeopardy and people are losing their jobs. To justify the spending the manner of death is important. Covid deaths will always draw more money.

Because it’s asymptomatic, anyone who dies for any reason and is found to have the virus will be listed as a Covid death. I only know this for fact at this one hospital but I personally believe it’s probably the same at all.
Snopes says it’s false. Link above.
Yes and I’m saying I know for a fact it’s true at this one hospital. I guess it’s possible this is the only place in the country doing it but that would be shocking to me. But weird stuff happens I guess.



User avatar
allcat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7909
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by allcat » Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm

If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.


Now sorry for caring about Cat/griz too much. I've been properly chastised by the coach of the other team. :-^

TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 13881
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Thu May 07, 2020 9:48 pm

allcat wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm
If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.
I’d just wait for a bail out, wouldn’t you? Even people who didn’t need money got stimulus money. A lot of people didn’t spend it. No job programs despite all the infrastructure work this country needs. The people that really needed it have already spent it and it wasn’t near enough.

Wel-mart-share gave back $12.6 million it got by accident. Of course that was just a drop in the bucket compared to what it gets annually to support its payroll. Walmart is such a huge benefactor of the stimulus program that it’s actually giving out a ton of bonuses - half a $billion - along with hiring additional staff out of need because their stores are so flooded.

As for counting C19 deaths, they’re almost certainly way undercounted, especially amongst the elderly. Either that or there’s another disease going through the country that they aren’t telling us about. We know because the death rate is up despite the C19 deaths. But if hospitals struggle, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll get bailed out. No need to lie.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

Post Reply