Bad News Thread

espola said:
I don't understand the point.
Click to expand...
I'll indulge.

Patient A - Broken leg, tests positive for Covid. No covid symptoms, treated for broken leg.
Patient B - Trouble breathing, tests positive for Covid, has Covid symptoms. Treated for Covid.

Patient A should not be counted as Covid hospitalization, patient B should be.

Does Covid hospitalization = 1) treated for Covid in hospital, or 2) a patient tests positive for Covid regardless of whether they were treated for Covid or something else. If a patient is treated for Covid as well as something else that's fair to be defined as a Covid hospitalization.
 
watfly said:
Disturbing. The data is one thing, now someone needs to find out the how's and why's of this happening. It's not unreasonable to believe that a similar thing happened with adults.
Click to expand...
You seem to be trying for a “this isn’t really happening” story.

Overall deaths worldwide are up by about 10 million compared to expected values. It is happening. At most, you are arguing about which people died from covid, not whether people died from covid.
 
watfly said:
I'll indulge.

Patient A - Broken leg, tests positive for Covid. No covid symptoms, treated for broken leg.
Patient B - Trouble breathing, tests positive for Covid, has Covid symptoms. Treated for Covid.

Patient A should not be counted as Covid hospitalization, patient B should be.

Does Covid hospitalization = 1) treated for Covid in hospital, or 2) a patient tests positive for Covid regardless of whether they were treated for Covid or something else. If a patient is treated for Covid as well as something else that's fair to be defined as a Covid hospitalization.
Click to expand...
Why the premium for a cold virus?
 
dad4 said:
You seem to be trying for a “this isn’t really happening” story.

Overall deaths worldwide are up by about 10 million compared to expected values. It is happening. At most, you are arguing about which people died from covid, not whether people died from covid.
Click to expand...
Run along now.
 
dad4 said:
You seem to be trying for a “this isn’t really happening” story.

Overall deaths worldwide are up by about 10 million compared to expected values. It is happening. At most, you are arguing about which people died from covid, not whether people died from covid.
Click to expand...
It is happening, just not to children. Schools should have been open full time in September (with reasonable precautions) because the overwhelming science supported it. Period, end of story. Anyone that thinks otherwise is incredibly selfish. Now its your choice not to send your kid to school, more power to you. But don't take every kid's right away because of fear mongering and politics.

If the Titanic is sinking, you don't let the adults get in the lifeboats first...or maybe you do.
 
watfly said:
It is happening, just not to children. Schools should have been open full time in September (with reasonable precautions) because the overwhelming science supported it. Period, end of story. Anyone that thinks otherwise is incredibly selfish. Now its your choice not to send your kid to school, more power to you. But don't take every kid's right away because of fear mongering and politics.

If the Titanic is sinking, you don't let the adults get in the lifeboats first...or maybe you do.
Click to expand...
Until recently, we didn’t have any lifeboats.

What we had were idiots who wanted to drill more holes in the bottom of the boat. They’re still here, if you look around.

And what science supports opening high schools, indoors, while taking no efforts to reduce community transmission?

Most of what I remember was people arguing that we should have closed bars/gyms/restaurants and opened schools. I don’t remember any science saying we should ditch masks and keep everything open.
 
dad4 said:
Until recently, we didn’t have any lifeboats.

What we had were idiots who wanted to drill more holes in the bottom of the boat. They’re still here, if you look around.

And what science supports opening high schools, indoors, while taking no efforts to reduce community transmission?

Most of what I remember was people arguing that we should have closed bars/gyms/restaurants and opened schools. I don’t remember any science saying we should ditch masks and keep everything open.
Click to expand...
Schools are a lifeboat for our children.

Your idea of "efforts to reduce community transmission" is to close, shutdown and lockdown. It's the lazy and non-creative solution.

But, again if you didn't miscast others arguments you'd have very little to debate.
 
watfly said:
Schools are a lifeboat for our children.

Your idea of "efforts to reduce community transmission" is to close, shutdown and lockdown. It's the lazy and non-creative solution.

But, again if you didn't miscast others arguments you'd have very little to debate.
Click to expand...

You accuse me of miscasting your argument, in exactly the same post as you miscast mine.
 
dad4 said:
You accuse me of miscasting your argument, in exactly the same post as you miscast mine.
Click to expand...
I'll play. Did you have any solutions for restaurants, bars and indoor small businesses other than being shut during the middle of the pandemic? I don't recall that you did, but I could be wrong. You only within the last few months were of the opinion that schools should be reopened. In fact, you called the Academy of Pediatrics and the National Academy of Medicine recommendations last year that kids should be in school, BS. I on the other hand never proposed that schools should reopen without precautions, although admittedly, I wouldn't lose any sleep if they opened without precautions, as long as, there were notifications of exposure or outbreaks.
 
watfly said:
I'll play. Did you have any solutions for restaurants, bars and indoor small businesses other than being shut during the middle of the pandemic? I don't recall that you did, but I could be wrong. You only within the last few months were of the opinion that schools should be reopened. In fact, you called the Academy of Pediatrics and the National Academy of Medicine recommendations last year that kids should be in school, BS. I on the other hand never proposed that schools should reopen without precautions, although admittedly, I wouldn't lose any sleep if they opened without precautions, as long as, there were notifications of exposure or outbreaks.
Click to expand...
The number one thing is moving risky things outdoors. That could have helped churches, gyms, bars, and restaurants. Schools, too.

For schools, why should a teacher have been willing to teach in person if the rest of the public isn’t willing to skip the restaurants or wear a mask? You were asking the teacher to accept an elevated risk, while you do absolutely nothing to help.

