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

[SJHovey]

I understand what you’re saying. I agree with most of it. I don’t even remotely agree with Levitt’s core argument that a lockdown wasn’t effective, and especially not with that older people’s lives are worth sacrificing compared to younger lives’ futures being sacrificed. All lives matter kind of goes out the window with that argument.
Anyways, I was giving Hovey the benefit of the doubt that he posted the article to show that someone who’s smart, though not necessarily in epidemiology, was arguing that lockdowns weren’t effective, like he does. Based on his last post, that benefit got a lot harder to justify.

I didn't post the article, I commented on it.

 

[jerphisch]

From an academic standpoint I get what Stanford guy is trying to say...but in the real world he is just completely wrong. Even worse, he was proven wrong already and got so used to being the GOP darling he pivoted to another of their talking points and did it all over again. Lots of people are doing that...they just cant force their ego to shelter in place.

Meh it's pretty dumb even from an academic standpoint. It assumes that there is no possible mitigation for any of the economic harm being done, which is ridiculous. He does not seem to take in to account what the death toll would have been with no lockdowns, and if his position is that it would have been the same he's nuts.

 

[SJHovey]

That would make sense...if it was proven that people under the age of 70 have no ill effects of the disease. Since we know that isnt true it doesnt really hold water.

Again should my dad who is 73 with underlying conditions just accept his fate?

And we didnt shut down anyways. This country is filled with whiny, selfish candyasses.

With respect to your dad, he should do what my folks (both in their 80's) are doing. He should be careful. Wear a mask. Limit his time in public. Limit the number of people he visits, or that he allows to visit him. Probably all of the things he is doing.

With respect to the people under the age of 70, yes, there are people under 70 who get the disease, people who have terrible lingering effects from the disease, or who even die from the disease.

But, those numbers are significantly different than the risks to those over 70.

All I am saying is that you have to look at the actual number of those people and at least consider that as against the cost of the preventative measures.

 

[Jeb2020]

Meh it's pretty dumb even from an academic standpoint. It assumes that there is no possible mitigation for any of the economic harm being done, which is ridiculous. He does not seem to take in to account what the death toll would have been with no lockdowns, and if his position is that it would have been the same he's nuts.

Lockdowns were intended to make sure the HCS wasn’t overwhelmed. New York was the epicenter of the hardest hit in the world and they got through it.

No system is being overrun. Locking down the vast majority of a healthy society that doesn’t have a a virus is absurd.

And being infatuated with a “case count” as reason to lock down is more absurd.

You guys and your lockdowns. Bunch of quacks.

 

[SJHovey]

Evaluating societal costs? Prioritizing preventative measures based on economic worth? If this isn’t the definition of a death panel I don’t know what is.

Don't we do this every day in this country, and all around the world?

We don't ban autos, we don't ban airplanes, we let people go out on fishing boats, we let people work on oil rigs. In doing so we know people will die as a consequence of our decisions. We don't want them to die. We try to take steps to minimize the chances of it happening.

We make those economic decisions all the time.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

"They are dying, that's true, and it is what it is"

 

[Jeb2020]

So why can't we do it now? There are clear methods that are effective, even in the long term, but we choose to not do that. Other countries react when 11 people get sick, we would celebrate states were 11 died. These are preventable deaths, but somehow you seem to want us to choose to not make them preventable.

And even you have justified letting the old die for the economy. Based on your theory, if your parents get sick, they should not even bother going to the hospital.

The economy can be fine, as we have MORE than enough money to sustain the country for the short time it would actually take to end all of this. And they will make it up when the economy comes back in full anyway.

We fully know that leaving the choice up to individuals and corporations that they will choose money over health- especially if it's someone else's health. That's why government needs to step in.

How does locking down healthy people without a virus prevent anything?

Try harder.

And no all the deaths were not preventable. There is zero solution that has all people alive right now that have passed away since March.

Many of the deaths wouldn’t even be coded as Covid if the CDC hadn’t made a change to how they should be recorded.

You are amazingly void of any reason.

 

[leswp1]

Which party has been crying about the wretched "death panels" for the last ten years, and how Dems are talking about shipping old folks off on ice flies to die?

Well, if they are to believed the Dems were trying to kill people but they thought that was too slow. Instead they will just nuke anyone who has comorbidity. Think of the savings! Collateral won't be that bad!

 

[leswp1]

Honest question. Why is this troll still here? They're so clearly not arguing in good faith. They joined here and seemed to have posted over 600 times in a few months in what, two specific threads?

USCHO used to take out the trash, at least once in a while. Now I can't even find an obvious "report" function.

Because as you can see from the post right after yours we have a few people who like to play and engage. Maybe Board (if it exists) thinks with the amount of engagement and knee jerk responses people don't think the person is a troll?

 

[SJHovey]

So why can't we do it now? There are clear methods that are effective, even in the long term, but we choose to not do that. Other countries react when 11 people get sick, we would celebrate states were 11 died. These are preventable deaths, but somehow you seem to want us to choose to not make them preventable.

