Tennessee shuts practice down for Covid-19 reasons

[Stoerner Fumbles]

No, we do not "know" that. California says "hi."

Another thing: why are we trying to slow the spread amongst the younger/healthier population? Are the hospitals overrun and we're out of ventilators? That was the original goal, before the posts got moved 74 times into the realm of ridiculousness. I've already explained how this will likely be deadlier if it continues into winter. Are you trying to kill grandmothers?[/

Why coronavirus cases in California are suddenly surging

 

[ftsandersvol]

The Covids don't show up for protests....at least that's what they told me on the news.

And apparently people believe it. I had a co-worker tell me the “second wave” that hit in June was not due to the 2.6 million people protesting in the streets at the end of May, but people going to the beach.

 

[gunner]

I have advocated hand washing as the most important thing we can do.. What is your opinion?

Stay away from other people.

 

[ftsandersvol]

Am I the only that finds the number of cardiologists consulting with this patient difficult to believe? 30?

Has to be a government employee. My private insurance would have pulled the reins at two.

 

[butchna]

 

[ftsandersvol]

There was a study done in 2011 on the Spanish Flu that detailed what was done correctly and what wasn’t. One of the studies major findings was the medical profession discovered in 1918-1920 that open air was the best way to prevent the spread. Back then they even created open-air hospitals to combat the spread. What did our “experts” do this time? They told us to lockdown and stay inside. Of course, it’s never really been about saving lives, but the so-called elites exerting their power over us to see how much we will tolerate. I must say they are even more emboldened now.

 

[Purple Tiger]

Are these doctors also factoring in things outside their control like increases in suicide, hunger, abuse, etc. How about the economic devastation caused by a shutdown and how that affects physical/mental/ emotional health?

Wow - so your doctor also specialize in economics, psychiatry, and sociology? Mine is only an Internal Medicine professor and practitioner. Maybe that's why I get better medical care since she only concentrates on medicine.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

Not at all.

And it's not a scale. Because there isn't just one variable. Instead, it is a two-dimensional plot, a graph or matrix. Something like this:

View attachment 303102

And the question is, where on that graph do we as a society feel most comfortable, given any dangerous condition?

Let's use automobile deaths as an example. Say the government and auto industry have, over many years and thousands of studies, figured out exactly how much it costs to save lives in a variety of ways:

• Slow interstate traffic from 75 to 55? You save X,XXX lives per year at a cost of Y,YYY in lost revenue, trade, etc.
• Mandate air bags for drivers? Save another X,XXX lives each year at a cost of Y,YYY per vehicle.
• Require Americans to walk rather than drive if the distance to be traveled is less than 5 miles? Save X,XXX lives at a cost of Y,YYY time and productivity.
• And so on.

You'll notice that one of those examples we accepted as a society (the air bags). Another we accepted for a while, then decided it wasn't worth it after all (the 55 speed limit). And the third, we have never accepted (mandated walking). They are all proven ways to save lives. But some are worth it to us, and others are not.

That same kind of calculus exists for heart disease, the flu, and now Covid-19.

We as a society are ALWAYS weighing costs versus benefits in this way. Yes, we compare the value of saving lives versus the inconvenience that comes with the measures required.

It is a simple argument, a child's argument, to say that we will pay any price as a society to save even a single life.

The real world doesn't work that way. It's all weighing costs and benefits.

We as a society just haven't caught on to that yet for Covid, though we have in so many other societal hazards.

Here are the projections on lives saved from the initial shutdown. Do feel that was a reasonable tradeoff?

U.S. economic shutdown saved up to 2.7 million lives, analysis finds

Again, you’re presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. The countries that shutdown early in the virus cycle did best not just in terms of individual outcomes, but also economically.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Every reputable source agrees they are consistently underreported. Any downward adjustments are likely due to pressure from right-wing Trump loving administrations.

Like gunshots and motorcycle wrecks huh? It’s kind of sad you actually believe what you do.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I see three doctors at Vanderbilt, and all three say the same thing as your doctors. Any medical person who tries to minimize COVID is in a small minority of doctors and researchers and their opinions should be ignored.

By all means please provide proof if this.

 

[utvolpj]

Wow - so your doctor also specialize in economics, psychiatry, and sociology? Mine is only an Internal Medicine professor and practitioner. Maybe that's why I get better medical care since she only concentrates on medicine.

Actually thanks for proving my point. If you're only using a doctors recommendation then you're missing huge pieces to the puzzle. Maybe that's your posts on this are usually read as uninformed

But hey, you obviously need many more doctors than I do. Maybe I'm missing out

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Here are the projections on lives saved from the initial shutdown. Do feel that was a reasonable tradeoff?

U.S. economic shutdown saved up to 2.7 million lives, analysis finds

Again, you’re presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. The countries that shutdown early in the virus cycle did best not just in terms of individual outcomes, but also economically.

I can't be presenting any kind of dichotomy, false or otherwise, because I've not said a single word about what actions we should or shouldn't be taking concerning Covid-19. I've not been on either side of the policy argument in this thread.

