COVID-19

[Wyldnwoody44]

14 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Do hospitals get paid extra money, from some fund somewhere, if a patient dies specifically from Covid? I heard this from someone and it seemed kinda weird.

 

Not that I'm aware of, from the beginning in March, hospitals were fully reimbursed for anything Covid related, even if it was just suspicion on the chart or any type of testing. 

I am unaware or any newer policies, but I've distanced myself from a lot of it over the last couple of months. 

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Not that I'm aware of, from the beginning in March, hospitals were fully reimbursed for anything Covid related, even if it was just suspicion on the chart or any type of testing. 

I am unaware or any newer policies, but I've distanced myself from a lot of it over the last couple of months. 

Do you know if Medicare pay more?

[Eleven]

32 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Do hospitals get paid extra money, from some fund somewhere, if a patient dies specifically from Covid? I heard this from someone and it seemed kinda weird.

 

Like a bonus?

[SwampD]

12 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Like a bonus?

I heard that hospitals get reimbursed by medicare at different rates for different things (obviously), so they may have an incentive in inflating Covid numbers because they get more money. Seemed like conspiracy flap.

[Wyldnwoody44]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

Do you know if Medicare pay more?

Not more, per se. Different insurance companies reimburse hospitals at a different rate, they are also experts at dodging paying 100% of the estimated cost. Based on charting, etc. For example, Blue cross may pay the hospital/group 500$ for a diagnosis of appendicitis, but for a Medicaid patient, the reimbursement may only be 35$ for the same exact work. But let's say I only chart a physical exam for 5 body sections instead of 6 that they want, now they only will pay 15$ on that same diagnosis because of some missed clicked buttons. If I put in the chart that the patient is R/O Covid due to a fever and belly pain (knowing full well it's from the appendicitis) then it automatically will get fully reimbursed at the max level because of the pandemic. Silly stuff. 

[BagBoy]

Is it just me?  I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about seeing college and now pro football games with people in the stands.  I applaud the NHL and NBA for doing such a good job with their bubbles.  MLB even with no fans has been a very questionable decision Covid-wise.  Now football players are not only travelling, and with no bubbles, but are playing in stadiums with fans where proper social distancing and correct mask usage is a crapshoot at best. 

[Doohicksie]

On 9/10/2020 at 12:34 PM, SwampD said:

Do you know if Medicare pay more?

They get paid more for intubuation because intubation costs more.  That turned into an urban legend that if a patient has Covid the hospital gets paid more.

[Doohicksie]

On 9/10/2020 at 9:58 PM, BagBoy said:

I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about seeing college and now pro football games with people in the stands.

Our county in Texas has been steadily improving, new cases decreasing, etc.  Everywhere but zip code 76129 (the TCU campus) and 79109 (the zip around the campus).  In my zip code, for instance, which is just south of 76109, 0.2% of the population has tested positive for Covid in the last 30 days.  In 76109, it's 1.5%, and in 76129, the TCU campus proper, its 4.9% (and rising).  😮  Yard parties are commonplace.  No one is wearing masks.  Ugh.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Doohickie

[Wyldnwoody44]

21 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Our county in Texas has been steadily improving, new cases decreasing, etc.  Everywhere but zip code 76129 (the TCU campus) and 79109 (the zip around the campus).  In my zip code, for instance, which is just south of 76109, 0.2% of the population has tested positive for Covid in the last 30 days.  In 76109, it's 1.5%, and in 76129, the TCU campus proper, its 4.9% (and rising).  😮  Yard parties are commonplace.  No one is wearing masks.  Ugh.

And I'm positive that they're all fine. So what do the numbers even mean. Zilch 

[SwampD]

6 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

And I'm positive that they're all fine. So what do the numbers even mean. Zilch 

This is cryptic. What do you know?

[Doohicksie]

Sure, they're fine.  But pass the virus to others who have co-morbidities and people die. 

According to county statistics, about 1.4% of people who have contracted the disease have died.  I understand that there are probably other undocumented cases where people didn't seek treatment so weren't counted, but it's one of the nation's, and world's, leading causes of death at the moment.

And the way the US is handling it has caused most of the rest of the world to not allow travel from the US, or requires travelers from the US to quarantine.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Doohickie

[PerreaultForever]

As time goes by some statistical numbers will be thrown off as many young healthy people (ignoring distancing) get it but come out of it fine so the percentage of the total for deaths etc is thrown off. But, at the same time lost in the stat deaths and serious cases for the elderly or infirm will rise and that stat might get buried by others. 

The U.S. is like 50 different countries handling it differently so no wonder it's a little messed up. 

[Stoner]

9 hours ago, SwampD said:

This is cryptic. What do you know?

