Covid punishments....

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-26-2021, 11:58 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: There is still a bill when someone dies, right?

And more to the point, it isn't for people that die but people that have covid-like symptoms being called covid and grossly inflating numbers, which created the fear.  I don't agree with it, but I even went on to explain why they are doing it and that I understood the motivation.  

Interesting that you only chose to respond to that point when I spent most of my post defending healthcare and encouraging the vaccine.  

And thank you for that, but I didn't respond to that portion of it because you did such a good job there was nothing for me to add.

My signature is on every chart and there is usually a statement on most medical charts across every system that the person signing the chart is attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the chart. Only I can put a Covid 19 diagnosis on a chart I sign. My documentation must support every diagnosis I make. If I put a Covid diagnosis on a chart when the patient doesn't have Covid just for increased reimbursement that is insurance fraud.  It is a criminal offense and I face jail time, fines, loss of my license, loss of my job, loss of my career, etc.  The hospital would face criminal charges for those responsible, incredibly huge fines, they would be forced into a supervisory agreement with the government which would last for years, and they could lose the ability to care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. If you suspect insurance fraud call the hotline I provided and report it because whistleblowers receive substantial rewards for helping the government recoup money. Why would I put a Covid diagnosis on a chart just so the hospital can bill more? Unless I'm receiving a kick back which is also illegal.

This is a claim I've heard repeatedly, not just from you, but if it were as prevalent as people claim I think there would be more prosecutions and whistleblower awards related to Covid fraud.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-26-2021, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well as to a funny point.

i loved when Dak point to HIPPA when he chose not to share his vaccination status.

That was funny.  Dude, you're the patient and can reveal whatever you want about your medical history and the government won't fine you for telling a reporter.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-26-2021, 03:40 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We shall see.


Human error on the field (be it players or officiating) is part of the game. Handing out Ls based on off-field decisions is most definitely not. Nor should it be.

I'm surprised more people aren't worried about the integrity of the game/product...but I have a feeling this all comes down to politics and people being irked with those who aren't vaccinated, and that trumps their desire for league integrity.

I think it has to do with Jerry Jones and the other owners protecting their revenue stream and don't need to issue refunds to their fans, the networks, and their sponsors.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-26-2021, 03:57 PM)Big_Ern Wrote: I stand by my point that we will never eradicate or have herd immunity to this new mutating seasonal disease

Ah, so now you've given up on eradicating all coronaviruses in the animal kingdom that don't affect humans.  We're making progress one baby step at a time.

I already stated we won't achieve herd immunity due to noncompliance to medical recommendations and not a misinformed false equivalency to colds and flus.

We've only eradicated one viral illness in humans . . . ever . . . so the chances we will eradicate Covid 19 are slim to none.  Because eradication of Covid 19 would require everyone following the recommendations.

Yet, despite your point, professional medical organizations and medical providers recommend people receive a Covid vaccination unless they have a contraindication because it still reduces morbidity and mortality because it prevents disease regardless of eradication.  People still get their tetanus shot despite the fact we will never eradicate that, either.

[*SHRacerX*]

(07-26-2021, 05:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And thank you for that, but I didn't respond to that portion of it because you did such a good job there was nothing for me to add.

My signature is on every chart and there is usually a statement on most medical charts across every system that the person signing the chart is attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the chart. Only I can put a Covid 19 diagnosis on a chart I sign. My documentation must support every diagnosis I make. If I put a Covid diagnosis on a chart when the patient doesn't have Covid just for increased reimbursement that is insurance fraud.  It is a criminal offense and I face jail time, fines, loss of my license, loss of my job, loss of my career, etc.  The hospital would face criminal charges for those responsible, incredibly huge fines, they would be forced into a supervisory agreement with the government which would last for years, and they could lose the ability to care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. If you suspect insurance fraud call the hotline I provided and report it because whistleblowers receive substantial rewards for helping the government recoup money. Why would I put a Covid diagnosis on a chart just so the hospital can bill more? Unless I'm receiving a kick back which is also illegal.

This is a claim I've heard repeatedly, not just from you, but if it were as prevalent as people claim I think there would be more prosecutions and whistleblower awards related to Covid fraud.

I have worked exclusively in the ICUs of numerous hospitals for close to a decade (but not for the past year) and I can tell you it is a very common practice at many hospitals, fraudulent or not.  

As far as being whistleblowers, people don't fall for that "ne retribution" crap.  They are scared for their jobs.  

[Shake n Blake]

(07-26-2021, 05:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I think it has to do with Jerry Jones and the other owners protecting their revenue stream and don't need to issue refunds to their fans, the networks, and their sponsors.

I'm sure you're right about the league's perspective.