My only contribution here has been correcting logical errors and providing a useful framework for the discussion. Specifically, the framework of cost-benefit analysis.

Now, if you meant a false analogy, I don't think so. I think any matter that concerns public health, for which there are public policies, will fit within the framework of a cost-benefit analysis. I mean, it pretty much has to, because whatever measures we take WILL cost something, and WILL provide some level of benefit.

If you really meant dichotomy, perhaps you're mixing up my position with those of others with whom you have been discussing matters here.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

I can't be presenting any kind of dichotomy, false or otherwise, because I've not said a single word about what actions we should or shouldn't be taking concerning Covid-19. I've not been on either side of the policy argument in this thread.

My only contribution here has been correcting logical errors and providing a useful framework for the discussion. Specifically, the framework of cost-benefit analysis.

Now, if you meant a false analogy, I don't think so. I think any matter that concerns public health, for which there are public policies, will fit within the framework of a cost-benefit analysis. I mean, it pretty much has to, because whatever measures we take WILL cost something, and WILL provide some level of benefit.

If you really meant dichotomy, perhaps you're mixing up my position with those of others with whom you have been discussing matters here.

I do mean false dichotomy (or dillema). I’m saying that the math of choosing an certain degree of imposition in the face of societal benefit might not be the choice here. If it were, then the lives saved probably support the choice. I’m positing that in this instance, there was probably no choice but taking the on (a very substantial) imposition. Unlike the other scenarios (speed limits and car accidents etc) there is no baseline data. The virus and it’s toll on humans, the economy etc had too many unknown variables going in. As we gain data, then we may be able to weigh options. At the outset, there was no choice.

 

[kiddiedoc]

I don't know since I haven't had COVID, DA.
***************
I see three doctors at Vanderbilt, and all three say the same thing as your doctors. Any medical person who tries to minimize COVID is in a small minority of doctors and researchers and their opinions should be ignored.

You could always try having a discussion without being a prick all the time.

Since you are, obviously, engaged in detailed discussion of CV19 with your three Vanderbilt physicians, why don't you ask them next time what their solution is, long term. I can assure you that the majority of my colleague friends have accepted that the only viable endpoint is development of immunity through exposure while protecting the at-risk population. That group includes pediatricians, surgeons and subspecialty surgeons, ER docs, family + internal med, and an immunologist.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Has to be a government employee. My private insurance would have pulled the reins at two.

We have multiple patients with a history of complex congenital heart disease and acquired heart failure. I don't think any of them have more than two cardiologists -- usually one local and one wherever they have surgery.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I do mean false dichotomy (or dillema). I’m saying that the math of choosing an certain degree of imposition in the face of societal benefit might not be the choice here. If it were, then the lives saved probably support the choice. I’m positing that in this instance, there was probably no choice but taking the on (a very substantial) imposition. Unlike the other scenarios (speed limits and car accidents etc) there is no baseline data. The virus and it’s toll on humans, the economy etc had too many unknown variables going in. As we gain data, then we may be able to weigh options. At the outset, there was no choice.

Ah, we agree in part on that at least. Early on, back in January, February, and March, we had very little idea what we were dealing with, and so some "abundance of caution" was certainly merited.

That's not where we are today, though. Today we're talking about football players, aged 18-24, and their coaches, mostly aged 25-45 (some older outliers like Coach Chaney who should take special precautions). We're debating what measures should be taken to protect them. And we know a great deal about how vulnerable these groups are--or, more accurately, aren't.

The counter-argument that "but they'll take it home to their parents and grandparents" doesn't wash. Because now, while they are off at college, is the BEST time for them to catch covid-19 and gain immunity, so that they're perfectly safe to go see the parents and grandparents at Thanksgiving and Christmas without worry.

We sometimes act as if these young men don't have brains of their own. As if they won't care to protect their older family members by isolating from them when called for. We do the players and coaches a disservice when we assume away that independence of thought on their part.

Because I corrected you and Landscaping for logical fallacies, you might assume I'm on the "screw masks, I ain't gonna wear no mask, forget this disease, it's nothing, the flu is worse, play ball!" end of the debate. I'm not. I'm pretty much in the center. I wear a mask any time I'm in public, as much for others as myself. I take great care around my mother, my wife's mother, and other older folk. I recognize the disease is real, and can be a killer in certain parts of our citizenry.

On the other hand, I do believe that we as a society are WAY over-reacting to this, for a variety of reasons, from the media's fear-porn obsession with generating clicks, reads, and views to the political parties' desire to win voters by embracing one extreme position or another. I mostly think we need to calm down, get on with life, and take reasonable precautions.

So maybe we agree on some of that.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

Ah, we agree in part on that at least. Early on, back in January, February, and March, we had very little idea what we were dealing with, and so some "abundance of caution" was certainly merited.

That's not where we are today, though. Today we're talking about football players, aged 18-24, and their coaches, mostly aged 25-45 (some older outliers like Coach Chaney who should take special precautions). We're debating what measures should be taken to protect them. And we know a great deal about how vulnerable these groups are--or, more accurately, aren't.

