What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chuck Murray said:
Interesting link, WW. So what I got out of this was a few things, one of which was that while the 6% figure was not a fair or accurate analysis, it IS fair to say that 6% of the medical professionals who filled out the death certificates were/are not smart enough to fill them out correctly. That's not terribly reassuring. And further to the Dr. Birx quote on the "liberal counting" ... the cited item concedes that no more than 92.3% of the reported COVID-19 patients who died, passed away as a result of it.

With the other subjective elements involved, the only thing we can probably agree upon with certainty is the true number of COVID-19 deaths is somewhere in between 6% and 92.3%. And even if it's closer to 92.3%, does that mean it's 80%? 70%? 60%?? In any instance, it's a significant number AND also debunks the whole "undercounting" scenario that some on here still try to put forward with a straight face.

And keep in mind, a large segment of the data is coming from persons of older age, with many of them who (on top of that) have already been consigned to assisted living facilities. That does not make them meaningless; it does make them more susceptible, and (for what it's worth) the average life expectancy in assisted living facilities (admission to death) is roughly two years, give or take. The only point here is, these comorbidities aren't minor conditions - they're usually what got the patient there into assisted living in the first place.

Of course, there are many who had not gotten to assisted living yet, and their additional comorbidities may likely have been on average well below the 2.6 per patient average, whilst those in assisted living were likely well above the 2.6 average.

You didn't raise this - someone else did - but with all due respect, AIDS is an at-best-incomplete comparison to COVID-19. The age of those affected by AIDS was/is on average much lower than that of those who died with COVID-19. Comorbidities prior to infection were/are a much smaller factor with AIDS. I'm only guessing that deaths from AIDS for those already in assisted living scenarios was/is microscopic.

All in all, there's a lot more nuance into the overall analysis than most are willing to admit. Yet the media and the Dems (but I repeat myself) only go to the highest number possible.

To paraphrase Jeb2020 ... the effect is to try to make something kind of scary into something that's really scary. And if we're all being honest here ... that's the whole ballgame, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Hey Chucky....too afraid to respond to someone you know you can't really compete with? Sorry I made you look so bad by pointing out you were getting your info off of a Q'Anon believer who copied something from a Facebook post. Also, literally almost every legitimate expert in the country in regards to Covid is saying we are very likely under-counting deaths attributable to Covid by about 20,000-30,000.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Mr. 1820 last night, you do realize that literally 98% plus of all of the scientific and medical experts with legitimately respected knowledge in relation to this virus are saying this thing is a very big deal.They're all also saying that we need to be testing in far greater daily numbers than we currently are, that there should be a national mask mandate, that another 6 week lockdown is our best bet at actually getting the virus under control, that we shouldn't be opening schools up full bore, among a number of other things.

So please explain to me why it is YOU think they are taking these more cautious positions? Do you REALLY THINK that 98% plus of the world's legitimate experts in regards to this virus are just part of the DEEP STATE and that they're willing to completely screw up the world's economies just to make sure Trump doesn't get re-elected?!? If not, please explain why all of these extremely learned people -- all of them with FAR, FAR more knowledge of the virus than you -- are taking the positions that they are.
 
1820....in relation to your post about how wrong Fauci supposedly was, you do realize that was a "worst case scenario", right? He made the statement on June 30th and, at that time, the number of average daily positives was around 40,000. Within 30 days, on July 31st, the national total of positive cases was 73,500 cases. Meaning, he was dead right in his prediction you moron. The only reason it never reached 100,000, is because even enough Republican governors decided to mandate masks, along with closing down bars and restaurants and beaches for a couple weeks. Otherwise, it would've reached 100,000. Are facts and logic really this difficult for you? It's OK, you've actually already answered that about 100 times since you started posting here...
 
WisconsinWildcard said:
Thank you for actually reading it (sincerely). I am a bit short on time so I will be be brief. The 6%...is what it is. There are physicians that are subpar. There are also honest mistakes in the endless stream of paperwork.



I, and nearly every physician I know on the front lines, still believe we under counted especially early when the feds were sitting on their hands, not rolling out tests. I know of several deaths and even more patients that I saw with mild symptoms that were in hindsight, likely Covid. Death rates were up (these numbers are complicated, I agree, but there are clear spikes in the data in Spring).

If you read the CDC report and Dr. Gorski's article, you see that the vast majority co-morbidities are acquired from Covid. When you die, you go into septic shock, get a PE, cardiac arrest, heart failure etc. What is causing this is Covid. If your brain herniates from a hemispheric stroke, you typically die of cardiac arrest. How do you propose that be listed? I will write both but it is considered a stroke mortality. AIDS is a serviceable comparison as it illustrates the point but like all comparisons, it is not perfect.



We are nearing 200K deaths. I have lost friends and colleagues to this disease. I have worked in a Covid ward (thankfully not primarily). It is pretty ****ing scary. Get with the program, stop spreading misinformation because you find it politically advantageous and do your ****ing part to save some of your fellow Americans lives.
Click to expand...

