Coronavirus may have caused hundreds of additional deaths in Florida

[JasperL]

The risks of death from an admitting of a Covid patient into a nursing home is pretty darn high. Just wondering, do epidemiologists question, for example, the possibility of sunburn from overexposure to the sun?:roll:

I've addressed your point, so if you want to have a conversation you can read and reply. If not, I'm not interested in saying the same things 12 times that you ignore 12 times.

 

[JasperL]

Why are you defending the CDC/WHO? The CDC/WHO should be absolved, for example, because they considered the risks of admitting Covid patients to nursing homes but admitted them anyway?:roll:

tl/dr

 

[Mycroft]

Only on this point

​

Actually the reputable pollsters quite understand the difficulty in getting a random sample and that is why they "normalize" the responses.

For example if the population is 50% "A" and 50% "B" but the responses are 25% from "A" and 75% from "B" they will weight the "A" responses at three times the "B" responses. Where the problem actually arises is in determining what the "A" and "B" percentages are.

Very few pollsters weight by party affiliation.

That's why their manipulation is so transparent. When they blatantly over sample a demographic, they have admitted to the world that their poll is bogus.

Unfortunately, most people aren't even aware that the poll is bogus because they just blindly believe the poll without question. Others know the poll is bogus, but pretend it's not because it supports their bias. And then the pollsters, themselves, know their poll is bogus, but present it anyway in an attempt to advance their agenda.

 

[lwf]

How is it impossible to isolate the vulnerable (EDIT: some reports say that is 20%) when the whole was isolated not too long ago with federal and state mandates?

If the vulnerable are reverse quarantined, separated and protected from everyone else, they can be protected AND hospital resources can be saved since the vulnerable are protected (heavily) with this reverse quarantine.

The whole was not isolated. They were just encouraged to "stay home and stay healthy," and non essential business was shut down. By reducing the number of people who stay home and stay healthy by 80%, you are increasing the infection rate exponentially, and therefore increasing the exposure of the vulnerable to the virus. Of course the vulnerable should continue to stay home in the event the non-vulnerable ended social distancing, but how would you enforce this reverse quarantine? How would you prevent grandmothers from seeing their asymptomatic grandchildren?

Social distancing saves lives, and the younger people who are not vulnerable are saving lives by social distancing. Those who refuse to do so are risking lives, and many of them are actively killing their family members, friends, and neighbors.

 

[JasperL]

The whole was not isolated. They were just encouraged to "stay home and stay healthy," and non essential business was shut down. By reducing the number of people who stay home and stay healthy by 80%, you are increasing the infection rate exponentially, and therefore increasing the exposure of the vulnerable to the virus. Of course the vulnerable should continue to stay home in the event the non-vulnerable ended social distancing, but how would you enforce this reverse quarantine? How would you prevent grandmothers from seeing their asymptomatic grandchildren?

Social distancing saves lives, and the younger people who are not vulnerable are saving lives by social distancing. Those who refuse to do so are risking lives, and many of them are actively killing their family members, friends, and neighbors.

Good points, and I'll just add it's not just family who can infect grandma, but the staff at the facility, who also have kids and family, and who are out in the world, half of the sick don't show symptoms, and those that do often take days after infection to develop symptoms, so a quarantine of the elderly in nursing homes requires the workers to quarantine, and their kids, and their spouses, along with nurses at doctors offices, and delivery people, and maintenance workers who visit the facility, etc.

That's why where there is wide spread of the virus in the community, nursing homes get hit hard. One follows the other. Sweden let the virus spread, and they lost a lot of old people in nursing homes. Those aren't independent events. Aggressive testing of staff and others can help, but that was not possible early on. Etc.

These arguments - just protect the old - are IMO nearly always dishonest, or at best ignorant. It's easy to say - reverse quarantine the old - but get into the details for 5 minutes and lots of MASSIVE barriers are obvious. My mother in law's place had one infection. It was from a resident going to the ER for something, getting that taken care of then admitted back home. They tested her at admittance and it was positive. Well, you can say - don't let her back in! - but then what's the option? Her HOME is that place, and there's no facility set up to take her and isolate her for two weeks. So CDC and the state allows her to return, but with a bunch of restrictions, more PPE required for everyone who deals with her, and more. And it worked.