The counter-argument that "but they'll take it home to their parents and grandparents" doesn't wash. Because now, while they are off at college, is the BEST time for them to catch covid-19 and gain immunity, so that they're perfectly safe to go see the parents and grandparents at Thanksgiving and Christmas without worry.

We sometimes act as if these young men don't have brains of their own. As if they won't care to protect their older family members by isolating from them when called for. We do the players and coaches a disservice when we assume away that independence of thought on their part.

Because I corrected you and Landscaping for logical fallacies, you might assume I'm on the "screw masks, I ain't gonna wear no mask, forget this disease, it's nothing, the flu is worse, play ball!" end of the debate. I'm not. I'm pretty much in the center. I wear a mask any time I'm in public, as much for others as myself. I take great care around my mother, my wife's mother, and other older folk. I recognize the disease is real, and can be a killer in certain parts of our citizenry.

On the other hand, I do believe that we as a society are WAY over-reacting to this, for a variety of reasons, from the media's fear-porn obsession with generating clicks, reads, and views to the political parties' desire to win voters by embracing one extreme position or another. I mostly think we need to calm down, get on with life, and take reasonable precautions.

So maybe we agree on some of that.

What’s “right” is probably going to be a moving target. While I agree with you about the political polarization, and the desire to amplify the issue, how the Fall goes is anybody’s guess. My original point was just that we didn’t walk into the virus with “speed limit” data. It seems we agree about that. Let’s all hope for the best, for everyone.

 

[VOLINVONORE]

Quite the opposite, actually. The lockdown has caused an incalculable amount of suffering and death, as well -- suicide, delayed diagnosis/treatment, poverty, hunger, mental health disorders, etc. Also, I am quite certain that mortality from CV19 infection will increase if we don't approach herd immunity before flu/respiratory season. Hospitals are always at capacity mid-winter, and they could very well become overburdened this year.

It requires some critical thinking, rather than knee-jerk reactions, but lockdowns very well could prove to cost more lives than saved.

Our Country has been planning for pandemics since the Swine flu in 1918. The plans are scientifically based on the best knowledge the scientists have about how to handle such pandemics. Those plans have still not put fully into action.

 

[ftsandersvol]

Our Country has been planning for pandemics since the Swine flu in 1918. The plans are scientifically based on the best knowledge the scientists have about how to handle such pandemics. Those plans have still not put fully into action.

Well, you obviously know more than people like Bill Gates and Barack Obama who were openly saying we weren’t ready for a pandemic as late as 2015. Apparently, someone forgot to brief the president of the US on our scientifically-based pandemic plan. You’re just like the other so-called experts that are making up sh*t as they go along.

 

[VOLINVONORE]

Well, you obviously know more than people like Bill Gates and Barack Obama who were openly saying we weren’t ready for a pandemic as late as 2015. Apparently, someone forgot to brief the president of the US on our scientifically-based pandemic plan. You’re just like the other so-called experts that are making up sh*t as they go along.

You need to do a little bit of actual research on what a pandemic plan is, and parts were implemented ,and when they were implemented. you are totally uninformed.

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

Yeah, it works until someone gets seriously ill or dies.

By this criteria, we would have stopped playing football a long time ago

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

Well, you obviously know more than people like Bill Gates and Barack Obama who were openly saying we weren’t ready for a pandemic as late as 2015. Apparently, someone forgot to brief the president of the US on our scientifically-based pandemic plan. You’re just like the other so-called experts that are making up sh*t as they go along.

I don't think you know what scientific means if that's what you call what we did...lol

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

Is Herd immunity even a real factor? I heard again this week of people acquiring Covid twice.

It's a huge factor since it is predicated on T-cell immunity and results in charts that look like this the 2nd time around:

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

It's a pretty big "if" unfortunately. The studies on Covid have shown a very large % of people having longer-term (or at least medium-term) issues. Given the age of these guys, they'll likely recover, but completely plausible that many players that get Covid-19 now (in late August) are still going to have lingering issues by October.

I'm about 99% sure I had a coronavirus cold around Thanksgiving 2016. It was awful. I woke up one night and couldn't breathe. My girlfriend had to use her inhaler on me. Even 3-4 months later, I could tell that my breathing wasn't 100% back to normal when I exercised. I didn't feel 100% back to "normal" till almost April or May. And that was a cold; this is worse.

Sure it'll be easier for a 19 or 21 year old than someone older, but I still wouldn't be surprised if some of the players who have it now are struggling with endurance and breathing in 2-3 months. It could make for a weird season.

Please cite said studies as I have not seen anything credible that comes anywhere near to confirming what you stated above.

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

Soyou believe in lett9ng people die with no attempt to prevent and save infection and death. i f you are a physician, you took an oath to protect and cure people to the best of youyr ability. While it is true that people will die someday, people in the medical fiel msut do everything possible to prevent, treat and cure adverse medical conditions when ever possible.

If this were true then football would have been ended decades ago...lol