For those who think that the US (and possibly others) are overreacting to Coronavirus:

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,557
Reaction score
981
Protest is healthy at a six foot distance or with masks.

Violent protest is not constructive or healthy.
That’s as may be, but few of any of the anti lockdown protestors wear masks and keep 6’ distances.
 

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
423
That’s as may be, but few of any of the anti lockdown protestors wear masks and keep 6’ distances.
True, though that is now morphing into the 2020 election campaign strategy for some of our elected officials.
I would count on an escalation of that over the next 5 months.
Plus a much heavier dosage of:
  • Deny - why are doing great / it's not that bad / the deaths are overstated / masks are for wimps / shut up and take it like a man!
  • Deflect - it's China's/WHO fault anyway!
  • Distract - look - it's a squirrel!
The time for listening to the medical advice has passed.

It's easier to protest, than to govern.
One of the two requires leadership, compromise, and competence.
 
Last edited:

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
6,530
Reaction score
1,941
Location
Huntsville AL
True, though that is now morphing into the 2020 election campaign strategy for some of our elected officials.
Indeed. My brother sent an article to my family's chat that was along the lines of "Every victim of Coronavirus is dying for their country's freedom in their own way" like a wartime draft w/o the conscientious objector or medical discharge options.
 

CalebJ

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
384
Reaction score
203
Is this where we remind you of all the bogus things you've said this whole time? You don't get to claim to be right about one thing without admitting that you've been dead wrong about nearly every post you've made in the last two months. Hypocrite.
 

dr wogz

Fly caster
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
5,267
Reaction score
619
Location
Land of Poutine!
I kinda chuckle at these posts, and the flaming of big institutions / think tanks who are trying their best to keep people up to date, and make recommendations based on new & dynamic data. Trends change, procedures & recommendations change based on this ever changing data and new discoveries... It's evolving.

If you want to base your ideals & beliefs on a snippet of info from one particular day; static data, then go ahead. If you think what was said today (or yesterday, or 3 weeks ago) is the golden rule, and what is said today just proves they are wrong, then .. Don't try to convince me that your one source outweighs or disproves my opinion based on my multiple sources & my ability to vary my opinion based on these sources, and the acceptance that things (opinions, recommendations, trends, science, etc..) change. I will change my mind based on their recommendations & new revelations. They are experts, not figureheads. They can, and will be wrong, and they will correct their mistakes as they arise.

This is world pandemic, and medical crisis. The planet is in crisis, and in lock-down. This is NOT some "US only" political game..

[rant mode: off]
 

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
423
[...]Democrats[...]Trump[...]Pelosi[...]sheep[...]I TOLD YOU SO.
Friend,
I think you've confused TRF with some paranoia-stroking internet forum.

TRF folks appreciate facts, references, and logical thinking.
Political mud slinging is an outright violation of TRF rules.

The CDC is knows to have inflated the numbers dead to this virus by 20%....
Do you have a source for this claim?
If so, share the link.

To add some reality to this post, here are the facts that are easily searchable and verifiable:
1). CDC published a document with five (5) planning estimates for how Covid-19 pandemic may unfold (with death rates between 0.2% and 1.0% across the scenarios), and transparently disclaimed that these "Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19. "

Here is the lowest mortality rate stats that I can find, based on NY data deep dive:
Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover).

Less optimistic stats here:

Of course, averages are poor representations of reality, since mortality rate varies tremendously by age and other factors.
Mortality rate by age group and with or w/o underlying conditions, from NYC:
AGE​
Number of DeathsShare of deathsWith underlying conditionsWithout underlying conditionsUnknown if with underlying cond.Share of deaths
of unknown + w/o cond.
0 - 17 years old
9​
0.06%
6​
3​
0​
0.02%​
18 - 44 years old
601​
3.9%
476​
17​
108​
0.8%​
45 - 64 years old
3,413​
22.4%
2,851​
72​
490​
3.7%​
65 - 74 years old
3,788​
24.9%
2,801​
5​
982​
6.5%​
75+ years old
7,419​
48.7%
5,236​
2​
2,181​
14.3%​
TOTAL
15,230
100%​
11,370 (75%)​
99 (0.7%)​
1,551 (24.7%)​

Frankly, I'm blown away by the disparity in the share of deaths (and consequently the mortality rate) between those with, and without underlying conditions!
 