If Chuck actually tries to come back from this and continue to deny the likelihood that deaths attributed to Covid have most likely been under-counted and not over, we have it front and center how someone like Trump got elected in the first place. Utter stupidity, willful ignorance and/or sheer madness.
 
Jeb2020 said:
2. The vast majority of Co-morbities are acquired from Covid? You are joking right?

The pandemic is long gone. All that is left is a Casedemic, horrific data and fraudulent media information.
Click to expand...

I was actually willing to follow along with WW on some aspects of his response until he dropped this one into the mix. It totally ignored the point that the folks who were impacted by COVID-19 in assisted living scenarios were greatly impaired to begin with. I'll concede that it may be a small sample size, but if I work with the pool of my six direct bloodline elders - i.e. two parents and four grandparents - only one (paternal grandfather) died before age 60 (heart attack), and the other five all made it to at least 80 years old. One of my parents is still alive, and pushing 90. Of the four who died in their 80's (plus the lone survivor), none had/have a significant comorbidity and each and every one of them expressed a strong opinion that they did not want to ever go into assisted living. And even with that, one of my grandparents had to go into that kind of setting due to advanced Alzheimer's. She had more comorbidities than the other four folks, combined. Sad but 100% true.

It's not hard to figure out why no one wants to go. You're not going into assisted living for some sort of Club Med vacation, you're going there to live out the rest of your days, because you are likely already very compromised, and you'll at least get daily medical and nursing care in such a setting. Your average life expectancy is two (2) years, well below the norm.

Here in the Northeast, the percentage of COVID-19 deaths in assisted living facilities compared to the overall population has been extremely high, and some of that was due to mismanagement of facilities taking direction from their respective States. I'm not sure that's the same thing you folks are seeing out in the Midwest or not? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but if you look at the three states where the highest proportion of pro rata COVID deaths have been, they are NJ, NY and MA. And each of those three states could have had a much smaller proportion had they managed assisted living scenarios better.

For our medical professionals, I very much understand the "First do no harm" principle, and everything and anything that's taken place during my lifetime has reflected the practice of "defensive medicine" as necessitated by the proliferation of med malpractice litigation. So our medical providers have my sympathies and my understanding. But that doesn't mean safety should ever be the end-all, be-all of day-to-day living. Maybe some of you feel differently? But cars aren't safe ... boating isn't safe ... most team sports aren't safe. Life comes with its risks. I'm not asking anyone to take any precautions around me, any more than I ask idiots with squeegees to get paid for voluntarily washing my windows outside the Lincoln Tunnel.

I can honestly say I've tried to have a rational discussion, and thought I might actually be getting there with WW, but then the Karen-style lecture still managed to emerge at the end. It's almost as if you folks can't help yourselves. What a shame ...
 
https://twitter.com/cadiulus/status/1300408867717812231


Carrie Diulus, M.D.
@cadiulus

I have Type 1 diabetes. I am healthy enough to run ultramarathons. If I get attacked by a bear & the ICU has trouble managing my blood sugar while caring for my bear attack wounds...and I die... the bear is the cause of my death. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. #COVID19
Click to expand...

I think this pretty well sums it up. bronco already had it with the AIDS analogy. Throw this in and the argument is over.
 
Chuck Murray said:
I was actually willing to follow along with WW on some aspects of his response until he dropped this one into the mix.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point to a degree that it has to be dishonest, hence the rant.

If your death certificate says:
1. Cardiac arrest
2. PNA
3. Covid-19

Those are considered 2 co-morbidites associated with Covid-19. But...the person did not have these prior to getting Covid-19 and are...a direct result of the illness. This is clearly outlined in the information from CDC and the coverage by health professionals that have actually filled out a death certificate.

To misunderstand this at this point can only come from deliberate choice to select to look only at things fit your narrative and ignore the literal mountains of information that make in untenable.
 
mookie1995 said:
As a type 1 and typing from experience, it would be almost impossible for an ICU to mismanage this to kill you in such a short period of time that the bear attack wouldn’t be the cause.
Click to expand...

Here is one for you all that is an actual death certificate I have filled out. These stories are not atypical when you talk about ICU deaths.

50ish patient, brittle diabetic, presents with a large ischemic stroke. Gets tPA (clot busting drug) and there is hemorrhagic conversion (brain bleed in the bed of the ischemic stroke). Rolls into the ICU with a blood sugar of 800 (hint this is bad).

Now one of the required treatments of DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis) is volume expansion (give the patient a butt load of fluids). The treatment for cerebral edema (brain swelling) is volume contraction ("remove" fluid through hypertonic saline or high salt fluid).

The patient eventually herniates (brain has no room to go in the skull, pushes downward on the brainstem) and then goes into a cardiac arrest.

All of you following...especially Chuck...how would you fill out their death certificate?

They would have been OK if not for the stroke. Their diabetes probably contributed to her stroke risk to some degree. Or was it the known side effect of tPA causing the hemorrhagic conversion? But really it was the herniation that really set things off. But then again, she actually died from a cardiac arrest.
 