I was referring to fans and why there isn't more backlash against this

[Big_Ern]

(07-26-2021, 04:07 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: WTF are you talking about?  It has been a continuous problem, not seasonal.

No kidding, it but it spiked in the winter and will every year. Cold/flu and civid season now 

[Big_Ern]

(07-26-2021, 05:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Ah, so now you've given up on eradicating all coronaviruses in the animal kingdom that don't affect humans.  We're making progress one baby step at a time.

I already stated we won't achieve herd immunity due to noncompliance to medical recommendations and not a misinformed false equivalency to colds and flus.

We've only eradicated one viral illness in humans . . . ever . . . so the chances we will eradicate Covid 19 are slim to none.  Because eradication of Covid 19 would require everyone following the recommendations.

Yet, despite your point, professional medical organizations and medical providers recommend people receive a Covid vaccination unless they have a contraindication because it still reduces morbidity and mortality because it prevents disease regardless of eradication.  People still get their tetanus shot despite the fact we will never eradicate that, either.

Nope. My original point stands exactly like I stated. Covid ain't going anywhere and not all doctor recommend the vaccine. Don't speak in false absolutes. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-26-2021, 10:27 PM)Big_Ern Wrote: Nope. My original point stands exactly like I stated. Covid ain't going anywhere and not all doctor recommend the vaccine. Don't speak in false absolutes. 

You’re original point was we can’t achieve herd immunity because of colds and flu. That’s false. It’s like saying the Bengals can’t win the Super Bowl because the Reds never did. Two different situations. We can achieve herd immunity if enough people get vaccinated like we have done with pretty much every vaccine preventable disease. When is the last time you saw someone with smallpox? Polio? Diphtheria? Measles? Mumps? Rabies? Rubella? Pertussis? Tetanus? Varicella? Etcetera? Personally, as a provider with approximately 4-5K patient encounters a year for about 19 years I’ve seen maybe two cases of mumps and probably 5 cases of chickenpox.

Where did I say “all” doctors recommend the vaccine? That’s rhetorical because obviously I didn’t. You need to learn to pay attention and don’t tell me not talk in false absolutes when I didn’t. I’m sure there are some doctors out there like Stella Emmanuel (who says endometriosis is caused by evil spirits) who may not recommend the vaccine, but the medical providers that adhere to evidence based medicine and the standard of care do. That’s why I didn’t write “all.”

And maybe you can give me a list of the credible, professional medical organizations that recommend against giving the vaccine to people without a contraindication? I’ll wait.

[Big_Ern]

(07-27-2021, 11:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You’re original point was we can’t achieve herd immunity because of colds and flu. That’s false. It’s like saying the Bengals can’t win the Super Bowl because the Reds never did. Two different situations. We can achieve herd immunity if enough people get vaccinated like we have done with pretty much every vaccine preventable disease. When is the last time you saw someone with smallpox? Polio? Diphtheria? Measles? Mumps? Rabies? Rubella? Pertussis? Tetanus? Varicella? Etcetera? Personally, as a provider with approximately 4-5K patient encounters a year for about 19 years I’ve seen maybe two cases of mumps and probably 5 cases of chickenpox.

Where did I say “all” doctors recommend the vaccine?  That’s rhetorical because obviously I didn’t. You need to learn to pay attention and don’t tell me not talk in false absolutes when I didn’t.  I’m sure there are some doctors out there like Stella Emmanuel (who says endometriosis is caused by evil spirits) who may not recommend the vaccine, but the medical providers that adhere to evidence based medicine and the standard of care do. That’s why I didn’t write “all.”

And maybe you can give me a list of the credible, professional medical organizations that recommend against giving the vaccine to people without a contraindication?  I’ll wait.

Nope, my point was just like colds and flus we won't have herd immunity. It has already mutated numerous times and an Israeli study shows the Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective against delta. So I made an analogy that just like we don't have herd immunity from colds and flus that mutate we won't for this either. This is here to stay. 

[jwalker3853]

(07-23-2021, 01:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Right now the data is indicating the antibodies produced by vaccination bind with the spike protein mutations better than the antibodies produced by infection which gives you better protection against mutated strains which could cause a second infection.

That’s why President Trump’s medical team advised him to get vaccinated after previously having Covid and both him and Melania were vaccinated while still at the White House. But, he had to wait awhile after receiving the monoclonal antibodies so they didn’t interfere with his vaccine.

Fair enough.    I do remember that.   Please don't get me wrong,  I'm not against the vaccine at all.   In fact, I've been vaccinated.   What I am bothered by is the stats generally completely disregard the antibodies an individual may have due to already having the virus.   From my perspective, it would likely be better received if they provided information along the lines of:

Vaccine A: XX% effective against Covid variant #
Vaccine B: XX% effective against Covid variant #
Vaccine C: XX% effective against Covid variant #
Natural antibodies from previously having Covid are XX% effective against Covid variant #.