Last edited:

CalebJ

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
384
Reaction score
203
Did the mods delete the troll post?

Good for them.
 

Buckeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
291

Frankly, I'm blown away by the disparity in the share of deaths (and consequently the mortality rate) between those with, and without underlying conditions!
Really? It should not be hard for smart rocket scientists to fathom that old, sick people are at risk of dying of the flu, and most healthy people are capable of fighting it off.

Despite what you hear on the news, contracting the virus and being counted as a "case" is not a death sentence. 40% of the deaths occurred in nursing homes. Something like 1% of the population are in elder care homes? Seems like the vulnerable are a well-defined, and extremely small subset of the people. So, to answer the title of this thread, yes, sequestering 100% of the population and putting 40 million people out of work is an overreaction.
 
Last edited:

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,184
Reaction score
2,694
Location
Butte, Montana
Friend,
I think you've confused TRF with some paranoia-stroking internet forum.

TRF folks appreciate facts, references, and logical thinking.
Political mud slinging is an outright violation of TRF rules.



Do you have a source for this claim?
If so, share the link.

To add some reality to this post, here are the facts that are easily searchable and verifiable:
1). CDC published a document with five (5) planning estimates for how Covid-19 pandemic may unfold (with death rates between 0.2% and 1.0% across the scenarios), and transparently disclaimed that these "Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19. "

Here is the lowest mortality rate stats that I can find, based on NY data deep dive:
Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover).

Less optimistic stats here:

Of course, averages are poor representations of reality, since mortality rate varies tremendously by age and other factors.
Mortality rate by age group and with or w/o underlying conditions, from NYC:
AGE​
Number of DeathsShare of deathsWith underlying conditionsWithout underlying conditionsUnknown if with underlying cond.Share of deaths
of unknown + w/o cond.
0 - 17 years old
9​
0.06%
6​
3​
0​
0.02%​
18 - 44 years old
601​
3.9%
476​
17​
108​
0.8%​
45 - 64 years old
3,413​
22.4%
2,851​
72​
490​
3.7%​
65 - 74 years old
3,788​
24.9%
2,801​
5​
982​
6.5%​
75+ years old
7,419​
48.7%
5,236​
2​
2,181​
14.3%​
TOTAL
15,230
100%​
11,370 (75%)​
99 (0.7%)​
1,551 (24.7%)​

Frankly, I'm blown away by the disparity in the share of deaths (and consequently the mortality rate) between those with, and without underlying conditions!
What’s interesting is that from those data a person could conclude that a person older than 75 with no underlying conditions has the lowest mortality rate, lower by one third than those who are between 0-17 years of age.
 

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
6,323
Reaction score
468
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
Really? It should not be hard for smart rocket scientists to fathom that old, sick people are at risk of dying of the flu, and most healthy people are capable of fighting it off.

Despite what you hear on the news, contracting the virus and being counted as a "case" is not a death sentence. 40% of the deaths occurred in nursing homes. Something like 1% of the population are in elder care homes? Seems like the vulnerable are a well-defined, and extremely small subset of the people. So, to answer the title of this thread, yes, sequestering 100% of the population and putting 40 million people out of work is an overreaction.
I'm astounded by the ignorance this shows.

For those that feel as you do, @Buckeye , do you folks not realize that our health system nearly collapsed in April? Not just in NYC, but everywhere. Prior to the lockdown the virus was replicating at LOW END estimates of doubling every 3 days (high end estimates, every two days), which means the number of infections (and, hence, cases, and hence later, deaths) was going up from 4x to 8x per week. Most cities locked down within their health care capacity, but no major metro area could have sustained two weeks of additional replication at the previous rate and few would have made it through if even one more week had passed before we started flattening the curve.

