9 ms·

The early days of the pandemic the first outbreak was in a nursing home in Washington. That was when we were still counting the first hundred and contact traci

The early days of the pandemic the first outbreak was in a nursing home in Washington. That was when we were still counting the first hundred and contact tracing. The people running the homes dissented against it. He still did it. It doesn't take a genius to know you will infect elderly people by sending a highly contagious disease into their facility. The cover up is beyond despicable, but the original action is indefensible.

ggamecrazy 5y ago
Where could those people going back to nursing home go? I'm assuming that if another facility or their family could have taken them they would have opted for that. Reminder that likely these people needed 24/7 skilled nursing help.
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  45 other states found ways to safely handle this scenario. Either properly supply your nursing homes with PPE or bring the nursing home staff to the hospitals.
  - plussed_reader 5y ago
    And if there aren't enough bodies to meet that requirement, then what?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > Either properly supply your nursing homes with PPE or bring the nursing home staff to the hospitals. The PPE that was acutely in short supply and unavailable at the beginning of the pandemic? Even doctors and nurses didn't have adequate PPE back then, and many of them got sick and died because of it.
    - throwaway292893 5y ago
      > and many of them got sick and died because of it. Source of people dying due to lack of PPE? As I understand it, there was always a low supply, not no supply. Other states managed to supply their nursing homes just fine. Seems like rationalization. Cuomo never came out and said this was caused by lack of PPE. Unless you have a source that they weren't able to equip their nursing homes due to supply issues you are assuming.
mattmanser 5y ago
UK did exactly the same thing. Everyone was panicking that the epidemic would grow exponentially and the hospitals would get over-run. Hence freeing up beds, and building a bunch of eventually pointless overflow hospitals. A lot of modelling was claiming that's exactly what would happen, e.g. Imperial College London claiming millions of deaths, while the actual infection curves never hit those numbers. In hindsight, that's not how the virus works, it seems to infect clusters and then drops and eventually levels out, jumps to a new clusters does the same thing, and on.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- WalterGR 5y ago
  > Imperial College London claiming millions of deaths, while the actual infection curves never hit those numbers. Because we took action to avoid that. I truly don't understand why people keep repeating such dezinformatsiya.
  - timr 5y ago
    The Imperial College report included projections if all recommended NPIs were implemented. That includes lockdowns, masks, social distancing, and so on. Those projections were still wildly off the mark. There is no way to look at their projections and take them seriously as modelers. They were simply wrong. They made bad parameter assumptions, didn't question their results or cross-validate, and ran with the scariest projections of their models.
    - WalterGR 5y ago
      I don't think that's correct. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/in-defense-of-mathematical-models https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/in-defense-of-mathema... "For those readers who are unfamiliar with it, the Imperial College model is the one that projected that 2.2 million Americans (and 510,000 residents of the UK) could die from COVID-19 over the next two years without public health interventions." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6 "When updated data in the Imperial team’s model indicated that the United Kingdom’s health service would soon be overwhelmed with severe cases of COVID-19, and might face more than 500,000 deaths if the government took no action... The same model suggested that, with no action, the United States might face 2.2 million deaths..."

ggamecrazy 5y ago

Where could those people going back to nursing home go? I'm assuming that if another facility or their family could have taken them they would have opted for that. Reminder that likely these people needed 24/7 skilled nursing help.

throwaway292893 5y ago
45 other states found ways to safely handle this scenario. Either properly supply your nursing homes with PPE or bring the nursing home staff to the hospitals.
- plussed_reader 5y ago
  And if there aren't enough bodies to meet that requirement, then what?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Either properly supply your nursing homes with PPE or bring the nursing home staff to the hospitals. The PPE that was acutely in short supply and unavailable at the beginning of the pandemic? Even doctors and nurses didn't have adequate PPE back then, and many of them got sick and died because of it.
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    > and many of them got sick and died because of it. Source of people dying due to lack of PPE? As I understand it, there was always a low supply, not no supply. Other states managed to supply their nursing homes just fine. Seems like rationalization. Cuomo never came out and said this was caused by lack of PPE. Unless you have a source that they weren't able to equip their nursing homes due to supply issues you are assuming.

mattmanser 5y ago

UK did exactly the same thing. Everyone was panicking that the epidemic would grow exponentially and the hospitals would get over-run. Hence freeing up beds, and building a bunch of eventually pointless overflow hospitals. A lot of modelling was claiming that's exactly what would happen, e.g. Imperial College London claiming millions of deaths, while the actual infection curves never hit those numbers. In hindsight, that's not how the virus works, it seems to infect clusters and then drops and eventually levels out, jumps to a new clusters does the same thing, and on.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
WalterGR 5y ago
> Imperial College London claiming millions of deaths, while the actual infection curves never hit those numbers. Because we took action to avoid that. I truly don't understand why people keep repeating such dezinformatsiya.
- timr 5y ago
  The Imperial College report included projections if all recommended NPIs were implemented. That includes lockdowns, masks, social distancing, and so on. Those projections were still wildly off the mark. There is no way to look at their projections and take them seriously as modelers. They were simply wrong. They made bad parameter assumptions, didn't question their results or cross-validate, and ran with the scariest projections of their models.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    I don't think that's correct. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/in-defense-of-mathematical-models https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/in-defense-of-mathema... "For those readers who are unfamiliar with it, the Imperial College model is the one that projected that 2.2 million Americans (and 510,000 residents of the UK) could die from COVID-19 over the next two years without public health interventions." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6 "When updated data in the Imperial team’s model indicated that the United Kingdom’s health service would soon be overwhelmed with severe cases of COVID-19, and might face more than 500,000 deaths if the government took no action... The same model suggested that, with no action, the United States might face 2.2 million deaths..."