|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 9, 2020 12:42:45 GMT -6
Testing and contact tracing are effective tools. And we do neither enough. We let the virus get too wide a start.
Hey. Only 15 cases. Soon to be none. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 10, 2020 6:50:44 GMT -6
It would be also be nice to stop politicizing the virus as well.
COVID is listed as cause of death even when it's not the primary cause. And the way it's being counted (especially the mortality rate) is highly inaccurate. Some people think it's intentional, to create fear, high unemployment, and uncertainty, to torpedo the current administration's re-election.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 10, 2020 7:40:04 GMT -6
No, that is not the case. If someone died due to COVID, they died due to Covid, regardless of whatever other condition they might have. If a person wasn’t dying anytime soon, even with something like cancer, and covid did the killing, the person died of because of that virus. You gonna wipe out counting the deaths caused by the seasonal flu because many that die from that have some other health issue as well? If the virus finished you off it was the virus that killed. That narrative about death counts being fudged for political reasons is straight out of the fox playbook. You say don’t politicize it and then throw out a political falsehood. Trump himself said he thinks the death counts are accurate. “Very very accurate”. The experts that he allows to stand up with him both refuted that false narrative. (If Trump didn’t agree he would absolutely say something different, because that’s what he does) In fact, experts believe the death count is UNDER reported because of a lack of post death testing, especially earlier on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 10, 2020 7:58:17 GMT -6
I listed the way it's being politicized as an example.
Don't throw out the "it's Fox BS" like it's something MSNBC/CNN doesn't do. They all use the same playbook.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruffledfeathers on Apr 10, 2020 8:03:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 10, 2020 8:14:39 GMT -6
Don’t deflect. Not BS. It is a fact that Fox personalities downplayed the seriousness of this thing from the beginning and it took them a long time to pivot to taking it seriously. (It’s all on tape). Other media did not do that. That was a willfully harmful and dangerous strategy by them to try to protect Trump. Even eventually cost a couple of them their spots. Telling people it’s no big deal and not as bad as the flu (or Rush Limbaugh, “it’s like the common cold”) is incredibly divisive and dangerous no matter what you want to say about other media.
Even Trump had to come around and realize that, no, the warnings about this virus were not a hoax by the Democrats to harm him. Is there hysteria by the left? Absolutely. But it’s FOX that consistently has flouted a narrative contrary to the reality of what’s actually going on. That’s the issue here.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 10, 2020 8:24:08 GMT -6
It would be also be nice to stop politicizing the virus as well. COVID is listed as cause of death even when it's not the primary cause. And the way it's being counted (especially the mortality rate) is highly inaccurate. Some people think it's intentional, to create fear, high unemployment, and uncertainty, to torpedo the current administration's re-election. "Some people think" is a way to start a sentence and follow with just about anything. The master of using that phrase has muddied the truth the beginning on this matter.
I don't know what you mean by "primary cause." Death due to the virus mostly comes from lack of oxygen to the system causing other organs to fail. ARDS can be caused by any number of other diseases including infection by this virus. But it is entirely sound to say the virus is the cause of death. The virus damages lung function directly but ventilators and oxygen usually keep patients fighting for life until the organ failure mounts. Buys time for a possible recovery.
Primary cause of death is defined as the disease or event that started the chain of events that led to death. The secondary cause of death is either a consequence or complication of the primary cause, or another disease which might have contributed to the death of the person.
There is far less doubt about primary cause of death in this situation than in many others where less is known about the circumstances. It's not politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 10, 2020 8:42:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 10, 2020 8:49:07 GMT -6
What the republican legislator who reported this to FOX is saying is that Medicare and Medicaid would usually insist on a test for a very expensive billing for the ventilator, but they do have a bureaucratic form allowing the physician calling death to bypass a test. Hard to fill out and get funding. Normally easier to just do the test.
A doctor is not lying or being inaccurate when he follows the instructions, but has to do make sure he follows the nit picking procedures to get the funding the hospital is supposed to get. The hospital knows errors will occur and funding lost or delayed unless they give clear instructions. What is so strange about this?
If there is great inaccuracy that presumes there are many misdiagnoses of the virus upon admission to the hospital.
I suppose you are proposing that the doctor always wait to fill out the form until he has obtained a test for COVID. That would mean using a test on every fatality instead of using scares tests for medically necessary use. This is not a plot nor is it likely that the hospital is using the ventilator without a good reason in the middle of a pandemic. Why not pay them for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 10, 2020 9:41:36 GMT -6
Don’t deflect. Not BS. It is a fact that Fox personalities downplayed the seriousness of this thing from the beginning and it took them a long time to pivot to taking it seriously. (It’s all on tape). Other media did not do that. That was a willfully harmful and dangerous strategy by them to try to protect Trump. Even eventually cost a couple of them their spots. Telling people it’s no big deal and not as bad as the flu (or Rush Limbaugh, “it’s like the common cold”) is incredibly divisive and dangerous no matter what you want to say about other media. Even Trump had to come around and realize that, no, the warnings about this virus were not a hoax by the Democrats to harm him. Is there hysteria by the left? Absolutely. But it’s FOX that consistently has flouted a narrative contrary to the reality of what’s actually going on. That’s the issue here. I find it interesting you believe that Fox downplaying the virus is a willful attempt to help Trump, yet you also believe the liberal media's hysteria is NOT an attempt to harm Trump. If this had happened under Obama, don't pretend that MSNBC/CNN wouldn't have downplayed it. You can try to have it both ways, but it just exposes your bias. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 11, 2020 6:56:19 GMT -6
Which is more nakedly, stupidly partisan: Fox or CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/NYTimes/WashPost?