I live in the midwest, Indiana, and we snapped it in the nick of time, maxing out I think at about 55% ICU capacity (per data harvested by Worldometers). That meant we had less than one doubling... 2-3 days... of slack before lockdown. IF we had waited 4 days, we would have exceeded our capacity overall, with some areas (Indianapolis) being well past capacity (they peaked at about 75% of capacity as it was).

The geometric math is very telling. Everyone needs to understand it.

The reason it matters is now that we are opening up, it is critical that we take precautions to hold the infection rate down, or we will need to go right back into lockdown. One county in CA already has resumed lockdown; they opened early due to few cases but now are spiking.
 

kuririn

BARGeezer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
4,257
Reaction score
1,727
Location
Hawaii
+1.
South Korea, which had been doing a remarkable job of flattening the curve and managing the pandemic, experienced a spike after reopening and had to reinstitute restrictions.
And have these doubters forgot about the example of Italy? Or do they choose to ignore this inconvenient truth?
Italy instituted quarantine procedures a few days late, and their health care system was overwhelmed. Not enough beds and ventilators.
Despite what you hear on the news, contracting the virus and being counted as a "case" is not a death sentence.
I am not aware of a single credible news source that has called contracting this virus as a death sentence. What is your source?
40% of the deaths occurred in nursing homes.
Again, source? Or is this hyperbole?
 

dr wogz

Fly caster
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
5,267
Reaction score
619
Location
Land of Poutine!
Our nursing homes are suffering a terrible loss due to this. Reasons are mainly that they are confined, and the environment of elderly care homes are ripe for a virus like this to spread. We also seem to have a massive shortage of PPE and alack of training by the healthcare workers on how to deal& cope with this.
 

kuririn

BARGeezer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
4,257
Reaction score
1,727
Location
Hawaii
Yes, and some news sources have said that the Covid-19 deaths in nursing homes may be under reported. This due to other causes being listed as the cause of death.
I am questioning the statement that 40% of all deaths are in nursing homes.
 

kuririn

BARGeezer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
4,257
Reaction score
1,727
Location
Hawaii
OK, did a fact check and I did find a couple of articles that said that 42% of deaths are in nursing homes and long term care facilities. So I'm willing to concede that.
Still haven't found any articles saying contracting covid-19 is a death sentence.
Also, I'm wondering if these dissenters would be so willing to keep the economy from being shut down if the high risk group were young children instead of the elderly.
Just sayin'.
 

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
6,323
Reaction score
468
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
Yes, and some news sources have said that the Covid-19 deaths in nursing homes may be under reported. This due to other causes being listed as the cause of death.
I am questioning the statement that 40% of all deaths are in nursing homes.
Actually, this 40% thing is likely true. Indiana maintains these numbers at coronavirus.in.gov and reports 876 nursing home deaths out of the nearly 2000 Indiana total Covid-19 deaths.
 

NateB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
842
Reaction score
484
Location
NE Indiana
Our ICUs were in rough shape for a while, it wasn't catastrophic, but it was close. Leading up to this, we were over capacity and the ED was constantly boarding patients waiting for rooms. This wasn't just our hospital, the other large hospital in town was actually worse and was denying ambulance traffic from coming in. The problem extended throughout Indiana, NW Ohio, Southern Michigan, and Chicagoland. No, I don't have news articles to cite, this issues within our health system are under reported and ignored. I see these issues firsthand. Our health system is beyond broken.
 

djmartins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
59
Reaction score
17
Is this where we remind you of all the bogus things you've said this whole time? You don't get to claim to be right about one thing without admitting that you've been dead wrong about nearly every post you've made in the last two months. Hypocrite.
Funny, I did mention things I have been correct about.
Poor thing, put on your mask and cower in the corner of the room yer hiding in.
:)
 

djmartins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
59
Reaction score
17
Our health system is beyond broken.
Here practices are closing up and the major hospitals are laying people off like crazy.
The fallout from shutting things down will be felt in the medical industry here for years.
I know of one whole cardiologist group shut down forever and there are others barely alive.
 