And even you have justified letting the old die for the economy. Based on your theory, if your parents get sick, they should not even bother going to the hospital.

The economy can be fine, as we have MORE than enough money to sustain the country for the short time it would actually take to end all of this. And they will make it up when the economy comes back in full anyway.

We fully know that leaving the choice up to individuals and corporations that they will choose money over health- especially if it's someone else's health. That's why government needs to step in.

I think we are doing it now. Maybe not to the extent that some of you, or others, want. But people are wearing masks. People are avoiding large indoor crowds. People wash their hands. I think those are all good safety measures to take.

Where have I ever suggested that people not go to the hospital if they get sick.

What I am saying is that before we shut down businesses, before we put millions out of work, before we discontinue elective medical care, we need to at least think about and evaluate the cost (and not just dollars "cost.")

 

[TalonsUpPuckDown]

Don't we do this every day in this country, and all around the world?

We don't ban autos, we don't ban airplanes, we let people go out on fishing boats, we let people work on oil rigs. In doing so we know people will die as a consequence of our decisions. We don't want them to die. We try to take steps to minimize the chances of it happening.

We make those economic decisions all the time.

The FAA, a governmental agency paid for with our tax dollars, regulates the ***** out of the airline industry to ensure it's the safest form of transportation in the country (world?). I hope I don't have to regurgitate the 60+ years of legislation and regulations governing auto safety. OSHA exists to ensure workplaces on fishing boats and oil rigs are taking precautions for worker safety. And if the company/industry is found negligent, lawyer up, ******. While you cannot legislate or regulate away risk, you can effectively reduce it which is what we've done successfully over the past 100 years. It's why our food supply no longer resembles what Upton Sinclair describes in The Jungle.

Just because I could die when I get on a plane is not equivalent to my 83 year old dad becoming a casual casualty of Covid. You're conveniently ignoring the regulatory underpinnings that make your examples as safe as possible while dismissing any relevant attempts to do the same for Covid. This is the very definition of a false equivalency. So I guess I have to reject your argument.

EDIT: Let me clarify what I'm rejecting. You took issue with my comment about death panels. The examples you provided as a defense to your statement is what I'm rejecting. Wanted to be clear.

 

[psych]

I didn't post the article, I commented on it.

Whoops. My bad again. Either way, my entirely unimportant opinion on the matter still stands.

Didn’t you post back in March it was a friend who broached the subject about how many lives saved would be required in order to justify shutting down the economy, decimating many places, including a slew of minority-owned business? You asked then yourself what number of lives would it, in fact, take. I don’t remember your answer.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Under Minnesota law, a health care directive is a health care power of attorney.

To clarify as states differ in semantics with that and DNR/DNAR language: the person you designate is basically everything. Most of the verbiage in the documents is clinically irrelevant.

 

[rufus]

Nursing Homes or long term care facilities are really interesting. They are a necessity when a person physically or mentally deteriorates to a point where they can't live alone, and either don't have someone to care for them, or their care is significant enough that an untrained family member really isn't capable of handling it.

Fuck 'em. Throw 'em out on the side of the road til they die.

Useless pieces of shit, can't even wipe their own asses. Can't work, can't produce anything, all they do is cost the government money, so what use are they? Unnecessary members of society. Drags on the economy.

That's what you want. that's what this whole, "let the old people die cause they were gonna die anyway(eventually) but we need to get the economy machine rolling so millionaires can rake in more money from the sweat of the working man"

that's your position on Covfefe. Funny how death panels are ok now since its Republicans in favor of them.

 

[rufus]

Evaluating societal costs? Prioritizing preventative measures based on economic worth? If this isn’t the definition of a death panel I don’t know what is.

Hovey likes his death panels. As long as they're Republican-approved death panels.

Democrats wanting people to ba able to discuss end of life alternatives with their health-care providers is a no-go, thought. That's just barbaric.

 

[rufus]

With respect to your dad, he should do what my folks (both in their 80's) are doing. He should be careful. Wear a mask. Limit his time in public. Limit the number of people he visits, or that he allows to visit him. Probably all of the things he is doing.

With respect to the people under the age of 70, yes, there are people under 70 who get the disease, people who have terrible lingering effects from the disease, or who even die from the disease.

But, those numbers are significantly different than the risks to those over 70.

All I am saying is that you have to look at the actual number of those people and at least consider that as against the cost of the preventative measures.

I hope your parents are barring the door from you.

So basically, his father should lock down and shelter in place. Become a hermit. So you and the rest of the selfish American fucks can go out to your favorite bars and restaurants and act like nothing's happening.

 

[Jeb2020]

I hope your parents are barring the door from you.

So basically, his father should lock down and shelter in place. Become a hermit. So you and the rest of the selfish American ****s can go out to your favorite bars and restaurants and act like nothing's happening.