Which stinks worse: an overflowing port-o-let or 2-day-old possum road kill?
All of these "news sources" have devolved into idiotic, transparent click bait designed to stroke the prejudices of the true believers.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 11, 2020 7:33:20 GMT -6
Which is more nakedly, stupidly partisan: Fox or CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/NYTimes/WashPost? Which stinks worse: an overflowing port-o-let or 2-day-old possum road kill? All of these "news sources" have devolved into idiotic, transparent click bait designed to stroke the prejudices of the true believers. There is some degree of difference. Since CBS/ABC/NBC don't run evening news all evening, I think there is a significant difference there. FOX/CNN/MSNBC all run news/opinion/entertainment programming in prime time. That is different from the networks.
All 3 have fairly broad spectrum of actual news programming in the traditional early evening, late afternoon news. As do the 3 over the air networks. In all the outlets the content is more news, less opinion.
It is the evening news market which has become much more entertainment and opinion there is greater potential to segment the market. As a result the 3 major networks and to some degree CNN developed their markets differently and do not show the readership profile that bears that out claim of bias as much as FOX. All depend on a fairly broad market of viewers. So they to greater degree have to appeal to the middle of the political spectrum
FOX followed by MSNBC is the outlet where a conscious decision to skew programming has most occurred. There is a notable difference in the amount of actual news programming after 7PM on FOX as opposed to opinion. The other cable news outlets have less of it and are more inclined to still try to keep the middle of the spectrum viewer.
Not sure which is more dominant motive for any of them, marketing or ideology. FOX was a latecomer and the history is very clear it saw the conservative and very conservative news market as an opportunity.
I grew up in Indy where there were two newspapers with dramatically different editorial positions. But the news stories other than local news tended to be mostly the same. I have nothing critical to say about any of the outlets who have an editorial opinion and express it to a public that wants to hear what they want to hear. I do have some concerns about editorial policy so heavily influencing the news presentation and the failure to label the programming as editorial when it is mostly editorial. This goes back to developments in talk radio. That market including one of the old timers who is still on the air, Rush Limbaugh, grew out of news programming but I give him his due, Rush has always labelled himself as an entertainer as much as a journalist.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 11, 2020 7:55:25 GMT -6
Sure. Anyone who thinks the possum smells much better than the port-o-let should just get down on all fours and take a big, big whiff of it.....every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Apr 12, 2020 11:57:24 GMT -6
Eh, I hate to jump in on this one, but I'm convinced there is a lot more going on that we all don't know about. The media reports vary too much, as does data on what is or is not happening. I've found it most hard during all of this to sort out fact from fiction.
All things can be important at the same time - at-risk population, economy, civil liberties. The economy is important because we soon will be choosing death by a disease that kills maybe 1% of those infected (depends on what you read, who you trust, and what data you believe) versus death by starvation, suicide, or domestic homicide (these are undeniably REAL issues associated with COVID-19).
It seems the countries that have had the most success have focused on quarantining and helping the at-risk population, but again, it depends what info you believe and trust.
Wishing everyone health and happiness regardless. These are not simple issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 12, 2020 12:14:13 GMT -6
It seems the countries that have had the most success have focused on quarantining and helping the at-risk population, but again, it depends what info you believe and trust. Wishing everyone health and happiness regardless. These are not simple issues. Very true it is not simple.
Don't believe you are right about what the best policy has been. Probably the country that has done best is Korea which aggressive tested and traced contacts and di not need to do as much mitigation. First cases surfaced there at the same time as they did in the USA.
Their government did do significant lock down, but did not let things go with wishful thinking that it would all go away and make that their response policy.
Germany did not follow your prescription. Several other Asian countries did the same as Korea with greater success than we have had.
No country who failed to act quickly took the course you cite and had great success.
Those countries who have had any success at all with limiting the lock down did it earlier, and generally have other factors in their favor doing so, such as fewer multi-generational households, lower density of population, and fewer people in poor crowded living conditions.
We perhaps could follow that level of mitigation if we knock the virus back to ground zero and by that time can develop testing capacity, and commit funding to tracing contacts. But we will not in the best case be able to do that across the board. And we better not quit mitigation now and in the late summer face the same level of threat we had when we started lock downs this wave.
|
|