NateB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
842
Reaction score
484
Location
NE Indiana
Rural hospitals and some practices have been in trouble a long time. Some were barely hanging in there before this coronavirus and even before ACA. Many private practices have been selling out to larger systems, corporations, and large investment firms.
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
995
Reaction score
17
I don't know whether Vox is agenda-driven.
Speaking of them, this strikes me as interesting, https://www.vox.com/2020/5/1/21240123/coronavirus-quest-diagnostics-antibody-test-covid

Why even a super-accurate Covid-19 test can fail
It’s hard to find a disease that’s rare.
By Umair Irfan
Updated May 27, 2020, 11:10am EDT
Update, May 27: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has posted new guidelines on antibody tests warning when Covid-19 prevalence is low (around 5 percent), less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies.

"The fundamental problem is that even the best tests struggle to find something that’s rare. That’s true if you’re looking for a novel virus, a form of cancer, or a genetic illness. While there have now been more than a million confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the United States, it’s still a tiny share of the overall population. So people who are currently infected or who have survived the virus are still scarce."
Especially when placed adjacent to this, https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/health/testing-coronavirus-confusing-results/index.html

“How many people have coronavirus? Sometimes, it’s just a guess
CNN
Updated 9:03 PM ET, Tue May 26, 2020”
… A team at Imperial College London said their modeling suggests that so far, only 4% of Americans have had coronavirus. That would suggest that much of the testing being done now is inaccurate.
…“
I skimmed through the articles more than intensely reading them as though for a test; what with having a well-rounded selection of neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mitochondrial, diseases, my ability to do deep focused reading ain't what she used to be. But the contrast/connection between those 2 statements, one in headline one in body, really jumped out at me.

The following, too, was quite interesting to encounter,

"“It’s very difficult to really figure out what’s going on,” says Samuel Scarpino, who heads Northeastern University’s Emerging Epidemics Lab."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...re-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/

"Still, the Stanford group’s takeaway—that 1.5 to 2.8 percent of Santa Clara’s population had COVID-19 antibodies—is pretty much in line with surveys done where infections aren’t ballooning.

“It all seems to be giving a consistent message, which is that unless the area has been pretty hard hit, we’re seeing numbers in the single digits,” Dean says.

Recently, she notes, Swedish scientists retracted a study claiming that 11 percent of the Stockholm population had been exposed to COVID-19. That team tested samples at a blood bank for antibodies—and then discovered that their sample contained blood from donors who knew they’d been infected and were hoping their antibodies could be therapeutic.

“That can quickly cause a big bias—you don’t even need that many people for it to throw off the result,” Dean says. “There’s all these hidden layers that can change how representative the sample is.”
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,557
Reaction score
981
I believe that 40% to 70% of COVID deaths are in elder care facilities. It’s been that way since the very beginning of the outbreak. Remember the Life Care Center out here?

What I would like to see data for is whether “forcing nursing home to take COVID patients” a. actually happened in a widespread way and b. is linked to outbreaks at those facilities.
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
995
Reaction score
17
Rural hospitals and some practices have been in trouble a long time. Some were barely hanging in there before this coronavirus and even before ACA. Many private practices have been selling out to larger systems, corporations, and large investment firms.
That brings our burg to mind, a thing which has directly caused big problems for me.
And various intensities of problem for several friends.


Friday, October 05, 2018 6:12:00 PM CDT
The Pinnacle Health Care System, Inc. bought Cooper County Memorial Hospital and its related companies.
RHG Consolidated LLC invested more than $3 million to stabilize the operations of the hospital in February. Their plan was to replace the hospital's existing facility with a new one.
Pinnacle Health Care System approached RHG with an offer to purchase the hospital, and the transaction closed last week. On Friday, the technicalities were completed.
According to a news release from Cooper County Community Hospital, "Under its agreement with RHG Consolidated, LLC, PHCS will honor all previous contractual commitments to the citizens and government of Cooper County and will continue to provide all current services."
"Pinnacle Health Care is looking to expand its services there at Cooper County Memorial Hospital," said Megan Rogers, Pinnacle Health chief business development officer. "We're interested in brining more services into that community."
And the result was,


Associated Press Jan 15, 2020
BOONVILLE, Mo. — A Kansas hospital company abruptly closed a central Missouri hospital Wednesday, citing regulatory problems.