And you want hundreds of millions of people without a virus let alone an active infection to become hermits.

It comes down to knowing your risk and taking the necessary precautions. It is as simple as that.

 

[Jeb2020]

Hovey likes his death panels. As long as they're Republican-approved death panels.

Democrats wanting people to ba able to discuss end of life alternatives with their health-care providers is a no-go, thought. That's just barbaric.

can people discuss treatments with their doctor or is that a no go?

 

[Jeb2020]

**** 'em. Throw 'em out on the side of the road til they die.

Useless pieces of ****, can't even wipe their own asses. Can't work, can't produce anything, all they do is cost the government money, so what use are they? Unnecessary members of society. Drags on the economy.

That's what you want. that's what this whole, "let the old people die cause they were gonna die anyway(eventually) but we need to get the economy machine rolling so millionaires can rake in more money from the sweat of the working man"

that's your position on Covfefe. Funny how death panels are ok now since its Republicans in favor of them.

I like your style. Not even caring if you come across as having a few screws loose.

 

[leswp1]

Nursing Homes or long term care facilities are really interesting. They are a necessity when a person physically or mentally deteriorates to a point where they can't live alone, and either don't have someone to care for them, or their care is significant enough that an untrained family member really isn't capable of handling it.

I'd really be curious how many people who live in nursing homes really want to be there. I suspect that number is fairly low.

I would also be curious as to the number of people in their 80's or 90's who have executed health care directives or living wills, or signed do not resuscitate documents.

None of that is to say that their lives are unimportant, or not worth protecting to the extent we can. But I think what he is saying is that most of these individuals are at the very end of their lives. If, as in Minnesota, 75% or more of the victims of this disease are such people, then when it comes time to evaluate the societal costs of our preventative measures, we really need to look at the extent to which those preventative measures contribute to other risk factors like poverty and suicide, and balance it against say the 25% of the people victimized by the disease who are not at the very end of their lives. If I'm 95 and have maybe months to live anyway, is it worth it to put millions on soup lines to make sure I get those last few months?

What I think the assumptions you are making are-
People enter NH only if they are unable to care for themselves.
People do not want to be there.
Many old People are at the very end of their lives, are DNR so is it worth it to intervene?

Having rounded Nursing homes early in my career, cared for the elderly for a few decades and now teaching in nursing homes I struggle with a lot of that.

Many, many people who are admitted do not belong there. They would be able to stay at home with minimal assistance. They end up admitted because insurance does not pay for assistance in the home. If they try without assistance it leads to falls and other events that are completely preventable. Most developed countries, other than our backwater one, provide for this assistance and keep people in their homes way longer and cheaper. We are stupid, let people get in big trouble and then admit them to an expensive place and then they can't go home because insurance won't pay for help.

Not everyone doesn't want to be there. Some people self admit or are admitted after a fall and decide to stay because they have no assistance at home (for stuff like meals, organizing meds, etc). Again, minimal assistance would probably keep them in their home safely but in our country makes this nigh impossible (all sorts of research showing people are better off and cheaper to have at home but insurance doesn't cover it. That is the only reason they are in house rather than at home.)

There are many, many people who are not DNR. They have all sorts of reasons- religion, still being fairly active and healthy, belief they will get better or will find a way to get assistance to go home. More than half my patients felt it was an affront to God and there were plenty more who didn't think it was time to decide that yet. I would say that less than 10% of the people in the nursing homes where I have been are in a state of waiting to die .

I am really confused with the last part- we need to look at societal costs of our preventative measures, the extent to which those preventative measures contribute to other risk factors like poverty and suicide, and balance it against the 25% of the people victimized by the disease who are not at the very end of their lives. If I'm 95 and have maybe months to live anyway, is it worth it to put millions on soup lines to make sure I get those last few months?
It looks like you are making the assumption that patients get the full court press to the detriment of others in society. This would be true if we had a system that was responsible for caring for all of us. We do not. Our system is profit/insurance based. There is plenty of money if we were not to rely on insurance companies who must turn a profit for their shareholders.

Spent a couple of decades discussing level of care with patients. Recommendation for screening and treatment is tailored to the patient and takes into consideration whether it is likely to be beneficial for that patient. Some insurances impede good medicine using age as a parameter rather than the state of the patient, require tests that might not be appropriate or decline to pay depending on plan.

If I am 95...is it worth it to be sure if I get those last few months? Sounds great. Who decides how long the person has- older people regularly defy logic for surviving and doing fairly OK. Dad les is 89 and has multiple co-morbidities. He can wear out my 24 yr old son who runs marathons. I am pretty sure he would be willing to whoop a55 if he saw that while telling you 'Semper Fi!'

Beyond all that I find it kind of disgusting how willing our culture is to dismiss the olds as a waste of resources. What we have was built by their efforts. Most of them have paid in for yrs. When they no longer have the ability to pay in we throw them away.