 

[cabse5]

The whole was not isolated. They were just encouraged to "stay home and stay healthy," and non essential business was shut down. By reducing the number of people who stay home and stay healthy by 80%, you are increasing the infection rate exponentially, and therefore increasing the exposure of the vulnerable to the virus. Of course the vulnerable should continue to stay home in the event the non-vulnerable ended social distancing, but how would you enforce this reverse quarantine? How would you prevent grandmothers from seeing their asymptomatic grandchildren?

Social distancing saves lives, and the younger people who are not vulnerable are saving lives by social distancing. Those who refuse to do so are risking lives, and many of them are actively killing their family members, friends, and neighbors.

Correct but you're nitpicking. Eighty-six percent of states were in lockdown in the US which means 43 of 50 states were in lockdown or isolated at the same time.Coronavirus: Which states don't have stay-at-home orders? - CBS News
Those all but 7 states which were locked down with stay at home orders were achieved with, mainly, individual state mandates. The isolation of those most susceptible to Covid can also be reversed quarantined via state mandates and they can be, for examples, put into the empty school buildings from social distancing measures or underused cruise line ships.

 

[cabse5]

Good points, and I'll just add it's not just family who can infect grandma, but the staff at the facility, who also have kids and family, and who are out in the world, half of the sick don't show symptoms, and those that do often take days after infection to develop symptoms, so a quarantine of the elderly in nursing homes requires the workers to quarantine, and their kids, and their spouses, along with nurses at doctors offices, and delivery people, and maintenance workers who visit the facility, etc.

That's why where there is wide spread of the virus in the community, nursing homes get hit hard. One follows the other. Sweden let the virus spread, and they lost a lot of old people in nursing homes. Those aren't independent events. Aggressive testing of staff and others can help, but that was not possible early on. Etc.

These arguments - just protect the old - are IMO nearly always dishonest, or at best ignorant. It's easy to say - reverse quarantine the old - but get into the details for 5 minutes and lots of MASSIVE barriers are obvious. My mother in law's place had one infection. It was from a resident going to the ER for something, getting that taken care of then admitted back home. They tested her at admittance and it was positive. Well, you can say - don't let her back in! - but then what's the option? Her HOME is that place, and there's no facility set up to take her and isolate her for two weeks. So CDC and the state allows her to return, but with a bunch of restrictions, more PPE required for everyone who deals with her, and more. And it worked.

Quit with the "we're not sure who's susceptible to Covid" BS. We do know for sure who's susceptible to Covid.
(1) The elderly.
(2) Those of any age with respiratory problems.
(3) Those of any age with immune deficiencies.
If we protected those 3 groups from Covid exposure, that would reduce deaths and hospital stays from Covid exposure drastically. If we protected those 3 groups from Covid exposure, we'd be protecting someone from Covid exposure unlike social distancing which protects no one from Covid exposure.

EDIT: Instead of refusing to reverse quarantine your mother-in-law, you could just put her into a position to die. You could be like social distancing (or the CDC/WHO) that doesn't care about saving lives but does care about saving hospital resources.

 

[lwf]

Correct but you're nitpicking. Eighty-six percent of states were in lockdown in the US which means 43 of 50 states were in lockdown or isolated at the same time.Coronavirus: Which states don't have stay-at-home orders? - CBS News
Those all but 7 states which were locked down with stay at home orders were achieved with, mainly, individual state mandates. The isolation of those most susceptible to Covid can also be reversed quarantined via state mandates and they can be, for examples, put into the empty school buildings from social distancing measures or underused cruise line ships.

You want to remove healthy, law-abiding citizens who are no danger to anyone from their homes and imprison them against their will? Quarantining a dangerous person with a highly infectious disease is one thing, but quarantining all elderly and anyone with respiratory problems or immune deficiencies by government mandate is never going to fly.

"Quarantine" is always going to be strictly voluntary unless one actually contracts the disease. Because of this, only "quarantining" the vulnerable will never work. Stay at home and social distancing orders that apply only to the vulnerable will increase the number of cases because many people will ignore it. It will be better than doing nothing, but worse than shutting down all business and public places.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't allow a manageable increase in cases while taking precautions in order to take some pressure off the economy, I'm only arguing that it WILL increase the number of cases and subsequent deaths. The question is not whether this strategy will increase the number of deaths. It will. The question is by how much, and how much are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of the economy?