Pinnacle Regional Hospital announced early Wednesday the full-service, community hospital in Boonville would close by the end of the day. Discussions with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services led officials to believe "that the economic hardship of bringing the facility into compliance is too great to make the appropriate repairs necessary,” hospital officials said in a statement.
The hospital did not specify what compliance issues it was facing, The Kansas City Star reported.

Boonville, a town of about 8,400 people, also will lose a clinic and a rehab facility.

Published January 16, 2020 at 5:49 PM CST This week's closure of Pinnacle Regional Hospital in Boonville, Missouri, caps a year of worse financial troubles than were previously known.

Over the last year, the hospital has been sued by vendors for nonpayment, by the Missouri Division of Employment Security for failing to pay into the state’s unemployment insurance program and, most recently, by employees for failing to pay their health insurance premiums.

“There’s considerably more to this story than what’s currently in the public domain,” said an attorney for the employees, North Kansas City lawyer Blake Green.

“And as the truth always does, it will come out eventually. Right now, our focus is on protecting the legal interests of Pinnacle Health System’s employees, who reasonably believed they had health insurance for months and acted in reliance on that belief.”

State health regulators recently found deficiencies in Pinnacle’s sterile processing procedures and ordered it to correct them. On Wednesday, the hospital declared the cost of complying with the regulators’ demands was too great and announced it was shutting down its operations, including a rural health clinic, outpatient clinic and emergency department.

That came after the hospital was forced to shut down its surgery department, its chief source of income.

The hospital, which was known as Cooper County Memorial Hospital until it was bought by Overland Park, Kansas, businessman Douglas Palzer in late 2018, specialized in bariatric surgery, a procedure to help extremely obese people lose weight.

It’s the only hospital in Boonville, which has a population of about 8,400. The next closest hospital is in Columbia, about 25 miles east.
 

djmartins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
59
Reaction score
17
Govs who place COVID-positive patients in nursing homes / %of deaths from NHs

CA Gavin Newsom(D) 49%
NY Andrew Cuomo(D) 27%*
MI Gretchen Whitmer(D) **
NJ Phil Murphy(D) 53%
MN Tim Walz(D) 81%
PA Tom Wolf(D) 65%

*NY does not count hospital deaths from NHs
**MI no NH data

https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70 has a great map showing % dead in nursing homes.
Note the numbers for other states with Democrat governors versus the % in states with GOP governors.
Boatgeek, check for yourself.
It is a fact Democrat governors in all those states did order nursing homes to take patients with the virus and those
are the states with the highest numbers of dead.
It doesn't take a scientist to see that nursing homes house the most vulnerable people to such a disease.

Trump was told 2.2 million would die if we did nothing. Birx on 3/31 showed a chart claiming that.
We were told we needed to "flatten the curve" to stop hospitals from being swamped.
WHO and others claimed a death rate of 4-6%.
After the nation did in fact shut down all of a sudden they claimed 220,000 would die, then 60,000.
Now we find out that Democrat governors ordered nursing homes to take people in with the virus.
Why did they do that?
The fear mongering was off the chain.
Here's one example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arco-rubio-amy-klobuchar-letter-a9514956.html
"Senators Marco Rubio and Amy Klobuchar have written a joint letter asking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to look into the risk of younger coronavirus patients having strokes."

The shutdowns were not needed at all and we could have come close to half the deaths if Democrat governors had not ordered nursing homes to take people with the virus.
Anyone gonna say this was unintended consequences on their part?

