The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

“You weren’t called on.”  Also, I am looking for an alternative to your posts.  Ones that aren’t full of fake logic.  Like thaw misguided notion that the submission of questions for presidential review will eliminate redundancy. 

I'm not sure who you are quoting here, but I think I understand.  Best of luck in your search for posters with opinions other than mine. It's not quite the quest to find the Holy Grail, but it is a noble pursuit during these uncertain times.  I would suggest employing a three posts up/three posts down stratefy and expand from there as needed.

 

Godspeed, friend. 

[Kemp]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m guessing ZERO but that’s just me. What I want is a tote board showing how many people under the age of 55 died from this virus anytime during the month of April.

 

Why?

 

You looking to rejoice over dead senior corpses?

[SectionC3]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'm not sure who you are quoting here, but I think I understand.  Best of luck in your search for posters with opinions other than mine. It's not quite the quest to find the Holy Grail, but it is a noble pursuit during these uncertain times.  I would suggest employing a three posts up/three posts down stratefy and expand from there as needed.

 

Godspeed, friend. 

 

I wouldn't call it the Holy Grail.  But I appreciate your kind wishes.  

 

Also, you and I both need some cofeve.  My "thaw misguided notion" and your "down stratefy" reference suggest a shared caffeine deficiency. 

Just now, Kemp said:

 

Why?

 

You looking to rejoice over dead senior corpses?

 

On a completely unrelated note, has science identified the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection?  Even if people under 55 have a low near-term mortality rate, do we know that infection will not shorten the life span of those in that age group who are infected?  

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Why?

 

You looking to rejoice over dead senior corpses?

No....I’m looking for anyone in charge to tell us why people under 55 are being encouraged/required to ruin their family’s future by hiding from a disease that almost certainly will not harm them.

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

Good luck with that one.  If Nevada's standards for challenging administrative action are anything like those of New York State, then this proceeding almost certainly is a stone cold loser.  (I haven't read the link or the papers, but that doesn't seem necessary here and, in any event, it's not something that I care to do.) 

 

Of course, that might not be the motivation for the lawsuit.  It's always good to rile up the base and score some political points. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Brian Kemp agrees. 

Please explain this. 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No....I’m looking for anyone in charge to tell us why people under 55 are being encouraged/required to ruin their family’s future by hiding from a disease that almost certainly will not harm them.

 

"Not kill" and "not harm" are two different things.  I suspect you're trying to say that the candle isn't worth the game for the under-55 crowd in terms of closures and "stay at home."  But there's no scientific support (yet) that the disease "will not harm" those persons.  

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Please explain this. 

 

Self-explanatory. 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Self-explanatory. 

Obviously not for me. Go ahead and give your logic counselor. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

"Not kill" and "not harm" are two different things.  I suspect you're trying to say that the candle isn't worth the game for the under-55 crowd in terms of closures and "stay at home."  But there's no scientific support (yet) that the disease "will not harm" those persons.  

OK, so now we’re moving the goal posts from death to ‘harm’? We KNOW that 25 million people are out of work. That’s definite harm! But you, apparently, have a hunch there’s some level of ‘harm’ from contracting this virus. For me, I’m gonna go with eliminating the harm we KNOW as opposed to hiding from a harm you happen to think you know. But that’s just me.

[Magox]

Something to consider:

 

———————-

”How can anyone not believe that increasing the number of COVID-19 deaths may create an avenue for states to receive a larger portion of federal dollars. Already some states are complaining that they are not getting enough of the CARES Act dollars because they are having significantly more proportional COVID-19 deaths."

 

 

On April 19, he doubled down on his assertion via video on his Facebook page.

Jensen said, "Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate. Why? Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000. But if it's COVID-19 pneumonia, then it's $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000."

 

Jensen clarified in the video that he doesn't think physicians are "gaming the system" so much as other "players," such as hospital administrators, who he said may pressure physicians to cite all diagnoses, including "probable" COVID-19, on discharge papers or death certificates to get the higher Medicare allocation allowed under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. Past practice, Jensen said, did not include probabilities.

 

He noted that some states, including his home state of Minnesota, as well as California, list only laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses. Others, specifically New York, list all presumed cases, which is allowed under guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as of mid-April and which will result in a larger payout.

 

————————-

 

USA TODAY reached out to Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, about the claim. Makary said in an email April 21 that "what Scott Jensen said sounds right to me."
 

————————-

 

What Jensen is saying is that there is a financial incentive for states and hospitals to list some of the unknown pneumonia death certificates as “probable” COVID.   Simply because if that pneumonia patient is listed as standard pneumonia, flu or other affliction they would get $5000.  But if they list it as COVID “probable” they get $13,000 and if that person went into a ventilator they get $39,000.