Nothing. He has admitted to not following pandemic news.

[Stoner]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

As time goes by some statistical numbers will be thrown off as many young healthy people (ignoring distancing) get it but come out of it fine so the percentage of the total for deaths etc is thrown off. But, at the same time lost in the stat deaths and serious cases for the elderly or infirm will rise and that stat might get buried by others. 

The U.S. is like 50 different countries handling it differently so no wonder it's a little messed up. 

This is harsh but true: once info. was put out there that the most affected people were old, poor and people of color, the floodgates back to normalcy opened. These are the people a capitalist country cares least about. Dr. Birx' use of the word "urban" was the first tip off. Of course plenty of very fine people on the other side are dying too.

Edited September 15, 2020 by PASabreFan

[Wyldnwoody44]

9 hours ago, SwampD said:

This is cryptic. What do you know?

I don't follow mainstream news at all, why would I, it's all controlled every single outlet that we get is not true news. 

What PA said is accurate, I don't really follow the news, but to think that I have been in the field for a decade plus, dealt with pandemics in the 3rd world and have dealt with other aspects of a poor universe; to come out of that and think that I know nothing would be funny at best. 

I'm not the kind of man who will try and find supporting percentages/numbers and etc, I'm not an argumentative person, I'd fail as a litigator, but I've seen much much worse disease in my lifetime, I see every year people dying from worse without so much as a peep in the "news" so color me shaded. All these numbers are doing are promoting fear, and we are eating it up so quick, we're looking like Violet from Willy Wonka. 

But it matters not, I have one of the least popular stances on this (though it's slowly changing) and my thoughts on it aren't going to sway anyone. So I'll just continue to add some value to this arena when I can. 

Also, if I die from Covid in Brazil this week you guys can have my stuff. 

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I don't follow mainstream news at all, why would I, it's all controlled every single outlet that we get is not true news. 

What PA said is accurate, I don't really follow the news, but to think that I have been in the field for a decade plus, dealt with pandemics in the 3rd world and have dealt with other aspects of a poor universe; to come out of that and think that I know nothing would be funny at best. 

I'm not the kind of man who will try and find supporting percentages/numbers and etc, I'm not an argumentative person, I'd fail as a litigator, but I've seen much much worse disease in my lifetime, I see every year people dying from worse without so much as a peep in the "news" so color me shaded. All these numbers are doing are promoting fear, and we are eating it up so quick, we're looking like Violet from Willy Wonka. 

But it matters not, I have one of the least popular stances on this (though it's slowly changing) and my thoughts on it aren't going to sway anyone. So I'll just continue to add some value to this arena when I can. 

Also, if I die from Covid in Brazil this week you guys can have my stuff. 

I just want your house.

[North Buffalo]

54 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I don't follow mainstream news at all, why would I, it's all controlled every single outlet that we get is not true news. 

What PA said is accurate, I don't really follow the news, but to think that I have been in the field for a decade plus, dealt with pandemics in the 3rd world and have dealt with other aspects of a poor universe; to come out of that and think that I know nothing would be funny at best. 

I'm not the kind of man who will try and find supporting percentages/numbers and etc, I'm not an argumentative person, I'd fail as a litigator, but I've seen much much worse disease in my lifetime, I see every year people dying from worse without so much as a peep in the "news" so color me shaded. All these numbers are doing are promoting fear, and we are eating it up so quick, we're looking like Violet from Willy Wonka. 

But it matters not, I have one of the least popular stances on this (though it's slowly changing) and my thoughts on it aren't going to sway anyone. So I'll just continue to add some value to this arena when I can. 

Also, if I die from Covid in Brazil this week you guys can have my stuff. 

I want your travel points

[Stoner]

I'll take the wig.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I don't follow mainstream news at all, why would I, it's all controlled every single outlet that we get is not true news. 

What PA said is accurate, I don't really follow the news, but to think that I have been in the field for a decade plus, dealt with pandemics in the 3rd world and have dealt with other aspects of a poor universe; to come out of that and think that I know nothing would be funny at best. 

I'm not the kind of man who will try and find supporting percentages/numbers and etc, I'm not an argumentative person, I'd fail as a litigator, but I've seen much much worse disease in my lifetime, I see every year people dying from worse without so much as a peep in the "news" so color me shaded. All these numbers are doing are promoting fear, and we are eating it up so quick, we're looking like Violet from Willy Wonka. 

But it matters not, I have one of the least popular stances on this (though it's slowly changing) and my thoughts on it aren't going to sway anyone. So I'll just continue to add some value to this arena when I can. 

Also, if I die from Covid in Brazil this week you guys can have my stuff. 