So NOW we have a medical industry in the worst shape it has ever been in yet there were over 300,000 hospitalization for the swine flu and the media didn't make it sound like the end of the world.
They are in trouble thanks to the shutdown and not due to massive numbers of people hospitalized with this coronavirus.
How about the rest of the small business sector of the country?
Most medical professional groups bring in far more money than a local restaurant or other businesses and they are dropping like flies.
I have had long standing appointments with specialists that were cancelled and I may never get to see anyone.
I know two people who are having to drive over 60 miles one way to see new cardiologists.
Naturally a hard push for a total government takeover of our healthcare industry is around the corner though how much isn't already?
The fallout from the shutdowns will be with us for a long time....
 

amiliv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2018
Messages
86
Reaction score
26
The reason it matters is now that we are opening up, it is critical that we take precautions to hold the infection rate down, or we will need to go right back into lockdown. One county in CA already has resumed lockdown; they opened early due to few cases but now are spiking.
It was Lassen county. It's up north and about as remote as you can get in California. They were complaining for some time about one size fits all doesn't fit them, because they are so small, remote and isolated. Plus they had no cases officially recorded. Finally the governor let them start reopening much sooner than the rest of the state. They removed most restrictions very fast, and got couple of cases very fast too. It wasn't a huge spike, but the cases did start to pop up.

To put it into perspective, Lassen county has population of about 30,000 spread over area about 3.5 times the size of Santa Clara county (which is home to almost 2,000,000 people).

But it turns out viruses that spread as efficiently as COVID-19 don't care about population density. It may take them a bit more time to take hold, but eventually they start to spread. Left unchecked, they will infect 90% or more of population even in remotest and most isolated areas. Because those areas don't exist in isolation from the rest of the world, no matter how much they pride themselves on self sufficiency. In reality people travel to and from those areas, because they do depend on big cities. Just as big cities depend on rural areas surrounding them.

Now, if you have social distancing measures that people actually follow (instead of bitching about them), *and* if you have good contact tracing capabilities (instead of fear mongering and conspiracy theories), *and* if you are able to quarantine people quickly enough once they get infected (big if); then virus spreading to those rural communities becomes a coin toss. Some will get it, some will not. But remove any one of those, they all get it eventually.

Since a good visualization is worth more than 1,000 posts on this thread, here's a simple one. It uses simplified model, but with enough parameters to play different scenarios (with good solid math behind it, that's generally used in more complex models too); it's well worth watching (and if you are into math, it's a good channel to subscribe to in general).

 

amiliv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2018
Messages
86
Reaction score
26
Govs who place COVID-positive patients in nursing homes / %of deaths from NHs

CA Gavin Newsom(D) 49%
NY Andrew Cuomo(D) 27%*
MI Gretchen Whitmer(D) **
NJ Phil Murphy(D) 53%
MN Tim Walz(D) 81%
PA Tom Wolf(D) 65%
That's some cherry picking and distortion of data. A quick Google search for "did democratic governors put covid patients in nursing homes" turns out surprisingly little hits before it becomes random COVID-19 nursing homes related articles, unrelated to the search itself.

Closest that I could find is one article in the Guardian that (at least?) one governor (Cuomo of NY) allowed nursing homes to admit patients without mandatory testing at some point in time. If true (I haven't fact checked it), this is bad, but still a far cry from intentionally placing them into nursing homes. And even further cry from forcing nursing homes to admit and house patients known to be infected with COVID-19.

The other was a list of states that passed immunity laws for health care operators, including nursing homes. Which seems to correlate with higher incidence of deaths from COVID-19 in nursing homes. Which seems likelier source of your list. Total of 19 states, both blue and red. Though it seems your list conveniently picked out only blue states from that list? Or whatever place you copied it from decided to omit the other half of the states, because it didn't work well for whatever point they were trying to make?

Of note is that Mitch McConnel is toying with passing same immunity laws at the federal level.
 
