7 ms·

CA, NY and NJ were the states that forced their nursing homes to take C19 patients. https://web.archive.org/web/20200430140410/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/

by m0zg 6y ago

CA, NY and NJ were the states that forced their nursing homes to take C19 patients. https://web.archive.org/web/20200430140410/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/nursing-homes-coronavirus.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200430140410/https://www.nytim... CA got off easy, relatively speaking. Probably fewer nursing homes. It's amazing how idiotic government officials can be.

rdtsc 6y ago
> “Whoever made this decision, whoever did this, I consider this a sentence of death for all the older patients, whoever is in a nursing home,” he said. Wonder what the justification was. Hindsight 20/20 as they say, but wasn’t it known the age and various conditions that older patients might have are risk factors early on?
- duckMuppet 6y ago
  Everyone followed a flawed IHME model, they shoved out elderly to make room for patients who would need ventilators because everyone blindly trusted the models and certainly didn't listen to anyone from Stanford. They didn't listen to the data later, which continued to show that over 80%of the time ventilators were ineffective for patients. Then again, the CDC still has listed fever as one of the main and certain symptoms of covid, yet JAMA published in late March/ early April that only 30%of patients actually exhibited fever, and concluded it wasn't a good indicator of infection. Or The WHO who just put a video out which says masks are ineffective meanwhile every governor in the USA is demanding masks be worn by everyone essentially to virtue signal who is who. But like all the above, this entire ordeal wasn't about a virus, it's about control.
  - duckMuppet 6y ago
    It Isn't just California, it's the entire USA. It wasn't about a virus it was about control. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursin...
    - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
      That forbes article says 42% of deaths are from 0.6% of the population, i.e. really old people. So what, do they not matter to you? Even if you believe that stat, 58% of the deaths are people that matter to even you. Your link has no support for the idea that cv19 is some conspiracy to control people. Why do you think it's because people want to control you via destroying the economy and killing 100s of thousands of americans?
      - m0zg 6y ago
        I mean, why not. Whoever "wins" gets to control $20 _trillion_ of US GDP. "Some of you may die, but it's the sacrifice I'm willing to accept". It was well known at the time that mostly very old people are dying. I'm having some difficulties ascribing this to incompetence.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      About the same number of people globally are dying from COVID daily as from alcohol related causes (~5000) I read. It just seems weird that nobody would describe (explicitly or implicitly) the elimination of all alcohol related deaths as insignificant.
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
    You are going to need to provide a citation about the WHO saying masks aren't effective. That doesn't appear to be true. [1]. Web searches couldn't find that. [1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
    - pcunite 6y ago
      The WHO reference: https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coronavirus/masks/masks-2.tmb-479v.png?Culture=en&sfvrsn=50396714_2 https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coro... The Dr. Fauci reference: https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI
      - cashsterling 6y ago
        WHO is not giving out the best advice these days. That Fauci statement was from 3/8 before shit really hit the fan in the US and he was trying to preserve supply for healthcare workers. Fauci is wearing a mask now in public. Cloth face masks are a good idea in indoor public spaces... it is about reducing the load of virus I would expel into a closed space if I am infected and don't know it yet. Also, it reduces the distance particles travel from my mouth when breathing or talking. These two things together reduce the risk for those around me in enclosed spaces. It also provides some moderate reduction in aerosol I inhale. This has been studied and well documented. We know now that transmission through common surface contact is minimal... not zero, but very low compared to aerosol transmission. The risk of touching your face more is not significant enough to offset the benefit of wearing a mask. I probably touch my face more without a mask on. That being said, it is important that your mask be comfortable so that the need to adjust it is minimal. I wear a mask at work and wash my hands and mask with warm very dish-soapy water for 20-30 seconds when I get home. I also wash my hands regularly during the day. Soap is very effective at inactivating most all virus; commonly wrecking their surface proteins (that they need intact to get into cells) or even destroying the capsid shell. FWIW: We are also running ozone generators at night where I work in the high traffic areas to provide a 2-3 log reduction of active surface virus (should any exist). I don't recommend doing this unless you really know what you are doing... exposure to high concentrations of ozone is really bad for you (read, can kill you if exposure is bad enough).
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Whatever mistakes were made, it seems like globally as cases continue to go up, deaths are declining, so it seems like we're learning something.
  - creato 6y ago