 

”probable” is a new standard that had not existed until the Cares act was passed.    
 

There is no “evidence” of wrongdoing but there are anecdotal reports of this.  We know that both states and private hospitals are under financial pressure especially due to these shutdowns and at the end of the day humans are humans.  To believe that there aren’t any hospital administrators that aren’t encouraging physicians to classify deaths  that are pneumonia related and could potentially be COVID related despite no positive testing would be awfully naive.

 

 

 

 

 

[KRC]

10 hours ago, GG said:

 

It was clear for everyone else, but I remember that engineers don’t like English.

 

Don't lump me in with him.

[shoshin]

44 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:

The fact that hospitalizations for non Covid have practically disappeared shows us how rampant the abuse of the medical system is in this country. When people can choose to wait instead of visit the emergency room it is probably what they should have been doing in the first place. Either that or not use the ER as their primary doctor.  

 

No. It shows how much sicker a lot of people are getting for lack of adequate care. And it shows how many other people who have orthopedic injuries are just sitting in pain, ENT people are just getting bathed in ABX, and so many other band aids. The system is not working well at all right now. Trust me, the last thing you want to do right this moment is have a soft tissue injury that requires surgical repair, because not only are you not getting it now, but there will be a long line of people ahead of you when practices reopen. 

31 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No....I’m looking for anyone in charge to tell us why people under 55 are being encouraged/required to ruin their family’s future by hiding from a disease that almost certainly will not harm them.

 

You say that like you won't get hospitalized and also like you won't spread it. We are getting ahead of things now, and hopefully can stay ahead of it with more testing and tracking, though it looks like we will be trying to get ahead of this without adequate testing or tracking in most places. 

[3rdnlng]

9 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

“You weren’t called on.”  Also, I am looking for an alternative to your posts.  Ones that aren’t full of fake logic.  Like thaw misguided notion that the submission of questions for presidential review will eliminate redundancy. 

For posterity's sake.

[SectionC3]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

OK, so now we’re moving the goal posts from death to ‘harm’? We KNOW that 25 million people are out of work. That’s definite harm! But you, apparently, have a hunch there’s some level of ‘harm’ from contracting this virus. For me, I’m gonna go with eliminating the harm we KNOW as opposed to hiding from a harm you happen to think you know. But that’s just me.

 

Nobody moved the goalposts here.  You indicated that the economy should reopen for those under 55 because the virus is unlikely to harm such a person.  My response reflects the obvious point, which you have overlooked either intentionally or otherwise, that the data to date reflects only that the mortality rate for persons under the age of 55 is lower than the mortality rate for persons over the age of 55.  "Death" and "harm," of course, are related but still vastly different concepts.  One cannot die without being harmed, but one can be harmed without dying.  Bottom line: your point that no harm will inure to the under-55 group is based on the misconception that harm and death are coterminous concepts.  

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

For posterity's sake.

 

Fake news. 

[shoshin]

26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Nobody moved the goalposts here.  You indicated that the economy should reopen for those under 55 because the virus is unlikely to harm such a person.  My response reflects the obvious point, which you have overlooked either intentionally or otherwise, that the data to date reflects only that the mortality rate for persons under the age of 55 is lower than the mortality rate for persons over the age of 55.  "Death" and "harm," of course, are related but still vastly different concepts.  One cannot die without being harmed, but one can be harmed without dying.  Bottom line: your point that no harm will inure to the under-55 group is based on the misconception that harm and death are coterminous concepts.  

 

Fake news. 

 

Under 55s spread the disease for sure but even in hospitalizations, they lag the rest by a lot. 

 

 

Given the correlation between other conditions and hospitalizations, it makes a lot of sense that this is so. 

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by shoshin

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Stupid question.  I only have one personality.  

Too bad for you. 

[Tiberius]

The price of pork chops might be going up 

 

New York (CNN Business)Tyson Foods (TSN) is warning that "millions of pounds of meat" will disappear from the supply chain as the coronavirus pandemic pushes food processing plants to close, leading to product shortages in grocery stores across the country.

"The food supply chain is breaking," wrote board chairman John Tyson in a full-page advertisement published Sunday in The New York Times, Washington Post and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

[Big Gun]

Interesting company Dr Fauci keeps.

 

 

Equally interesting that Dr Fauci seemed to have friends in Wuhan.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/04/26/giuliani-fauci-gave-3-7-million-to-wuhan-laboratory-in-2014/

 

Haven't been a fan of Fauci from day 1 when all this covid 19 stuff started.

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

17 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Too bad for you. 

 

That's not a very nice thing to say.  Because I disagree with you my personality therefore is bad?  Sounds like you're offended very easily and should be on the snowflake list.