So your plan is to deprive workers of their rights to go home?Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
|
|
|
|
|
So your plan is to deprive workers of their rights to go home?
[QUOTE=PawDawg;1762898]What I said above.[/QUOT]
I think the tin foil is starting to cut off your circulation.
[QUOTE=Guisslapp;1762907]It’s called logic. Otherwise natural causes deaths are down and especially in the areas were China Virus deaths are at the highest. You got a model that proves me wrong?
It's logical that "natural cause" deaths would be down when there is a pandemic spreading at a nursing home.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
What he said.
Plus, the clinical presentation of severe COVID is fairly distinct and prevalent. I don’t understand why Pawdawg’s insists that it is a conspiracy theory. Nurses and docs can tell you all about what they are seeing in their COVID patients.
This is not at all difficult. You have to stop thinking about what exists and think about what would work for this pandemic.
It's all volunteer on a contract basis for a defined period. The workers don't HAVE to be the workers that are there already, but they can be. If you wish to do it, you get compensated handsomely (like a whole lot...but this is still cheaper than the untold trillions we are spending now and this doesn't wreck the economy). You get to bring your partner with you. You get screened before you arrive. You sign on to quarantine with the patients and not venture out. You are tested before you arrive for your extended shift and additionally at some point during your tenure. If you have to change processes within the homes, you do it. The idea is limiting their exposure to the virus and keeping the economy open to people with less risky profiles or anyone else wishing to work. This is a reasonable place for federal funds to help out.
Think about this like going out to sea on a submarine with the US Navy, except a lot more lucrative and you get to have your family there if you wish. You can opt out after your contract is over (I have no idea how long such contract should be for), or you can do it again until the end of the pandemic.
Workers there already that choose not to work under this type of contract get furloughed and collect unemployment or find a new job somewhere else. Their employment status is not as important as not killing residents of the home.
I am sure something like this could be used as a starting point to hash out something that could be done. You just have to stop thinking about what exists and think about what your goal is.
Using Bing and asking "How well does HCQ work in treating Covid-19 patients?" Several pages of results was returned. I randomly opened 6 of the articles. 5 of the 6 were positive to Yes, HCQ is an effective treatment. The one negative article was about the Brazilian study, but even in that article it appears there was mixed-results.
Reading some of the sub-headlines in the articles was stuff like this: "International Study Shows Majority of Doctors Say HCQ Works." Then you start reading the paragraph and learn that of 6,200+ doctors surveyed, worldwide, 37% say emphatically HCQ works, 23% see some potential, and so on with a various, decreasing support for its use. Well, 37% is not a "majority" but it is a plurality of the responses.
Three studies, ranging from just 62 test subjects to 210, all show fantastic results. Like patients being "cured" who had it, and patients dying or needing intensive care if they didn't get HCQ. One study, of 181 test subjects, had 84 being treated with HCQ and 97 not. Critics of the study point to the unequal numbers used. So? Reading the summary ALL 84 patients treated recovered and are doing fine, and of the 97 not treated, there was variety of results from increased symptoms, to needing intensive care, to death in some cases. Even IF you want to say, well, the study doesn't prove anything, you should at least acknowledge, well, there appears to be something to this.
IDK...
I don't know, if like in the case of the horrible VA study that really murdered patients, that ANY of these studies are legit. For instance, in the case of the 84 and 97 study...did the researchers hand pick the 84 who had mild symptoms and the other 97 were in bad shape...one foot in the grave? If so then the results are null. A true study would literally select test patients randomly. Like assigning the 181 patients a number and drawing from a hat. The criticisms of that study mention no such thing, such as being selective to assure the results the researchers wanted.
What I do know is that by a preponderance of the evidence there appears to be some measurable positive results using HCQ to treat C-19 infected patients. Certainly enough to warrant a study (or studies) that we can all trust as legit...whatever the results may be.
One more thing...while there are studies on the use of HCQ dating back to February, and from all over the world, I purposely picked more recent ones. Ranging from April 24 to May 6.
Dawg80, that is not scientific at all.
No it isn’t. Claiming deaths by China Virus for those who would have died anyway is totally illogical, but it helps the numbers.
How consistent are deaths for a natural cause of death for a given week from year to year?
So, every death in a nursing home should be labeled as natural causes? I mean, they would've died anyway...they are in a nursing home. You do know that most of the deaths in a normal year are cardiac and alzheimers right?
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Because when I look at the very limited data set you provided earlier...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/health...NUgAlwgScMobYg
...you can see that deaths were running below trend before any COVID deaths happened in the US. And the chart really ends very early, well before COVID deaths started to hit on a 2k+ per day rate.
Is this the data you are drawing your inference from?
100 people died in 2019, but in 2020 only 30 of those people died. That’s your logic.
That isn’t what the data says. And what is the expected variability year to year even without a pandemic?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