    > But like all the above, this entire ordeal wasn't about a virus, it's about control. How are any of these things a useful means of control? What do governments gain by people wearing masks? If anything, historically, governments have disliked people wearing masks because it makes people hard to identify.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It's not about, like, an Illuminati conspiracy. It's about a general attitude that the general public can't be trusted and the authorities have to make sure they do what's right. The obvious alternative to mandatory lockdowns would be to simply convince the public that it's very dangerous to go outside, but most commentators in the US saw the idea of not using government force as tantamount to giving up.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
        > would be to simply convince the public that it's very dangerous to go outside That theory is being tested in Sweden right now. No government force, just strongly trying to convince residents to socially distance. And now its one of the highest death rates in all of Europe. The libertarian ideal of people "doing the right thing" simply doesn't work.
        scottlocklin 6y ago
        Sweden's doing better on a per-capita basis than the UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium and France; pretty much any way you slice the data, and all of those countries implemented lock downs. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
        dlemire 6y ago
        Half of the deaths in Sweden are in long-term care homes, and happened to people under the care of the state. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52704836 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52704836
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Hindsight 20/20 as they say Sorry, but that excuse won't fly for several reasons: 1) We had sars-1 and mers earlier, both corona viruses 2) China was slow in providing info initially, but eventually they did. There's a number of papers to read online. (Same as in sars-1, where world notification was delayed from Nov. 2002 to about Mar. 2003.) 3) The CDC and other agencies are supposed to be on top of pandemics. The White House has a pandemic playbook. These are paid professionals who are supposed to have foresight, not blame hindsight. (FYI: one of the US disease pros involved said that false alerts essentially neutered pandemic response since 2010 in this country. I empathize with that. All I can suggest is to point out that sars-1 killed thousands, and mers and sars-2 are also coronas.)
  - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    "The White House has a pandemic playbook." The white house HAD a pandemic playbook. They didn't use it.
- throwaway122378 6y ago
  We’re talking about Mid March. Mortality by age was well known by then.
- usaar333 6y ago
  It's in the article - they were worried about hospitals having insufficient capacity to deal with covid19 patients. An excellent case study on why overly pessimistic models not only lead to high economic cost, but also a cost in lives.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    Your comment is an excellent example of hindsight bias.
    - usaar333 6y ago
      NYC/NJ modeling is forgivable. California's is not. (https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-model-project-possibly-thousands-of-deaths-in-bay-area-by-june https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-m...)
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        You're bagging on California for being proactive and not ending up like and NYC/NJ.
        redis_mlc 6y ago
        Gibbon1 is correct, the CA numbers have been overly pessimistic for months, evident in that the Santa Clara dashboard has been flat for months and at no point in crisis. At some point the responsible thing to do is to use a more accurate model, but that's not what's happening. Newsom plans to run for President, so it's hard to believe anything he says, doubly so with the incorrect stats available.
        thejynxed 6y ago
        Newsome will get absolutely dragged about that high-speed rail system from nowhere to nowhere and what really happened to all of that money.
schoolornot 6y ago
NY's governor was going on his brother's TV show making light of the situation and sharing corny jokes as the elderly were dying in nursing homes. And when people were desperate for relief it was the governor that decided to ban off-label use of drugs for COVID meanwhile his brother sprang back into action fairly quick after becoming infected and taking: https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-version-of-hydroxychloroquine-mcenany/ https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-ver...
- IAmEveryone 6y ago
  And, as we have since learnt, HCQ doesn't help and is actively harmful. These two brothers are also not the same person, so it's entirely possible for one of them to ban something while the other still wants to use it.
  - kangaroozach 6y ago
    That is false. HCQ is a zinc ionophore, and thus can shuttle zinc into the infected cells to inhibit RNA Polymerase, thereby inhibiting viral replication. Studies all over the world have supported this. HCQ with zinc EARLY on is very likely helpful and many have attributed this to saving their life. Also given the long-standing risk profile of HCQ as an anti-malarial treatment and indicates that there are quite limited risks and side effects unless the patient has certain heart conditions or certain other specific and easy to know about conditions. Fake news points to studies that don’t test the key combo of “HCQ+Zinc+Early”. Any other combo may fail, but that does not mean that this combo is not effective.
    - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
      You are dangerously misinformed. RNA polymerase requires Zinc. In fact, I believe essentially all polymerases known use Zinc as a core component of their catalytic chemistry.
      - pdonis 6y ago

by m0zg 6y ago

rdtsc 6y ago

> “Whoever made this decision, whoever did this, I consider this a sentence of death for all the older patients, whoever is in a nursing home,” he said. Wonder what the justification was. Hindsight 20/20 as they say, but wasn’t it known the age and various conditions that older patients might have are risk factors early on?