My comment was narrow. You've practically bragged about not following what's going on with Covid. So I didn't think Swamp should read anything into your comment on kids in Texas or wherever contracting Covid. Also, there are ways to follow pandemic news without touching the mainstream media.

"Dying from worse" is a weird phrase. Is there a worse way to die than the way people have died of Covid? Covid has been one of the leading causes of death in this country this year. Are more people dying of cancer? Sure. But cancer's not contagious or easily transmitted.

The numbers don't need to promote fear. The death rate isn't terrifying. Is 5% positivity rate supposed to send people screaming down the street? But all the numbers are concerning enough that life can't go on like before, for now.

I think that's where you and most people part ways. You seem to think it's OK for people to engage in dangerous behavior because they'll either be OK or they'll get very sick and it'll be their own fault/choice. You don't seem to want to see one degree out from there.

[nfreeman]

10 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

My comment was narrow. You've practically bragged about not following what's going on with Covid. So I didn't think Swamp should read anything into your comment on kids in Texas or wherever contracting Covid. Also, there are ways to follow pandemic news without touching the mainstream media.

"Dying from worse" is a weird phrase. Is there a worse way to die than the way people have died of Covid? Covid has been one of the leading causes of death in this country this year. Are more people dying of cancer? Sure. But cancer's not contagious or easily transmitted.

The numbers don't need to promote fear. The death rate isn't terrifying. Is 5% positivity rate supposed to send people screaming down the street? But all the numbers are concerning enough that life can't go on like before, for now.

I think that's where you and most people part ways. You seem to think it's OK for people to engage in dangerous behavior because they'll either be OK or they'll get very sick and it'll be their own fault/choice. You don't seem to want to see one degree out from there.

Both of the bolded items embody major assumptions that essentially assume away the discussion.

Who are these "most people?"  Much of this country, and most of Europe, has gone back to school, in person, full time, and in many cases without masks.

And what behavior is "dangerous?"  And is it really "dangerous?"  I read a stat a few days ago to the effect that something like 26,000 college students have tested positive for the virus just this fall, with zero hospitalizations.  It seems increasingly clear that the virus poses essentially zero risk to those under age 40 who do not have major co-morbidity factors, and a very low risk to those under age 65 without major co-morbidity factors.

Maybe the right answer is, and has always been, to be very careful around the vulnerable segments of the population, but otherwise to go back to normal -- because the cost of doing what we've been doing is and has been enormous.

[LTS]

11 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Sure, they're fine.  But pass the virus to others who have co-morbidities and people die. 

According to county statistics, about 1.4% of people who have contracted the disease have died.  I understand that there are probably other undocumented cases where people didn't seek treatment so weren't counted, but it's one of the nation's, and world's, leading causes of death at the moment.

And the way the US is handling it has caused most of the rest of the world to not allow travel from the US, or requires travelers from the US to quarantine.

This is the real key and along the lines of what I mentioned months ago.  There are people who are at increased risk to this virus.  We don't necessarily know who is and who is not (although some people are definitely more readily identifiable).  

That said, we've accepted this behavior in the past with the other coronavirus outbreaks, with influenza, with other communicable diseases that posed a risk to others in society. Just like some people have a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, etc.  It's genetics (or in some cases self-induced) but it's also life.  We're not all equal and unfortunately some of the "weaker" people die.  Yes, some.  I know the response "How many is too many?  What is acceptable?"  You know what, I don't answer that question, Mother Nature does.  Not everyone can be saved.

Healthcare systems are not overrun at this point, so if a person contracts the virus and is treated but still dies, who do you blame?

And as always the question goes back to... how much should others be required to inhibit their behaviors to protect those who are at risk?  I'm not advocating any particular stance, I've been wearing a mask, avoiding contact, etc.  That's my decision, but I do have a hard time telling others how to live their lives without also looking at the guy eating fast food every day who barely has a job and thinking "This dude is a poster child for government healthcare which will be taxed out of my income.  Why can't he be responsible with his health?"  

Slippery slopes..

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Both of the bolded items embody major assumptions that essentially assume away the discussion.

Who are these "most people?"  Much of this country, and most of Europe, has gone back to school, in person, full time, and in many cases without masks.

And what behavior is "dangerous?"  And is it really "dangerous?"  I read a stat a few days ago to the effect that something like 26,000 college students have tested positive for the virus just this fall, with zero hospitalizations.  It seems increasingly clear that the virus poses essentially zero risk to those under age 40 who do not have major co-morbidity factors, and a very low risk to those under age 65 without major co-morbidity factors.

Maybe the right answer is, and has always been, to be very careful around the vulnerable segments of the population, but otherwise to go back to normal -- because the cost of doing what we've been doing is and has been enormous.