I've heard several folks - some of them family members - indicate that because their chances of survival from Covid are as good as the vaccine due to the treatments that are available today.    I know that isn't how statistics work, but providing some stats/data that shows how your changes of not only avoiding the hospital but also surviving with the vaccine or some antibodies from prior infection would be helpful.   

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-27-2021, 12:20 PM)Big_Ern Wrote: Nope, my point was just like colds and flus we won't have herd immunity. It has already mutated numerous times and an Israeli study shows the Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective against delta. So I made an analogy that just like we don't have herd immunity from colds and flus that mutate we won't for this either. This is here to stay. 

You can’t get immunity to over 200 different cold viruses with one shot and people aren’t going to take over 200 shots so they don’t get a cold. Which is a completely different situation than one shot for one virus.

We can’t achieve herd immunity for the flu because people won’t get a flu shot so it keeps mutating.

The Covid 19 virus can only mutate if it infects someone. If we could prevent infection we could prevent mutations. If we could prevent mutations we could prevent new strains. If we could prevent new strains we could prevent antigenic shift. If we could prevent antigenic shift we could prevent the need for annual boosters.

If only we had the technology to prevent infections, like some sort of magic shot we could give to healthy people so they wouldn’t get sick and the virus couldn’t mutate and then people like Grandma who can’t get the magic shot don’t need to worry about getting sick and possibly dying because the healthy people got Grandma’s back

Right now there are three types of people in this pandemic.

1) People like Grandma that can’t get the shot be it age, medical condition, lack of access, etc.

2) People who roll up there sleeves and say, “Don’t worry, Grandma. I got you.” And get the shot.

3) People who think, “Grandma’s old.” It’s not like Grandma ever did anything for them when they were younger and couldn’t take care of themselves. They’re too busy YOLOing to sacrifice less than an afternoon to get a shot recommended and deemed safe and effective by collective groups of experts in immunology and medicine than they’ll ever learn on social media.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-27-2021, 01:38 PM)jwalker3853 Wrote: Fair enough.    I do remember that.   Please don't get me wrong,  I'm not against the vaccine at all.   In fact, I've been vaccinated.   What I am bothered by is the stats generally completely disregard the antibodies an individual may have due to already having the virus.   From my perspective, it would likely be better received if they provided information along the lines of:

Vaccine A: XX% effective against Covid variant #
Vaccine B: XX% effective against Covid variant #
Vaccine C: XX% effective against Covid variant #
Natural antibodies from previously having Covid are XX% effective against Covid variant #.

I've heard several folks - some of them family members - indicate that because their chances of survival from Covid are as good as the vaccine due to the treatments that are available today.    I know that isn't how statistics work, but providing some stats/data that shows how your changes of not only avoiding the hospital but also surviving with the vaccine or some antibodies from prior infection would be helpful.   

Understandable, but it takes time to determine efficacy rates. If you look at the antibody levels of IgM and IgG to specific infections they evolve over months to years. What you’re asking for is probably ongoing, but too soon to publish for the most recent variants. You probably want multiple studies to reach a consensus and the opportunity to eliminate flawed studies that may skew conclusions. Time that allows the virus to continue to spread and potentially mutate further.

Also, the case fatality for individuals isn’t necessarily the same as the overall rate. So if someone is in a low risk group, great. They probably don’t need to worry about severe Covid any more than adverse effects from the vaccine. So they should get the shot to protect their family or friends who are high risk.

[Big_Ern]

(07-27-2021, 01:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You can’t get immunity to over 200 different cold viruses with one shot and people aren’t going to take over 200 shots so they don’t get a cold. Which is a completely different situation than one shot for one virus.

We can’t achieve herd immunity for the flu because people won’t get a flu shot so it keeps mutating.

The Covid 19 virus can only mutate if it infects someone. If we could prevent infection we could prevent mutations. If we could prevent mutations we could prevent new strains. If we could prevent new strains we could prevent antigenic shift. If we could prevent antigenic shift we could prevent the need for annual boosters.

If only we had the technology to prevent infections, like some sort of magic shot we could give to healthy people so they wouldn’t get sick and the virus couldn’t mutate and then people like Grandma who can’t get the magic shot don’t need to worry about getting sick and possibly dying because the healthy people got Grandma’s back

Right now there are three types of people in this pandemic.

1) People like Grandma that can’t get the shot be it age, medical condition, lack of access, etc.

2) People who roll up there sleeves and say, “Don’t worry, Grandma. I got you.” And get the shot.