 

[Eatomus]

Haven't you heard ? The Pandemic is a defeated foe, even in our once most infected hotspots, and we are free to be as socially intimate as we want to be ?
Rise up and embrace each other again people !

We LOVE YOU President Joe !

 

[cabse5]

You want to remove healthy, law-abiding citizens who are no danger to anyone from their homes and imprison them against their will? Quarantining a dangerous person with a highly infectious disease is one thing, but quarantining all elderly and anyone with respiratory problems or immune deficiencies by government mandate is never going to fly.

"Quarantine" is always going to be strictly voluntary unless one actually contracts the disease. Because of this, only "quarantining" the vulnerable will never work. Stay at home and social distancing orders that apply only to the vulnerable will increase the number of cases because many people will ignore it. It will be better than doing nothing, but worse than shutting down all business and public places.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't allow a manageable increase in cases while taking precautions in order to take some pressure off the economy, I'm only arguing that it WILL increase the number of cases and subsequent deaths. The question is not whether this strategy will increase the number of deaths. It will. The question is by how much, and how much are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of the economy?

Reverse quarantining them separate and protected from everyone else is going to save their lives. You can't say the same for social distancing.

 

[Eatomus]

Free once again to socially squeeze each other !
Thank you to all our Dear Leaders !
Free at LAST !

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Very few pollsters weight by party affiliation.

HOG WASH. ALL reputable pollsters do. (That, of course, doesn't mean that they get it right.)

That's why their manipulation is so transparent. When they blatantly over sample a demographic, they have admitted to the world that their poll is bogus.

I guess if one wishes to ignore reality, one can come to any conclusion one wants to come to.

Unfortunately, most people aren't even aware that the poll is bogus because they just blindly believe the poll without question. Others know the poll is bogus, but pretend it's not because it supports their bias. And then the pollsters, themselves, know their poll is bogus, but present it anyway in an attempt to advance their agenda.

I guess if one wishes to ignore reality, one can come to any conclusion one wants to come to.

However, I will grant you that there are a whole lot of people who simply don't understand how polls work, or how to actually analyze poll results (or even bother to take a look at what the polling data is as long as the poll says what they want to hear [and if it doesn't then they declare {without any evidence} that the poll is "bogus"]).

 

[Eatomus]

Stats mean nothing now that we are totally free to socially squeeze together, together !

Thank Government Almighty , we are safe again !

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Correct but you're nitpicking. Eighty-six percent of states were in lockdown in the US which means 43 of 50 states were in lockdown or isolated at the same time.Coronavirus: Which states don't have stay-at-home orders? - CBS News
Those all but 7 states which were locked down with stay at home orders were achieved with, mainly, individual state mandates. The isolation of those most susceptible to Covid can also be reversed quarantined via state mandates and they can be, for examples, put into the empty school buildings from social distancing measures or underused cruise line ships.

Those "most at risk" include:

1. those over 65;
   *
2. those who are obese;
   *
3. those who have diabetes;
   *
4. those who have chronic lung conditions;
   *
   and
   *
5. those who have chronic coronary conditions.

If all of those "most at risk" were to be reverse quarantined (i.e. the healthy would be kept away from potential infection until the danger of infection was over) then over 50% of the US population would be reverse quarantined. for a totally unknown length of time (during which the US economy would collapse due to the necessity for the remaining [roughly] 25% of the "workforce age" population to supply those who were reverse quarantined with the necessities of life).

I probably shouldn't have to remind you that quarantining is MUCH more restrictive than "social distancing" and "avoiding unnecessary contact".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Stats mean nothing now that we are totally free to socially squeeze together, together !

Thank Government Almighty , we are safe again !

Quite right, "Stats mean nothing" - especially if you totally ignore them

​

 

[cabse5]

Those "most at risk" include:

1. those over 65;
   *
2. those who are obese;
   *
3. those who have diabetes;
   *
4. those who have chronic lung conditions;
   *
   and
   *
5. those who have chronic coronary conditions.

If all of those "most at risk" were to be reverse quarantined (i.e. the healthy would be kept away from potential infection until the danger of infection was over) then over 50% of the US population would be reverse quarantined. for a totally unknown length of time (during which the US economy would collapse due to the necessity for the remaining [roughly] 25% of the "workforce age" population to supply those who were reverse quarantined with the necessities of life).