Yes, the risk to a teacher in a well ventilated room of masked kids is low. Now think about what happens as you relax those assumptions. The risk stops being low.

Suppose kids are refusing to wear masks. Is the teacher allowed to kick kids out for not wearing masks? Unless it is private school, probably not. So assume the kids, like their parents, skip masks.

The AAP assumed ventilation. Will anyone actually upgrade the ventilation system in each classroom? Don’t be silly. They can’t even keep the water faucets working. At most, they’ll send out an email asking teachers to open a window.

So, if you require teachers to teach in a well ventilated room of masked kids, you also require teachers to teach in poorly ventilated rooms of unmasked kids. It is no longer a low risk, but it is what will happen.

This is why I supported outdoor school, and school with each teacher teaching a single cohort. School is important, and moving class outside seemed the simplest way to make it safe.
 
watfly said:
I'll indulge.

Patient A - Broken leg, tests positive for Covid. No covid symptoms, treated for broken leg.
Patient B - Trouble breathing, tests positive for Covid, has Covid symptoms. Treated for Covid.

Patient A should not be counted as Covid hospitalization, patient B should be.

Does Covid hospitalization = 1) treated for Covid in hospital, or 2) a patient tests positive for Covid regardless of whether they were treated for Covid or something else. If a patient is treated for Covid as well as something else that's fair to be defined as a Covid hospitalization.
Click to expand...

The reason Patient A is "counted as covid" is because the hospital must follow covid isolation and testing protocols that result in increased costs for the hospital and therefore qualify for the higher reimbursement levels.
 
watfly said:
Schools are a lifeboat for our children.

Your idea of "efforts to reduce community transmission" is to close, shutdown and lockdown. It's the lazy and non-creative solution.

But, again if you didn't miscast others arguments you'd have very little to debate.
Click to expand...

What would be a more creative solution?
 
dad4 said:
The number one thing is moving risky things outdoors. That could have helped churches, gyms, bars, and restaurants. Schools, too.

For schools, why should a teacher have been willing to teach in person if the rest of the public isn’t willing to skip the restaurants or wear a mask? You were asking the teacher to accept an elevated risk, while you do absolutely nothing to help.

Yes, the risk to a teacher in a well ventilated room of masked kids is low. Now think about what happens as you relax those assumptions. The risk stops being low.

Suppose kids are refusing to wear masks. Is the teacher allowed to kick kids out for not wearing masks? Unless it is private school, probably not. So assume the kids, like their parents, skip masks.

The AAP assumed ventilation. Will anyone actually upgrade the ventilation system in each classroom? Don’t be silly. They can’t even keep the water faucets working. At most, they’ll send out an email asking teachers to open a window.

So, if you require teachers to teach in a well ventilated room of masked kids, you also require teachers to teach in poorly ventilated rooms of unmasked kids. It is no longer a low risk, but it is what will happen.

This is why I supported outdoor school, and school with each teacher teaching a single cohort. School is important, and moving class outside seemed the simplest way to make it safe.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with moving things outdoors, but for schools that's an extreme and impractical measure given the nominal risk. To be honest whether it's my plan or your plan, the argument is moot since the Unions wouldn't have allowed either.

Here is real life though. Our indoor youth club houses (that aren't on school property) have been open since June (all day since the schools were closed). Serving hundreds of kids, we had some infections among kids and staff, but zero outbreaks and no serious illnesses. Combine that with all the private schools that have operated safely since September. We can speculate all we want, but the proof is in the pudding.
 
watfly said:
Don't disagree with moving things outdoors, but for schools that's an extreme and impractical measure given the nominal risk. To be honest whether it's my plan or your plan, the argument is moot since the Unions wouldn't have allowed either.

Here is real life though. Our indoor youth club houses (that aren't on school property) have been open since June (all day since the schools were closed). Serving hundreds of kids, we had some infections among kids and staff, but zero outbreaks and no serious illnesses. Combine that with all the private schools that have operated safely since September. We can speculate all we want, but the proof is in the pudding.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the other schools around the country that remained open since Sept.
 
Kicker4Life said:
Don’t forget the other schools around the country that remained open since Sept.
Click to expand...
Unless the schools had an effective way to detect asymptomatic transmission amongst the kids, the existence of open schools is no evidence one way or the other.

I suppose you could compare covid rates among teachers to covid rates among the general population in the same areas. Has anyone done that? If not, then all those open schools prove exactly nothing. Even then, you might prove nothing more than the fact that a lot of teachers are overweight, and thus more likely to show symptoms.
 
watfly said:
Don't disagree with moving things outdoors, but for schools that's an extreme and impractical measure given the nominal risk. To be honest whether it's my plan or your plan, the argument is moot since the Unions wouldn't have allowed either.

Here is real life though. Our indoor youth club houses (that aren't on school property) have been open since June (all day since the schools were closed). Serving hundreds of kids, we had some infections among kids and staff, but zero outbreaks and no serious illnesses. Combine that with all the private schools that have operated safely since September. We can speculate all we want, but the proof is in the pudding.
Click to expand...
Given what we know about covid, why should I believe that sitting in a room with 30 people outside my family counts as “nominal” risk? Then repeat for 4 more groups. It’s a large gathering, extended time, indoor, poorly masked, poorly distanced, and poorly ventilated. What transmission risk factor are we missing?

Your indoor youth club houses probably contribute to community spread by having one asymptomatic youth transfer the virus to another asymptomatic youth. Unless you have awesome contact tracing, which you don’t, you do not know whether kids got covid at the youth center and brought it home to grandma.

Sad thing is, the same program held outdoors was actually pretty safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top