Last edited:

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
995
Reaction score
17
Hmm, that's interesting,

And the revised estimates support an early prediction by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force. In an editorial published in late March in The New England Journal of Medicine, Fauci and colleagues wrote that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 "may be considerably less than 1%."
From; https://www.npr.org/sections/health...h-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought

Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought
May 28, 20201:11 PM ET
Jon Hamilton

Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.

The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's blood rather than the virus itself.

The tests are finding large numbers of people in the U.S. who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.

"The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,557
Reaction score
981
Govs who place COVID-positive patients in nursing homes / %of deaths from NHs

CA Gavin Newsom(D) 49%
NY Andrew Cuomo(D) 27%*
MI Gretchen Whitmer(D) **
NJ Phil Murphy(D) 53%
MN Tim Walz(D) 81%
PA Tom Wolf(D) 65%

*NY does not count hospital deaths from NHs
**MI no NH data

https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70 has a great map showing % dead in nursing homes.
Note the numbers for other states with Democrat governors versus the % in states with GOP governors.
Boatgeek, check for yourself.
It is a fact Democrat governors in all those states did order nursing homes to take patients with the virus and those
are the states with the highest numbers of dead.
It doesn't take a scientist to see that nursing homes house the most vulnerable people to such a disease.

Trump was told 2.2 million would die if we did nothing. Birx on 3/31 showed a chart claiming that.
We were told we needed to "flatten the curve" to stop hospitals from being swamped.
WHO and others claimed a death rate of 4-6%.
After the nation did in fact shut down all of a sudden they claimed 220,000 would die, then 60,000.
Now we find out that Democrat governors ordered nursing homes to take people in with the virus.
Why did they do that?
The fear mongering was off the chain.
Here's one example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arco-rubio-amy-klobuchar-letter-a9514956.html
"Senators Marco Rubio and Amy Klobuchar have written a joint letter asking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to look into the risk of younger coronavirus patients having strokes."

The shutdowns were not needed at all and we could have come close to half the deaths if Democrat governors had not ordered nursing homes to take people with the virus.
Anyone gonna say this was unintended consequences on their part?

So NOW we have a medical industry in the worst shape it has ever been in yet there were over 300,000 hospitalization for the swine flu and the media didn't make it sound like the end of the world.
They are in trouble thanks to the shutdown and not due to massive numbers of people hospitalized with this coronavirus.
How about the rest of the small business sector of the country?
Most medical professional groups bring in far more money than a local restaurant or other businesses and they are dropping like flies.
I have had long standing appointments with specialists that were cancelled and I may never get to see anyone.
I know two people who are having to drive over 60 miles one way to see new cardiologists.
Naturally a hard push for a total government takeover of our healthcare industry is around the corner though how much isn't already?
The fallout from the shutdowns will be with us for a long time....
Not how it works, man. If you make a claim, you back it up. I’m not going to go hunting. If it’s easy to find on google, it’ll be no problem for you to post a link.

You also have made the claim that Governors sending COVID patients to nursing homes caused more deaths. While that sounds plausible, you haven’t presented evidence of it.
 

rocket_troy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
116
Reaction score
37
Can anyone explain to me why anyone would send COVID positive patients to nursing homes? Whoever did that would be surely liable to the most serious criminal conduct and anyone with slightest inkling of compassion and intellect wouldn’t need a crystal ball to see how senseless, awful and evil such actions would be. I just can’t believe there are people even suggesting this occurred.
 

modeltrains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
995
Reaction score
17
Can anyone explain to me why anyone would send COVID positive patients to nursing homes?
Employ your favorite search engine, it is in the news, it isn't some arcane hidden knowledge.
Here, for example, is a quote from one Dated May 22,

“This isn’t rocket science,” Arbeeny said. “We knew the most vulnerable -- the elderly and compromised -- are in nursing homes and rehab centers.”

Told of the AP’s tally, the Health Department said late Thursday it “can’t comment on data we haven’t had a chance to review, particularly while we’re still validating our own comprehensive survey of nursing homes admission and re-admission data in the middle of responding to this global pandemic.”

Cuomo, a Democrat, on May 10 reversed the directive, which had been intended to ...
 
2
Top