Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

[SJHovey]

Is that possibly true? I didn’t think Obamacare grandfathered in any plans.

either way, most likely he’s got OOP in the range of $5k-10k, he’s going to get hit with that again next year. Plus there’s the modification of home that sometimes occurs.

Hard to know what’s covered and what’s not these days.

Yeah, I don't know for certain. For some reason I thought there was a rule that if you were on a plan at the time the ACA was passed, and that plan had a lifetime limit, and if the plan didn't change substantially, they could continue with the lifetime limits. But I might be remembering that wrong.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Is that possibly true? I didn’t think Obamacare grandfathered in any plans.

either way, most likely he’s got OOP in the range of $5k-10k, he’s going to get hit with that again next year. Plus there’s the modification of home that sometimes occurs.

Hard to know what’s covered and what’s not these days.

Remember, Congress did pass a bill under Trump that allowed some junk plans back in. Probably why they had to go all GoFundMe on the crap.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Yeah, I don't know for certain. For some reason I thought there was a rule that if you were on a plan at the time the ACA was passed, and that plan had a lifetime limit, and if the plan didn't change substantially, they could continue with the lifetime limits. But I might be remembering that wrong.

I could be wrong too. It's complicated and well.. play with fire, get burned.

 

[MichVandal]

If he has had amputations and been hospitalized in ICU for three months, he probably has had some huge expenses. I think there are still some instances where people who have been covered for a long time under their same plan might still be stuck with lifetime limits on benefits, which might only be a million or two.

Also, there may be some things that medical insurance doesn't cover. For instance, amputations and things like that, maybe he needs to renovate his car or his home or something, and I'm not certain to what extent medical insurance will cover costs like that.

Which is to say that we need universal healthcare. Why a person working in the White House has medical bill problems is beyond me. That's insane.

Add to the idea that a required amputation to save his life isn't covered would be moronic.

That does not even consider that he probably got the illness at work. So thanks the the current systems- lax protections at work got him sick, required an amputation, probably ending his career, and then forcing him into bankruptcy thanks to the lack of coverage. What a great system.

Get rid of the middle man.

This isn't about potential care, it's about the money laundering industry who restricts what you are allowed to do- so that they can make money. A great example of how dumpy was going to take care of us.

I would not be shocked to hear that this has also happened on dumpy's properties to his low paid employees.

 

[SJHovey]

Which is to say that we need universal healthcare. Why a person working in the White House has medical bill problems is beyond me. That's insane.

Add to the idea that a required amputation to save his life isn't covered would be moronic.

That does not even consider that he probably got the illness at work. So thanks the the current systems- lax protections at work got him sick, required an amputation, probably ending his career, and then forcing him into bankruptcy thanks to the lack of coverage. What a great system.

Get rid of the middle man.

This isn't about potential care, it's about the money laundering industry who restricts what you are allowed to do- so that they can make money. A great example of how dumpy was going to take care of us.

I would not be shocked to hear that this has also happened on dumpy's properties to his low paid employees.

Yeah, I don't really know what the money is for. It might not be for medical expenses at all. The GoFundMe page was only looking for $50,000, so maybe it was for modifications to the guys house or something.

 

[Swansong]

My hospital begins employee vaccinations tomorrow morning. I'm super excited about it. I'll be on site to provide "at the elbow" support in the afternoon (the staff asked for IT managers to be present).

This is incredible. The fact that we went from "hey what's this new thing?" to "95% effective vaccine" in 1 year is astonishing and a marvel of modern medicine, communication, research and willpower. This is truly remarkable and I'm really proud to even play a tiny part in it.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Once frontline workers are taken care of, further vaccine deliveries to the states should be prioritized by the responses of their respective governors and legislatures. South Dakota, back of the line.

 

[rufus]

Last time I had the flu they chopped myleg off.

Sure hope I don't get the flu again.

 

[SJHovey]

Last time I had the flu they chopped myleg off.

Sure hope I don't get the flu again.

But on the bright side you'd no longer lean to one side when you walk.

 

[Handyman]

Once frontline workers are taken care of, further vaccine deliveries to the states should be prioritized by the responses of their respective governors and legislatures. South Dakota, back of the line.

NoDak too...since you know, they don't believe it is real cause they never see it.

I want to say Idaho as well...but that would punish a few around here methinks ;^)

(yes you can read into that exactly what it says)

 

[Jeb2020]

Hospital red alert?

Headlines abound… MN officials have labeled the metro area as dangerously short on hospital beds.

