Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Covid III: Delta Force


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

This information is more current (yesterday) and from a more reliable Utah source - Utah health department:

These numbers match the Utah State Dashboard:

https://coronavirus-dashboard.utah.gov/hosp.html

ICU's at intermountain are considered "functionally full" at 85%

https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/covid-19/2020/11/covid-19-what-it-means-for-a-hospital-icu-to-be-at-capacity/

 

 

Maybe yes, maybe no.  Remember how the UofU exaggerated their numbers in October of last year, saying they were overcapacity when the other hospitals could have easily taken the supposed overflow?  It was done out of a noble lie type of excuse, but still was misleading and the DN ran with the story.  Of course, Johns Hopkins could be wrong, but so could the Utah Health Department.  I wonder where each get their numbers?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Remember how the UofU exaggerated their numbers in October of last year, saying they were overcapacity when the other hospitals could have easily taken the supposed overflow?  It was done out of a noble lie type of excuse, but still was misleading and the DN ran with the story.

Do you have a link to this?

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

 I wonder where each get their numbers?

Hospitals are required to report their numbers directly to the Health Department.   I don't know where John Hopkins (not even from Utah) gets their numbers, I would hope from the health department - because every hospital in Utah certainly are not reporting their numbers to John Hopkin's directly.

58 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Remember how the UofU exaggerated their numbers in October of last year, saying they were overcapacity when the other hospitals could have easily taken the supposed overflow?

No, I don't remember that.   It sounds like you are saying that they reported that their hospital was full (which may have been true), while other hospitals could have taken the overflow - so it wasn't "technically" full in your mind.  Is that what you are saying?  If they said the hospital was full, and it was, that is not lying.  If they reported the entire hospital system was full when it wasn't, then that would be lying.  What did they actually report?

58 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

It was done out of a noble lie type of excuse, but still was misleading and the DN ran with the story. 

Can you prove that they lied?

Do you think the Utah Health Department is lying?  These numbers are updated daily and have remained fairly consistent for quite some time now - so it would be a looooooong and ongoing lie, if they are.  Shouldn't be too hard to see through by now.  IHC has been reporting full capacity in the news for quite some time now.   

  https://kutv.com/news/coronavirus/intermountain-healthcare-icus-at-102-as-covid-19-cases-spike-in-utah

Do you really think that IHC, UofU, and the Utah Health Department are all lying, and somehow John Hopkins (not even in Utah) somehow has internal access to the true and accurate local numbers?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

For those over 50, 61  percent of hospitalized patients were vaccinated. For those under 50, 73 percent were unvaccinated.  I do remember reading how the elderly, had a lower immune response to the vaccine than those who were younger. This is probably why a targeted booster shot roll out is happening.

image.png.9594fcd7658a994b3f236600b6d1cf37.png

The article says that 90% of over-50s are vaccinated in England, but It is hard to interpret this data without knowing what percentage of under-50s are fully vaccinated in England.  That is really important to know because the higher the overall percentage rate of fully vaccinated people in a specific age range, the more likely that a higher percentage of people hospitalized in that age range will be fully vaccinated.    For example, if 100% of over-50s were vaccinated in England, then 100% of hospitalized patients over 50 would be fully vaccinated.  That doesn't mean the vaccine is working less for them.  It just means that more people in that age range have been fully vaccinated. 

It may also be true, as you say, that the vaccine may not be as effective for older people, which may contribute to these numbers slightly.  I think it is more likely that the percentage of vaccinated in the over-50 population is way higher than under 50, which can make these percentages appear misleading (not intentionally).   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have a link to this?

