3 ms·

If we don’t guarantee free care for this, it’s going to spread unchecked because people aren’t going to go to the doctor. It doesn’t help that trump is going o

If we don’t guarantee free care for this, it’s going to spread unchecked because people aren’t going to go to the doctor. It doesn’t help that trump is going on tv telling people that it’s just a cold and you should go into work if you have it.

jnmandal 7y ago
Its really far too late for that. They are trying in NY (they made it free) but you can't undo decades of societal conditioning so fast. Not to mention we probably needed to get ahead of this three weeks ago since the incubation period is so long. Folks w/ symptoms have been for sure avoiding testing over the last couple weeks.
- pbourke 7y ago
  > They are trying in NY (they made it free) but you can't undo decades of societal conditioning so fast. I consider myself fairly well informed on these topics and I don't believe it, either (though I'm not in NY). I believe that certain regulators and governments intend for it to be free, but I don't believe it will be that easy when the provider billing and insurance systems get involved.
  - jnmandal 7y ago
    We'll see, the governor has ordered insurers to waive all costs (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485622-new-york-insurers-ordered-to-to-waive-costs-associated-with-coronavirus https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485622-new-york-insure...), and actually California just did the same. Maybe tax payers will end up paying in the end though, either through civil courts or some kind of backward-effective legislation.
nraynaud 7y ago
with a wide definition of "this", because it would be normal for people to try to be cautious if they have a flu and quarantine or go to the ER, but they would not have gone to the ER with very early symptoms absent the specific panic around this epidemic. So if it happens that they actually had the flu and they are recovering well, will they get hammered because they medicalized the situation more and earlier than what they would have done usually?
WilTimSon 7y ago
I'm very puzzled by that. We want to stop the epidemic from spreading so it's in each country's best interest to provide testing and medical care to any infected. What's the alternative? Just shouldering the cost of companies and factories that stop work and the time it takes to tackle a widespread epidemic? It seems shrewder to just provide care for anyone that needs it, at least on this occasion.
foobarian 7y ago
What's the point of preventing the spread? Hoping for a vaccine? Otherwise it seems better to just get it over with. Wonder what happened to SARS, H1N1 et al. Seems not so clear cut: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/health/coronavirus-outbreaks-resolutions/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/health/coronavirus-outbreaks-... So: delay the spread so it can die out in summer, and give us time for vaccine before it starts up again in winter?
- empath75 7y ago
  delay the spread so you don't have 1,000,000 in intensive care at the same time.

jnmandal 7y ago

Its really far too late for that. They are trying in NY (they made it free) but you can't undo decades of societal conditioning so fast. Not to mention we probably needed to get ahead of this three weeks ago since the incubation period is so long. Folks w/ symptoms have been for sure avoiding testing over the last couple weeks.

pbourke 7y ago
> They are trying in NY (they made it free) but you can't undo decades of societal conditioning so fast. I consider myself fairly well informed on these topics and I don't believe it, either (though I'm not in NY). I believe that certain regulators and governments intend for it to be free, but I don't believe it will be that easy when the provider billing and insurance systems get involved.
- jnmandal 7y ago
  We'll see, the governor has ordered insurers to waive all costs (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485622-new-york-insurers-ordered-to-to-waive-costs-associated-with-coronavirus https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485622-new-york-insure...), and actually California just did the same. Maybe tax payers will end up paying in the end though, either through civil courts or some kind of backward-effective legislation.

nraynaud 7y ago

with a wide definition of "this", because it would be normal for people to try to be cautious if they have a flu and quarantine or go to the ER, but they would not have gone to the ER with very early symptoms absent the specific panic around this epidemic. So if it happens that they actually had the flu and they are recovering well, will they get hammered because they medicalized the situation more and earlier than what they would have done usually?

WilTimSon 7y ago

I'm very puzzled by that. We want to stop the epidemic from spreading so it's in each country's best interest to provide testing and medical care to any infected. What's the alternative? Just shouldering the cost of companies and factories that stop work and the time it takes to tackle a widespread epidemic? It seems shrewder to just provide care for anyone that needs it, at least on this occasion.

foobarian 7y ago

What's the point of preventing the spread? Hoping for a vaccine? Otherwise it seems better to just get it over with. Wonder what happened to SARS, H1N1 et al. Seems not so clear cut: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/health/coronavirus-outbreaks-resolutions/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/health/coronavirus-outbreaks-... So: delay the spread so it can die out in summer, and give us time for vaccine before it starts up again in winter?

empath75 7y ago
delay the spread so you don't have 1,000,000 in intensive care at the same time.