duckMuppet 6y ago
Everyone followed a flawed IHME model, they shoved out elderly to make room for patients who would need ventilators because everyone blindly trusted the models and certainly didn't listen to anyone from Stanford. They didn't listen to the data later, which continued to show that over 80%of the time ventilators were ineffective for patients. Then again, the CDC still has listed fever as one of the main and certain symptoms of covid, yet JAMA published in late March/ early April that only 30%of patients actually exhibited fever, and concluded it wasn't a good indicator of infection. Or The WHO who just put a video out which says masks are ineffective meanwhile every governor in the USA is demanding masks be worn by everyone essentially to virtue signal who is who. But like all the above, this entire ordeal wasn't about a virus, it's about control.
- duckMuppet 6y ago
  It Isn't just California, it's the entire USA. It wasn't about a virus it was about control. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursin...
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
    That forbes article says 42% of deaths are from 0.6% of the population, i.e. really old people. So what, do they not matter to you? Even if you believe that stat, 58% of the deaths are people that matter to even you. Your link has no support for the idea that cv19 is some conspiracy to control people. Why do you think it's because people want to control you via destroying the economy and killing 100s of thousands of americans?
    - m0zg 6y ago
      I mean, why not. Whoever "wins" gets to control $20 _trillion_ of US GDP. "Some of you may die, but it's the sacrifice I'm willing to accept". It was well known at the time that mostly very old people are dying. I'm having some difficulties ascribing this to incompetence.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    About the same number of people globally are dying from COVID daily as from alcohol related causes (~5000) I read. It just seems weird that nobody would describe (explicitly or implicitly) the elimination of all alcohol related deaths as insignificant.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  You are going to need to provide a citation about the WHO saying masks aren't effective. That doesn't appear to be true. [1]. Web searches couldn't find that. [1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
  - pcunite 6y ago
    The WHO reference: https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coronavirus/masks/masks-2.tmb-479v.png?Culture=en&sfvrsn=50396714_2 https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coro... The Dr. Fauci reference: https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI
    - cashsterling 6y ago
      WHO is not giving out the best advice these days. That Fauci statement was from 3/8 before shit really hit the fan in the US and he was trying to preserve supply for healthcare workers. Fauci is wearing a mask now in public. Cloth face masks are a good idea in indoor public spaces... it is about reducing the load of virus I would expel into a closed space if I am infected and don't know it yet. Also, it reduces the distance particles travel from my mouth when breathing or talking. These two things together reduce the risk for those around me in enclosed spaces. It also provides some moderate reduction in aerosol I inhale. This has been studied and well documented. We know now that transmission through common surface contact is minimal... not zero, but very low compared to aerosol transmission. The risk of touching your face more is not significant enough to offset the benefit of wearing a mask. I probably touch my face more without a mask on. That being said, it is important that your mask be comfortable so that the need to adjust it is minimal. I wear a mask at work and wash my hands and mask with warm very dish-soapy water for 20-30 seconds when I get home. I also wash my hands regularly during the day. Soap is very effective at inactivating most all virus; commonly wrecking their surface proteins (that they need intact to get into cells) or even destroying the capsid shell. FWIW: We are also running ozone generators at night where I work in the high traffic areas to provide a 2-3 log reduction of active surface virus (should any exist). I don't recommend doing this unless you really know what you are doing... exposure to high concentrations of ozone is really bad for you (read, can kill you if exposure is bad enough).
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Whatever mistakes were made, it seems like globally as cases continue to go up, deaths are declining, so it seems like we're learning something.
- creato 6y ago
  > But like all the above, this entire ordeal wasn't about a virus, it's about control. How are any of these things a useful means of control? What do governments gain by people wearing masks? If anything, historically, governments have disliked people wearing masks because it makes people hard to identify.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's not about, like, an Illuminati conspiracy. It's about a general attitude that the general public can't be trusted and the authorities have to make sure they do what's right. The obvious alternative to mandatory lockdowns would be to simply convince the public that it's very dangerous to go outside, but most commentators in the US saw the idea of not using government force as tantamount to giving up.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      > would be to simply convince the public that it's very dangerous to go outside That theory is being tested in Sweden right now. No government force, just strongly trying to convince residents to socially distance. And now its one of the highest death rates in all of Europe. The libertarian ideal of people "doing the right thing" simply doesn't work.
      - scottlocklin 6y ago
        Sweden's doing better on a per-capita basis than the UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium and France; pretty much any way you slice the data, and all of those countries implemented lock downs. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
      - dlemire 6y ago
        Half of the deaths in Sweden are in long-term care homes, and happened to people under the care of the state. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52704836 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52704836
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Hindsight 20/20 as they say Sorry, but that excuse won't fly for several reasons: 1) We had sars-1 and mers earlier, both corona viruses 2) China was slow in providing info initially, but eventually they did. There's a number of papers to read online. (Same as in sars-1, where world notification was delayed from Nov. 2002 to about Mar. 2003.) 3) The CDC and other agencies are supposed to be on top of pandemics. The White House has a pandemic playbook. These are paid professionals who are supposed to have foresight, not blame hindsight. (FYI: one of the US disease pros involved said that false alerts essentially neutered pandemic response since 2010 in this country. I empathize with that. All I can suggest is to point out that sars-1 killed thousands, and mers and sars-2 are also coronas.)
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  "The White House has a pandemic playbook." The white house HAD a pandemic playbook. They didn't use it.
throwaway122378 6y ago
We’re talking about Mid March. Mortality by age was well known by then.
usaar333 6y ago
It's in the article - they were worried about hospitals having insufficient capacity to deal with covid19 patients. An excellent case study on why overly pessimistic models not only lead to high economic cost, but also a cost in lives.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Your comment is an excellent example of hindsight bias.
  - usaar333 6y ago
    NYC/NJ modeling is forgivable. California's is not. (https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-model-project-possibly-thousands-of-deaths-in-bay-area-by-june https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-m...)
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      You're bagging on California for being proactive and not ending up like and NYC/NJ.
      - redis_mlc 6y ago
        Gibbon1 is correct, the CA numbers have been overly pessimistic for months, evident in that the Santa Clara dashboard has been flat for months and at no point in crisis. At some point the responsible thing to do is to use a more accurate model, but that's not what's happening. Newsom plans to run for President, so it's hard to believe anything he says, doubly so with the incorrect stats available.
        thejynxed 6y ago
        Newsome will get absolutely dragged about that high-speed rail system from nowhere to nowhere and what really happened to all of that money.