3) People who think, “Grandma’s old.” It’s not like Grandma ever did anything for them when they were younger and couldn’t take care of themselves. They’re too busy YOLOing to sacrifice less than an afternoon to get a shot recommended and deemed safe and effective by collective groups of experts in immunology and medicine than they’ll ever learn on social media.

As stayed, 39% vaccine effectiveness on delta. Case closed. It's over. And it's not really a vaccine. It's mRNA which protects from heavy symptoms but not from catching it.

[jwalker3853]

(07-27-2021, 02:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Understandable, but it takes time to determine efficacy rates. If you look at the antibody levels of IgM and IgG to specific infections they evolve over months to years. What you’re asking for is probably ongoing, but too soon to publish for the most recent variants. You probably want multiple studies to reach a consensus and the opportunity to eliminate flawed studies that may skew conclusions. Time that allows the virus to continue to spread and potentially mutate further.

Also, the case fatality for individuals isn’t necessarily the same as the overall rate. So if someone is in a low risk group, great. They probably don’t need to worry about severe Covid any more than adverse effects from the vaccine. So they should get the shot to protect their family or friends who are high risk.

I agree.   It's a process.   I think that has been the most frustrating part of this entire thing.    You read reports and hear the "experts' that are put in front of the public talk about this and they often times talk in definitive vs. generalities or really framing the conversations as as "this is what was know now and it may and likely will change tomorrow."   

While I understand that things are going to morph and change as we learn more - the more the story changes, the more untrustworthy the information seems.    Out course, the entire things being politicized and weaponized by the media definitely doesn't help folks feel like they have all of the facts.  

I've taken the stance that this is a choice.   Like all choices, they have consequences.   If you choose to get the vaccine, that's fine.   If you don't want it - for whatever reason - that's OK too.    However, there may be consequences to those choices.    I think the consequences or the severity of the consequences are more what is in question.     

[AussieBengal]

(07-27-2021, 06:02 PM)jwalker3853 Wrote: I agree.   It's a process.   I think that has been the most frustrating part of this entire thing.    You read reports and hear the "experts' that are put in front of the public talk about this and they often times talk in definitive vs. generalities or really framing the conversations as as "this is what was know now and it may and likely will change tomorrow."   

While I understand that things are going to morph and change as we learn more - the more the story changes, the more untrustworthy the information seems.    Out course, the entire things being politicized and weaponized by the media definitely doesn't help folks feel like they have all of the facts.  

I've taken the stance that this is a choice.   Like all choices, they have consequences.   If you choose to get the vaccine, that's fine.   If you don't want it - for whatever reason - that's OK too.    However, there may be consequences to those choices.    I think the consequences or the severity of the consequences are more what is in question.     

The issue is the choice doesn't only effect the person making it, it effects everyone else in society.

[*bfine32*]

As I read more and more in this thread it reminds me of stances of smoking in public.

'It's my choice to smoke or not; the health risks are mine to take, so why do you care if I smoke"

[*Nately120*]

(07-27-2021, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I read more and more in this thread it reminds me of stances of smoking in public.

'It's my choice to smoke or not; the health risks are mine to take, so why do you care if I smoke"

My favorite smoking defense was always "You could get hit by a bus tomorrow!"  As if the only thing on my mind as my life comes to an end 50 years before schedule would be"Awww man, I could have smoked!"

Also, remember when covid was no big deal and the sun was going to kill it?  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-27-2021, 03:50 PM)Big_Ern Wrote: As stayed, 39% vaccine effectiveness on delta. Case closed. It's over. 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant#Vaccines-vs.-delta-variant

Study 1: 88% effective
Study 2: 95%
Study 3: 87%
Study 4: 79%
Study 5: 64%
Study 6: 88%

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

88%

That’s why you don’t rely on just a single study. Especially when you’re just picking one for confirmational bias.

Quote:And it's not really a vaccine. It's mRNA which protects from heavy symptoms but not from catching it.

That’s embarrassingly incorrect.

[Big_Ern]

(07-28-2021, 12:35 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant#Vaccines-vs.-delta-variant

Study 1: 88% effective
Study 2: 95%
Study 3: 87%
Study 4: 79%
Study 5: 64%
Study 6: 88%

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

88%

That’s why you don’t rely on just a single study. Especially when you’re just picking one for confirmational bias.


That’s embarrassingly incorrect.

Neither of those are a percentage that'd I'd say are the magic bullet you claim. Plus do your research. It's not a vaccine. The virus still spreads, just less symptoms. That's what those percentages are 

Right from your citation buddy: METHODS
We used a test-negative case–control design to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant or the predominant strain

Keyword...symptomatic. They don't stop the spread and like I originally stated, this thing is here to stay. There is nothing you can say or cite that'll say this will be eradicated. No expert is saying that