Here is the DN article where the UofU hospital spokesperson said the icu capacity was at 99% (October 22, 2020).  https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/23/21530444/coronavirus-covid19-new-cases-hospitalizations-deaths-salt-lake-city-university-of-utah-hospital

However, take a look at the Johns Hopkins data for Utah for the same week:  https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/23/21530444/coronavirus-covid19-new-cases-hospitalizations-deaths-salt-lake-city-university-of-utah-hospital

If you hover over the week for Oct 22, 2020, the ICU capacity was at 64% statewide.  So, perhaps it is true that UofU had 99% capacity, but without letting the people know that other hospitals weren't as strained, perhaps a true picture would have been shown.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Hospitals are required to report their numbers directly to the Health Department.   I don't know where John Hopkins (not even from Utah) gets their numbers, I would hope from the health department - because every hospital in Utah certainly are not reporting their numbers to John Hopkin's directly.

No, I don't remember that.   It sounds like you are saying that they reported that their hospital was full (which may have been true), while other hospitals could have taken the overflow - so it wasn't "technically" full in your mind.  Is that what you are saying?  If they said the hospital was full, and it was, that is not lying.  If they reported the entire hospital system was full when it wasn't, then that would be lying.  What did they actually report?

Can you prove that they lied?

Do you think the Utah Health Department is lying?  These numbers are updated daily and have remained fairly consistent for quite some time now - so it would be a looooooong and ongoing lie, if they are.  Shouldn't be too hard to see through by now.  IHC has been reporting full capacity in the news for quite some time now.   

  https://kutv.com/news/coronavirus/intermountain-healthcare-icus-at-102-as-covid-19-cases-spike-in-utah

Do you really think that IHC, UofU, and the Utah Health Department are all lying, and somehow John Hopkins (not even in Utah) somehow has internal access to the true and accurate local numbers?

Show me that Johns Hopkins is lying.

Why do you always default to the corona virus is half full?  We are dealing with a virus that 99.7% survive.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

The article says that 90% of over-50s are vaccinated in England, but It is hard to interpret this data without knowing what percentage of under-50s are fully vaccinated in England.  That is really important to know because the higher the overall percentage rate of fully vaccinated people in a specific age range, the more likely that a higher percentage of people hospitalized in that age range will be fully vaccinated.    For example, if 100% of over-50s were vaccinated in England, then 100% of hospitalized patients over 50 would be fully vaccinated.  That doesn't mean the vaccine is working less for them.  It just means that more people in that age range have been fully vaccinated. 

It may also be true, as you say, that the vaccine may not be as effective for older people, which may contribute to these numbers slightly.  I think it is more likely that the percentage of vaccinated in the over-50 population is way higher than under 50, which can make these percentages appear misleading (not intentionally).   

It could also be because of waning immunity and the elderly were vaccinated first. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Here is the DN article where the UofU hospital spokesperson said the icu capacity was at 99% (October 22, 2020).  https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/23/21530444/coronavirus-covid19-new-cases-hospitalizations-deaths-salt-lake-city-university-of-utah-hospital

However, take a look at the Johns Hopkins data for Utah for the same week:  https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/23/21530444/coronavirus-covid19-new-cases-hospitalizations-deaths-salt-lake-city-university-of-utah-hospital

If you hover over the week for Oct 22, 2020, the ICU capacity was at 64% statewide.  So, perhaps it is true that UofU had 99% capacity, but without letting the people know that other hospitals weren't as strained, perhaps a true picture would have been shown.

Both links go to the same Deseret News article.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Show me that Johns Hopkins is lying.

I never said they were lying.  I just think the health department is a more reliable source for local numbers for the reasons I mentioned.  It is also more current. It also matches what IHC and UofU is reporting in the news.

You however did make the claim that UofU was lying, apparently you based that judgment on John Hopkins data - hmmm... 

Currently IHC, UofU, and the Utah Health Department are all reporting similar numbers which are above functional capacity.  John Hopkins is still reporting lower numbers (as of 2 weeks ago), doesn't it seem more likely that John Hopkins is the unreliable source of accurate local data (not even being from Utah and all)?  Don't you think this big lie across the health care system would have been exposed by now?  It has been going on for quite some time.  All media reports from nurses and doctors actually working in these hospitals back up and verify that they are indeed full.  No lie.  What does the preponderance of evidence tell you Robert?  Why rely on one out of state source when multiple in-state sources are saying something else?