In 2017, per MDH, metro hospitals averaged 4,208 beds in use.

Today, 3,910 beds are in use… that's 298 less than a typical non-covid year.

 

[Jeb2020]

Have we got any updates on the following? Because as of just recently there was no info and that is right from the vaccine producers. In regards to spread, most curious about 4-6.

1. Not tested on elderly

2. Not test on immuno compromised

3. Not tested on kids

4. No data on impact on spread

5. No data on impact on hospitalizations

6. No data on impact on deaths

 

[dxmnkd316]

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status...879138306?s=20

I'm not sure what to think of this. Especially Topol's takeaway.

Edit: Ok, others seem to be interpreting this the same way I did. That the stay at home effect was minimal AFTER you limit gathers to 10 people and close businesses and schools. I mean, other than that, yeah, stay at home doesn't matter I guess...

This study is going to be twisted pretty hard and it's really upsetting that the authors didn't choose their words more carefully. Especially given the extreme variation on what each of those terms means from community to community, country to country. Even more-so when they don't consider these are national mandates vs. local. Just yikes Nature...

Edit 2: Eight stated variables (not including the unlisted variables like mask wearing, adherence to the rules, healthcare system, population size, density, quality of data, transportation system, time, etc.) and only 21 sets of data? How on earth do you expect to unwind them? I'm sorry, I just don't like this. This seems like bad science.

 

[leswp1]

Which is to say that we need universal healthcare. Why a person working in the White House has medical bill problems is beyond me. That's insane.

Add to the idea that a required amputation to save his life isn't covered would be moronic.

That does not even consider that he probably got the illness at work. So thanks the the current systems- lax protections at work got him sick, required an amputation, probably ending his career, and then forcing him into bankruptcy thanks to the lack of coverage. What a great system.

Get rid of the middle man.

This isn't about potential care, it's about the money laundering industry who restricts what you are allowed to do- so that they can make money. A great example of how dumpy was going to take care of us.

I would not be shocked to hear that this has also happened on dumpy's properties to his low paid employees.

All of this. This was going on way before C19. How we, a supposedly great country, can rely on go-find-me to do things like fund serious no-elective surgery, cancer treatment, medical care has been something that has bothered me for a long time. It makes me crazy when they cover the 'heartwarming' story when a go-fund-me raises money for something that other countries just take for granted will be paid. In other countries the biggest worry is what the test result will be. In our country it is can they afford the tests required. (actual studies done on this)

 

[Handyman]

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status...879138306?s=20

I'm not sure what to think of this. Especially Topol's takeaway.

Edit: Ok, others seem to be interpreting this the same way I did. That the stay at home effect was minimal AFTER you limit gathers to 10 people and close businesses and schools. I mean, other than that, yeah, stay at home doesn't matter I guess...

This study is going to be twisted pretty hard and it's really upsetting that the authors didn't choose their words more carefully. Especially given the extreme variation on what each of those terms means from community to community, country to country. Even more-so when they don't consider these are national mandates vs. local. Just yikes Nature...

Edit 2: Eight stated variables (not including the unlisted variables like mask wearing, adherence to the rules, healthcare system, population size, density, quality of data, transportation system, time, etc.) and only 21 sets of data? How on earth do you expect to unwind them? I'm sorry, I just don't like this. This seems like bad science.

It seems that way cause it is.

edit: the comments do a great job picking apart how junk sciency this is.

 

[MichVandal]

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status...879138306?s=20

I'm not sure what to think of this. Especially Topol's takeaway.

Edit: Ok, others seem to be interpreting this the same way I did. That the stay at home effect was minimal AFTER you limit gathers to 10 people and close businesses and schools. I mean, other than that, yeah, stay at home doesn't matter I guess...

This study is going to be twisted pretty hard and it's really upsetting that the authors didn't choose their words more carefully. Especially given the extreme variation on what each of those terms means from community to community, country to country. Even more-so when they don't consider these are national mandates vs. local. Just yikes Nature...

Edit 2: Eight stated variables (not including the unlisted variables like mask wearing, adherence to the rules, healthcare system, population size, density, quality of data, transportation system, time, etc.) and only 21 sets of data? How on earth do you expect to unwind them? I'm sorry, I just don't like this. This seems like bad science.

Maybe I'm reading that differently- as it was an additive effect on top of all of the above. The additive stay at home was at least the same as going from 100 to 10 people gatherings.

It's a pretty misleading note- since each are kind of a raw effect, supposedly on it's own, whereas the stay at home is in combination with all of the above. So sum up the effect of gatherings of 10 (since 100 and 1000 is a natural subset), closed businesses, and schools all up, and THEN add on stay at home order.