WisconsinWildcard said:
To misunderstand this at this point can only come from deliberate choice to select to look only at things fit your narrative and ignore the literal mountains of information that make in untenable.
Click to expand...

I have a different theory and I'm not being snarky.

I think ideological blindness can literally make us stupid. It disables the cognitive parts (and/or processes) in our brains that typically distinguish smart from stupid people.

There's nothing magical about being smart, it's just a gift from the gods like a great fastball or high cheek bones. That means that thing is subject to change under potential stimulae. Trauma is an obvious one: bash a guy in the head with a 2x4 and he's going to drop from Yale to Michigan.

I hypothesize ideological blindness actually traumatizes the brain and damages people's ability to think. He's not lying, he honestly cannot see because he is suffering from a localized mental incapacity. Surely there has been neurological research to test this and perhaps it fails but it's my hypothesis.
 
WisconsinWildcard said:
You are missing the point to a degree that it has to be dishonest, hence the rant.

If your death certificate says:
1. Cardiac arrest
2. PNA
3. Covid-19

Those are considered 2 co-morbidites associated with Covid-19. But...the person did not have these prior to getting Covid-19 and are...a direct result of the illness. This is clearly outlined in the information from CDC and the coverage by health professionals that have actually filled out a death certificate.

To misunderstand this at this point can only come from deliberate choice to select to look only at things fit your narrative and ignore the literal mountains of information that make in untenable.
Click to expand...

I think your posts on death certificates and causes listed has been very helpful. Thank you. I always kind of wondered what went into listing causes of death.

I do have a question though, and maybe you don't have an answer for it, or maybe there isn't an answer.

Let's say I have coronary artery disease. Then let's say that I test positive for Covid. If I die of a heart attack, for instance, do you know whether there is any effort made to see if the Covid triggered or caused the heart attack, or contributed to it, or is that something that's just not done (or can't be done)? I assume that other than for recordkeeping purposes there would be no real point to trying to figure that out, since I'm dead. But I was curious as to whether the medical profession is trying to understand whether Covid is triggering these events that can otherwise be fatal, or if that's something that can even be determined.
 
That is an interesting question. I always assumed I guess that for the purposes of the DC they wouldnt have the time to look into that but later they could look into it further. But I have less than zero knowledge just how it always went in my head.
 
SJHovey said:
Let's say I have coronary artery disease. Then let's say that I test positive for Covid. If I die of a heart attack, for instance, do you know whether there is any effort made to see if the Covid triggered or caused the heart attack, or contributed to it, or is that something that's just not done (or can't be done)? I assume that other than for recordkeeping purposes there would be no real point to trying to figure that out, since I'm dead. But I was curious as to whether the medical profession is trying to understand whether Covid is triggering these events that can otherwise be fatal, or if that's something that can even be determined.
Click to expand...

A good question. I can speak a bit on it but I would caveat that there are a lot of details that are nuanced that may not translate well.

Different states do have different requirements that trigger an autopsy. Age, reason noted for death, circumstances surrounding death, level of involvement of medical professionals etc. Ultimately that is the best way to determine the exact cause of death in most cases if in the hands of an experienced and well trained pathologist. It is helpful for record keeping but it is also important learning opportunity. NEJM has a weekly section from Mass General that has countless lessons learned from autopsy.

Coronary artery disease is very common and we have good ideas of historical rates. Most people with CAD do not have heart attacks. If we start seeing changes in the pattern of patients (which is not too challenging, especially in the setting of a tertiary care facility where one team is caring for all heart attacks or strokes), it is a reasonable assumption the ongoing pandemic is changing that. We have actually seen this, with mild heart attacks and strokes essentially staying home, and an increase in more severe or atypical heart attacks/strokes (like in the young, no other clear co-morbidities).

Covid-19 is pro-thrombotic, we have learned. It has a high rate of pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, heart attack, DVT etc in hospitalized patients and a thrombotic event as the presenting symptom is not that uncommon.

Ultimately, it comes down to where you die and the physician who cared for you to determine most etiologies of death. If you have a patient with clear signs of Covid-19 infection and a thrombotic event, you are more likely to identify that as an etiology. If it is a positive test but you do not feel it was a large contributor, you may not identify it. The vast majority of physicians, especially the ICU docs that are doing most of this, are great, compassionate professionals. The degree of rampant fraud or incompetence required to drastically change the numbers is near impossible and would require a vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousand individuals.
 
WisconsinWildcard said:
You are missing the point to a degree that it has to be dishonest, hence the rant.

If your death certificate says:
1. Cardiac arrest
2. PNA
3. Covid-19

Those are considered 2 co-morbidites associated with Covid-19. But...the person did not have these prior to getting Covid-19 and are...a direct result of the illness. This is clearly outlined in the information from CDC and the coverage by health professionals that have actually filled out a death certificate.

To misunderstand this at this point can only come from deliberate choice to select to look only at things fit your narrative and ignore the literal mountains of information that make in untenable.
Click to expand...

That's our Chuckles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top