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Why do you always default to the corona virus is half full? 

Funny, I was just going to ask you the same thing.  As far as hospitals go, we are  on empty and complete burnout, it is you who are half full. 

I default to the more reasonable explanation which follows the preponderance of evidence from trustworthy sources all corroborating the same conclusion.  Why do you default to John Hopkins over IHC, UofU, and the Utah Health Department?  For you to be right, there would have to be a mass conspiracy.  You have to make accusations of "lying".   Isn't it more likely that John Hopkins data is inaccurate, and not that the entire hospital system and health department in Utah are all lying?  That is the only way any of this makes sense.  Its all a conspiracy, right?  The feds and all state health departments and hospitals across the country, nurses, and doctors, they are all in on it.  Our very own Calm reports that she personally knows 2 people who have been turned away from ICU's in Utah because they were full.  Is she also lying?  Is she in on the conspiracy?  Have you not heard the personal testimony of the multiple nurses and doctors reporting burnout?  Are they all lying?  Nurses are quitting due to the unsustainable numbers.  Is that also a lie?  These are sincere questions.  How can you so easily dismiss all of this evidence?  

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

We are dealing with a virus that 99.7% survive.

Which equates to around 656 thousand deaths in under 2 years...and counting.  Lets not side track though, we are talking about hospitalizations, not deaths. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Our very own Calm reports that she personally knows 2 people who have been turned away from ICU's in Utah because they were full. 

Not personally.  Secondhand, online friends and acquaintances telling me of family having problems getting treated. I have to go back and check, but possibly one of the three was in Utah. 
 

Sorry for the confusion. 
 

It makes no sense to assume John Hopkins is more accurate. How would they get the more accurate info?

They get their info from the US Dept of Health, which states:

Quote

hese are derived from reports with facility-level granularity across three main sources: (1) HHS TeleTracking, (2) reporting provided directly to HHS Protect by state/territorial health departments on behalf of their healthcare facilities and (3) National Healthcare Safety Network (before July 15).

The file will be updated regularly and provides the latest values reported by each facility within the last four days for all time. This allows for a more comprehensive picture of the hospital utilization within a state by ensuring a hospital is represented, even if they miss a single day of reporting.

No statistical analysis is applied to account for non-response and/or to account for missing data.
 

If I understand that correctly, that means if a report doesn’t get turned in, they don’t adjust to account for that. 

https://healthdata.gov/Hospital/COVID-19-Reported-Patient-Impact-and-Hospital-Capa/g62h-syeh

Hospitals are money making businesses. Why would they try to lose money by having empty beds and then lie about it?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Why do you always default to the corona virus is half full?  We are dealing with a virus that 99.7% survive.

More like 99%.  1% is still a lot of death. Or do you have no concern about the 650k that have died as well as others from the collateral damage the pandemic has caused.  How many deaths are you ok with. Maybe we should have just done nothing and let all 330 million of us get it and watch 3.3 million die.  What would that have done to our health system, the economy and so on.  I am amazed that people still say this. God help us if we get a virus that say kill 5% or more and is as contagious.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

More like 99%.  1% is still a lot of death. Or do you have no concern about the 650k that have died as well as others from the collateral damage the pandemic has caused.  How many deaths are you ok with. Maybe we should have just done nothing and let all 330 million of us get it and watch 3.3 million die.  What would that have done to our health system, the economy and so on.  I am amazed that people still say this. God help us if we get a virus that say kill 5% or more and is as contagious.