"...be very careful around the vulnerable segments..." Around is the operative word. You want younger folks to distance themselves and (maybe) wear a mask when around grandma and grandpa, but that's not enough. Grandma and grandpa can't live on a deserted island. They deserve to live in the world, too. If they're sick, they have caretakers of various kinds in various settings. Covid will find them. They probably won't get it from their grandchildren, but from the person infected five people down the line.

Why is the cost of protecting the vulnerable (and lots of people who don't seem vulnerable but who can get very sick and suffer lasting effects) so "enormous"? The measures are practically free, in fact. OK, there are no bowling alleys or movie theaters open in some states. Bars and restaurants might have limited capacity. You can't get puked on at Bills Stadium. Oh, the horror. To do the right thing for a relatively short period of time. This country, sent back in time, wouldn't have made it past Valentine's Day 1943.

Edited September 15, 2020 by PASabreFan

[Stoner]

57 minutes ago, LTS said:

This is the real key and along the lines of what I mentioned months ago.  There are people who are at increased risk to this virus.  We don't necessarily know who is and who is not (although some people are definitely more readily identifiable).  

That said, we've accepted this behavior in the past with the other coronavirus outbreaks, with influenza, with other communicable diseases that posed a risk to others in society. Just like some people have a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, etc.  It's genetics (or in some cases self-induced) but it's also life.  We're not all equal and unfortunately some of the "weaker" people die.  Yes, some.  I know the response "How many is too many?  What is acceptable?"  You know what, I don't answer that question, Mother Nature does.  Not everyone can be saved.

Healthcare systems are not overrun at this point, so if a person contracts the virus and is treated but still dies, who do you blame?

And as always the question goes back to... how much should others be required to inhibit their behaviors to protect those who are at risk?  I'm not advocating any particular stance, I've been wearing a mask, avoiding contact, etc.  That's my decision, but I do have a hard time telling others how to live their lives without also looking at the guy eating fast food every day who barely has a job and thinking "This dude is a poster child for government healthcare which will be taxed out of my income.  Why can't he be responsible with his health?"  

Slippery slopes..

Does 200,000 dead (and probably many more) in six months, a disease becoming a leading cause of death almost overnight, not get your attention as something extraordinary?

Man, I wouldn't want to play poker against some of you guys.

Then again, we just learned the alpha male with the giant hands went running out of the office when someone sneezed.

[nfreeman]

9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

"...be very careful around the vulnerable segments..." Around is the operative word. You want younger folks to distance themselves and (maybe) wear a mask when around grandma and grandpa, but that's not enough. Grandma and grandpa can't live on a deserted island. They deserve to live in the world, too. If they're sick, they have caretakers of various kinds in various settings. Covid will find them. They probably won't get it from their grandchildren, but from the person infected five people down the line.

Why is the cost of protecting the vulnerable (and lots of people who don't seem vulnerable but who can get very sick and suffer lasting effects) so "enormous"? The measures are practically free, in fact. OK, there are no bowling alleys or movie theaters open in some states. Bars and restaurants might have limited capacity. You can't get puked on at Bills Stadium. Oh, the horror. To do the right thing for a relatively short period of time. This country, sent back in time, wouldn't have made it past Valentine's Day 1943.

C'mon.  This isn't about not being able to attend hockey games or dine out.  Let's not pretend that millions of people out of work, the related increases in depression, addiction, family breakups, etc., millions more unable to obtain non-Covid-related medical care for months, the loss of close to a year of school for millions of kids, a huge reduction in GDP, huge reductions in tax revenues -- and thus much less money available for social programs, schools, government services, parks, trash removal, pensions, etc. -- isn't an enormous cost. 

[Stoner]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

C'mon.  This isn't about not being able to attend hockey games or dine out.  Let's not pretend that millions of people out of work, the related increases in depression, addiction, family breakups, etc., millions more unable to obtain non-Covid-related medical care for months, the loss of close to a year of school for millions of kids, a huge reduction in GDP, huge reductions in tax revenues -- and thus much less money available for social programs, schools, government services, parks, trash removal, pensions, etc. -- isn't an enormous cost. 

The economic "shutdown" (the vast majority of people kept their jobs) wasn't about protecting the vulnerable. It was early days, no one knew anything, the virus was exploding and there was a real risk that the health care system would be overrun. It didn't happen except maybe in a few big city hospitals, and we adjusted. Now people are being asked to wear masks, distance themselves, wash their hands and avoid crowds. Not a huge ask.

Is it your position that the economy is still shut down to try and save nana? And how do you propose going back to "normal" and not having an enormous second (or third) wave wipe out hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, the vulnerable and the not vulnerable?

The math is the problem here. What's .5% of 60% of 330,000,000?