So that will be at least over 50%, probably closer to 60%.

Then, as you suggest, some of those would end up being redundant anyway- closing businesses would naturally result in smaller groups as well as people staying at home, same with closing schools- you would stay home anyway. Looking at it again, when you add all of the categories together, the end result is that everyone HAS to stay home. So concluding that stay at home was useless isn't a reasonable conclusion when the actions of everything else is people staying at home.

Thinking about it more- considering that the natural outcome of all those actions would be massive amounts of people staying home, it's kind of remarkable that adding the order actually improves the outcome even more.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Odd that they also excluded the entire Western Hemisphere except Mexico; Australia and most of Asia, (Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan) and plenty of others that have seemingly reliable data.

The countries were selected for the availability of reliable NPI data at the time when we started data collection and modelling (April 2020); and for their presence in at least one of the public datasets that we used to cross-validate our collected data. We excluded countries with fewer than 100 cases (or 10 deaths) by March 31, as our model neglects new cases and deaths below these thresholds. We also excluded a small number of countries if there were credible media reports casting doubt on the trustworthiness of their reporting of cases and deaths. Finally, we excluded very large countries like China, the United States, and Canada, for ease of data collection, as these would require more locally fine-grained data. Of the 41 included countries, 33 are in Europe. As a result, the NPI effectiveness estimates may be biased toward effects in Europe, and NPI effectiveness may have been different in other parts of the world.

They excluded data where there were fewer than 100 cases by March 31? They couldn't continue to add data as it came in?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Maybe I'm reading that differently- as it was an additive effect on top of all of the above. The additive stay at home was at least the same as going from 100 to 10 people gatherings.

It's a pretty misleading note- since each are kind of a raw effect, supposedly on it's own, whereas the stay at home is in combination with all of the above. So sum up the effect of gatherings of 10 (since 100 and 1000 is a natural subset), closed businesses, and schools all up, and THEN add on stay at home order.

So that will be at least over 50%, probably closer to 60%.

Then, as you suggest, some of those would end up being redundant anyway- closing businesses would naturally result in smaller groups as well as people staying at home, same with closing schools- you would stay home anyway. Looking at it again, when you add all of the categories together, the end result is that everyone HAS to stay home. So concluding that stay at home was useless isn't a reasonable conclusion when the actions of everything else is people staying at home.

Thinking about it more- considering that the natural outcome of all those actions would be massive amounts of people staying home, it's kind of remarkable that adding the order actually improves the outcome even more.

yeah, this is terrible. The more I read through the paper, the less I respect it.

Read through the supplemental section and try to maintain your jaw position.


Covid_NPI_effects__Copy_2_-1.pdf (sciencemag.org)

E.2 Model Limitations

Interaction between NPIs. We model the effectiveness of each NPI (percentage reduction in Rt as constant within each country. In practice, however, NPI effectiveness may change when other NPIs are implemented. Thus, our estimates ought to be interpreted in light of the contexts in which the NPI was implemented in our data (10). In other words, our results give the NPI effectiveness across typical situations that the NPIs were implemented in. Fig. S20 visualises which NPIs typically co-occurred, aiding interpretation.

Am I understanding this correctly? They're assuming that one variable doesn't impact the other? I have to be misunderstanding this or why that's not a big deal. Because it seems like assuming the variables aren't tied together seems dubious.

 

[MichVandal]

yeah, this is terrible. The more I read through the paper, the less I respect it.

Read through the supplemental section and try to maintain your jaw position.


Covid_NPI_effects__Copy_2_-1.pdf (sciencemag.org)



Am I understanding this correctly? They're assuming that one variable doesn't impact the other? I have to be misunderstanding this or why that's not a big deal. Because it seems like assuming the variables aren't tied together seems dubious.

It sure seems that they are pretending that there's no interaction. Even though they are naturally interacting. Limiting people to 10 not only limits businesses, it also limits all schools. Limiting any of those impacts people staying at home.

 

[MichVandal]

How S Korea is doing it- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMrk1VNBub8&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake

Imagine how 1) many Americans would be alive, and 2) how much better the economy would be if any of our leaders took this seriously right at the beginning. It may not have stopped it, but the effect would most certainly not be what has happened in this country.

Just starting with real quarantines of infected, add in contact tracing as best we could, and test, test, test.

Denial, denial, and denial in the face of knowing what was happening has killed a lot of Americans.