I do care about the deaths and am not advocating just to do nothing.  However, this is always used to justify the draconian measures we've been facing over the last year and one-half, disallowing questioning of our governments' responses.  The question we should be asking is whether our reaction was the correct one or not, was it to the right degree or not.  Should we do what New Zealand and Australia have done, where the countries lock down over a few cases?  This is why treatments are so important and not just putting all our eggs into one basket.  The media disinformation about ivermectin doesn't help.  The science is never settled and our government leaders are fallible, subject to conflicts of interest, just like anyone.  Perhaps the better course was to let the majority of the population get the virus, treat it, and then let them enjoy their immunity, an immunity that is many times better than the limited protection offered from the vaccines.  In conjunction, take care of those affected like we have been doing, except, if patients want to take experimental treatments and doctors prescribe it, then let them do it.  Texas hospitals recently banned ivermectin, why?  If it has a chance of working and is safe if the proper dose is used, then why not let people use it?  It makes no sense and may be the cause of an unnecessary loss of life.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

This is why treatments are so important and not just putting all our eggs into one basket.  The media disinformation about ivermectin doesn't help.

Did you check out the Sam Harris podcast? I was able to get it around the paywall.

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Texas hospitals recently banned ivermectin, why?

 

Because it has not been tested enough to show it as a viable treatment. People scoff at the vaccine but with hundreds of millions of doses we have a pretty good idea of how effective it is. But not do for ivermectin.  Do the studies. If it works be all means lets use it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

However, this is always used to justify the draconian measures...

Therefore, downplay the virus, downplay the hospitalizations (they’re not at capacity - liars!!!), (choosing to emphasize one out-of-state source instead of several corroborating local sources), downplay the deaths (why are you so glass-half empty Pogi?  It has a 99.7% survival rate - that sounds awesome!!!)  You don't want to focus on the down-on-the-ground reality that that equates to 650 thousand+ human deaths in under 2 years.   Downplay it all to counter the "draconian" measures, making them see out-of-this-world unreasonable - I see your play.   This is steering us far from the medical aspect of all this though, don't you think?

Quote

Texas hospitals recently banned ivermectin, why?

Because they determined that there is not good evidence for it and they don't want to treat their patients as guinea pigs, maybe?  Perhaps they are waiting for more data.   There could be a number of reasons.  I am interested to hear your take though.  Why do you think Texas hospitals banned it?  You seem to be trying to lead the horse to the trough.  Just say it.  What is the conspiracy you have concocted in your head?  Have you noticed how often your position relies on conspiracy?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

It makes no sense to assume John Hopkins is more accurate. How would they get the more accurate info?

In digging a little deeper, it looks like both the Utah Health Department and Jon Hopkins are actually reporting about the same total number of Covid hospitalizations.  UDOH: 529; JH: 528  So my guess is the discrepancy is in the number of ICU beds, and number of nurses to staff those beds.  I think you are right, I would trust the places that house those beds and staff more that John Hopkins, but that is just me.  Every local source for Covid hospitalizations seem to validate each other with the numbers being reported locally.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Maybe yes, maybe no.  Remember how the UofU exaggerated their numbers in October of last year, saying they were overcapacity when the other hospitals could have easily taken the supposed overflow?  It was done out of a noble lie type of excuse, but still was misleading and the DN ran with the story.  Of course, Johns Hopkins could be wrong, but so could the Utah Health Department.  I wonder where each get their numbers?

IHC is now postponing non urgent surgeries due to Covid overwhelming the hospitals. Whoever claims that choosing not to vaccinate doesn’t affect anyone else needs to reconsider.  

Is this also a lie, Robert?  Seems an extreme measure that would cause them to lose a lot of money if hospitals were only around 70% capacity as you believe.

"Today's a day I wish had never come," said Dr. Mark Harrison, Intermountain Healthcare president and CEO.

With ICUs at more than 100% capacity because of COVID-19 patients — the majority of whom are unvaccinated — and other patients, the hospitals no longer have enough beds or enough staff to handle all of it, according to Harrison.

"The cavalry is not coming. We are the cavalry. When I say we, I mean the community as a whole," he said.

Harrison stressed that patients will now need to wait for those surgeries meant to address serious, time-dependent issues. While expressing "immense sympathy" for the whole community, including the unvaccinated, Harrison emphasized that no patient in an Intermountain hospital has suffered negative reactions from the vaccine.