schoolornot 6y ago

NY's governor was going on his brother's TV show making light of the situation and sharing corny jokes as the elderly were dying in nursing homes. And when people were desperate for relief it was the governor that decided to ban off-label use of drugs for COVID meanwhile his brother sprang back into action fairly quick after becoming infected and taking: https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-version-of-hydroxychloroquine-mcenany/ https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-ver...

IAmEveryone 6y ago
And, as we have since learnt, HCQ doesn't help and is actively harmful. These two brothers are also not the same person, so it's entirely possible for one of them to ban something while the other still wants to use it.
- kangaroozach 6y ago
  That is false. HCQ is a zinc ionophore, and thus can shuttle zinc into the infected cells to inhibit RNA Polymerase, thereby inhibiting viral replication. Studies all over the world have supported this. HCQ with zinc EARLY on is very likely helpful and many have attributed this to saving their life. Also given the long-standing risk profile of HCQ as an anti-malarial treatment and indicates that there are quite limited risks and side effects unless the patient has certain heart conditions or certain other specific and easy to know about conditions. Fake news points to studies that don’t test the key combo of “HCQ+Zinc+Early”. Any other combo may fail, but that does not mean that this combo is not effective.
  - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    You are dangerously misinformed. RNA polymerase requires Zinc. In fact, I believe essentially all polymerases known use Zinc as a core component of their catalytic chemistry.
    - pdonis 6y ago