I probably shouldn't have to remind you that quarantining is MUCH more restrictive than "social distancing" and "avoiding unnecessary contact".

Reverse quarantining is more restrictive than social distancing and is more successful in saving lives and saving hospital resources than social distancing. A win, win so to speak.

BTW, all those groups you mentioned as susceptible to Covid are subgroups of
(1) the elderly
(2) those of any age with respiratory problems
(3) those of any age with immune deficiencies.

 

[NWRatCon]

I saw a meme online that claimed Florida and other 'red' states were deliberately under-reporting Covid-19 deaths, while the death rate from other causes was above the average from earlier years. Doing a bit of reading, it turns out that it's not only red states that have under-reported Covid-19 deaths but there are other non-political reasons why the cause of death is not always a certainty.

from the Tampa Bay Times


NOW - here's a follow-up article that shows how real news is told
There’s a new theory about Florida, coronavirus and pneumonia deaths. May 29

I appreciated how this thread was started, and it is again amazing to see how quickly it morphed into a bizarro partisan meme-fight.

 

[NWRatCon]

Good points, and I'll just add it's not just family who can infect grandma, but the staff at the facility, who also have kids and family, and who are out in the world, half of the sick don't show symptoms, and those that do often take days after infection to develop symptoms, so a quarantine of the elderly in nursing homes requires the workers to quarantine, and their kids, and their spouses, along with nurses at doctors offices, and delivery people, and maintenance workers who visit the facility, etc.

That's why where there is wide spread of the virus in the community, nursing homes get hit hard. One follows the other. Sweden let the virus spread, and they lost a lot of old people in nursing homes. Those aren't independent events. Aggressive testing of staff and others can help, but that was not possible early on. Etc.

These arguments - just protect the old - are IMO nearly always dishonest, or at best ignorant. It's easy to say - reverse quarantine the old - but get into the details for 5 minutes and lots of MASSIVE barriers are obvious. My mother in law's place had one infection. It was from a resident going to the ER for something, getting that taken care of then admitted back home. They tested her at admittance and it was positive. Well, you can say - don't let her back in! - but then what's the option? Her HOME is that place, and there's no facility set up to take her and isolate her for two weeks. So CDC and the state allows her to return, but with a bunch of restrictions, more PPE required for everyone who deals with her, and more. And it worked.

Bumper-sticker "solutions" rarely survive the light of consideration.

 

[Eatomus]

America is FREE again to flood the streets of our once most virulent death trap cities full of humanity squeezing together !

All thanks to our Dear Leader of Corona Compassion !

We LOVE YOU Joe !
BIDEN 3030 !

 

[NWRatCon]

Now that I've caught up, I think there is a significant issue being overlooked (mostly intentionally by a cadre of posters) that has a significant connection to the OP: There are, essentially, three ways of counting "COVID-19 deaths", and they all yield different results, AND they should not be mixed up. The CDC (and virtually all epidemiological studies) use all three and interpolate between them - reported deaths (death certificates); probable deaths (the most widely reported), and likely deaths (which usually lags, is based upon differential analysis, and will be the highest number - including unreported and more-likely-than-not deaths). [Similarly, "testing results" depend largely on methodology, and, again, shouldn't be - but have been - conflated.]

Reported deaths rely upon a physician listing COVID as the cause of death. This is the most conservative, and highly inaccurate, as each physician makes a judgment call as to what to write down, and some have biases and proclivities that skew results - some will never claim COVID because it is "novel" - but will simply write "pneumonia" or "heart disease". There are protocols, and published instructions and criteria, but that doesn't mean they are followed. The second tranche, probable deaths, are based primarily upon testing, but can also include untested individuals who meet the diagnostic criteria. These are more accurate, and are the preferred method during an outbreak. It does tend to undercount those that do not die in a hospital setting, however. The third level, likely, is usually done by survey - that is, all reported deaths are surveyed and accounted for - and then the likely "burden" of a disease (e.g., flu, COVID, heart disease) is extrapolated by determining where spikes occurred correlated to known disease spread. Some of this work has already started. This method is most subject to dispute because it is indirect.