He urged Utahns to "please identify accurate information" and "open your heart" to health care professionals as they try to care for everyone who needs medical attention.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50239067/21-deaths-2189-new-covid-cases-friday-intermountain-postpones-nonurgent-surgeries

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I do care about the deaths and am not advocating just to do nothing.  However, this is always used to justify the draconian measures we've been facing over the last year and one-half, disallowing questioning of our governments' responses.  The question we should be asking is whether our reaction was the correct one or not, was it to the right degree or not.  Should we do what New Zealand and Australia have done, where the countries lock down over a few cases?  This is why treatments are so important and not just putting all our eggs into one basket.  The media disinformation about ivermectin doesn't help.  The science is never settled and our government leaders are fallible, subject to conflicts of interest, just like anyone.  Perhaps the better course was to let the majority of the population get the virus, treat it, and then let them enjoy their immunity, an immunity that is many times better than the limited protection offered from the vaccines.  In conjunction, take care of those affected like we have been doing, except, if patients want to take experimental treatments and doctors prescribe it, then let them do it.  Texas hospitals recently banned ivermectin, why?  If it has a chance of working and is safe if the proper dose is used, then why not let people use it?  It makes no sense and may be the cause of an unnecessary loss of life.

You do realize that letting the virus run free and infect everyone would mean even more deaths because the hospitals would not have been able to cope with the number of ill people and people who would have lived would die.

Then wondering why shouldn’t we let everyone take the medication the data shows doesn’t help and doesn’t really have a plausible mechanism to help. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic. An amazing breakthrough one. Covid is not a parasite. The idea that it is a secret cure being suppressed doesn’t pass the smell test. Even if you assume everyone involved is an immoral reprobate can you explain why the manufacturers of the drug who would stand to make huge sums of money selling it if it works aren’t speaking up? Seriously, the conspiracy would have to be massive and acting against its own self-interest in order to…….what? Prolong a pandemic that is hurting almost everyone?

Texas banned it because quacks have set themselves up to prescribe it via telemedicine or whatever. It is similar to how the opioid epidemic subsisted to a large degree on legally prescribed drugs prescribed by bad doctors. It is also what that weird court case was over where the patient sued to have the hospital provide Ivermectin prescribed by a doctor who had never reviewed the patient’s clinical data. Just a prescription mill. All indications are it doesn’t work and Ivermectin like a lot of medication has possible negative side effects. The whole thing was started by a coalition of quacks.

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Frontline_Doctors

See, there is an obvious conspiracy. They have an objective and they are making money off of it. With the help of some Russian bots and the ability to lie on social media their message has spread. Why do so many want to take a leap of faith on an unproven medication because shysters asked them to?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I do care about the deaths and am not advocating just to do nothing.  However, this is always used to justify the draconian measures we've been facing over the last year and one-half, disallowing questioning of our governments' responses.  The question we should be asking is whether our reaction was the correct one or not, was it to the right degree or not.  Should we do what New Zealand and Australia have done, where the countries lock down over a few cases?  This is why treatments are so important and not just putting all our eggs into one basket.  The media disinformation about ivermectin doesn't help.  The science is never settled and our government leaders are fallible, subject to conflicts of interest, just like anyone.  Perhaps the better course was to let the majority of the population get the virus, treat it, and then let them enjoy their immunity, an immunity that is many times better than the limited protection offered from the vaccines.  In conjunction, take care of those affected like we have been doing, except, if patients want to take experimental treatments and doctors prescribe it, then let them do it.  Texas hospitals recently banned ivermectin, why?  If it has a chance of working and is safe if the proper dose is used, then why not let people use it?  It makes no sense and may be the cause of an unnecessary loss of life.

If Texas banned it, it must be really bad. PS I’m a born and raised Texan and I am ashamed of the way the pandemic has been handled here. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...