Jump to content

Yet another one


Parr8hed
 Share

Recommended Posts

She is the ONLY patient treating here today.  Disrupted her from her other clinic and made her get transportation across city to treat here because she tested pos for the rona.  

She ain't got the rona.  I have seen patients with the rona.  I see this time and time again.  They tested her at her nursing home.  She has no idea why.  She was not sick.

Something ain't right.  Yea, I know that they go on and on about the rate of people that have the rona but are asymptomatic..... I ain't buying any of it.  I will say it again.  I don't believe this shit.  I just don't.  I don't believe the testing.  I don't trust any of it.  I don't believe ANY of the numbers that we are being told.  I do believe that there is a virus, and I believe that it can be devastating to the right people.  But as far as the numbers that we are being reported?  I think it is 100% bull shit.  

That's all.  Carry on and have a great day!

  • Awesome 2
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Philander Seabury said:

You mean they shut your whole place down to treat one positive patient?  Sounds quite expensive. 

Our busy days are M-W-F.  Our clinics are mostly full on those days.  People have to treat 3X a week.  We do have clinics that run T-T-S, but those shifts are not nearly as full for the most part.  Nobody want to work or treat on a Sat.  We have lots of clinics that are not even open on T-T-S.  We now use those clinics to run Covid pos patients on T-T-S since they can't treat together at the same clinic with negative patients.  So it's not as if they are shutting down a clinic to run one patient.  It was already closed.  Staff is the big expenditure.  Working nurses and techs an extra couple of days a week.  I worked 6 days a week through a lot of covid because of all of these extra shifts.  Lots of the shifts I worked only had 1-2 patients on each one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Parr8hed said:

Our busy days are M-W-F.  Our clinics are mostly full on those days.  People have to treat 3X a week.  We do have clinics that run T-T-S, but those shifts are not nearly as full for the most part.  Nobody want to work or treat on a Sat.  We have lots of clinics that are not even open on T-T-S.  We now use those clinics to run Covid pos patients on T-T-S since they can't treat together at the same clinic with negative patients.  So it's not as if they are shutting down a clinic to run one patient.  It was already closed.  Staff is the big expenditure.  Working nurses and techs an extra couple of days a week.  I worked 6 days a week through a lot of covid because of all of these extra shifts.  Lots of the shifts I worked only had 1-2 patients on each one.  

So I spose that Medicare, Medicaid, as well as private insurance companies get to foot the big cost increase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Parr8hed said:

Something ain't right.  Yea, I know that they go on and on about the rate of people that have the rona but are asymptomatic..... I ain't buying any of it.  I will say it again.  I don't believe this shit.  I just don't.  I don't believe the testing.  I don't trust any of it.  I don't believe ANY of the numbers that we are being told.  I do believe that there is a virus, and I believe that it can be devastating to the right people.  But as far as the numbers that we are being reported?  I think it is 100% bull shit. 

I agree completely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Philander Seabury said:

So I spose that Medicare, Medicaid, as well as private insurance companies get to foot the big cost increase. 

Not sure about how this is going to play out for us.  We get a lot of money from M/M.  Very little private insurance.  The private ones we do get pay a whole lot more, I know that.  We only get "X" amount of dollars from M/M.  It's not like this is costing us a TON more to do.  Just some payroll.  The bigger toll is really on the stability of the staff.  Sick of working so many additional hours, additional days, etc.  Increased PITA protocols, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Parr8hed said:

But I know far more people (both friends and patients) that have tested positive and never had the first symptom.  

I would say that what you might want to worry about or consider is whether or not those people with no symptoms are able to SPREAD it to others.   That's one point of testing, since treatment is pretty random depending upon severity.  If what we know is true - compromised folks can easily die from it - the  last thing we really want (I hope) is a bunch of "healthy" folks spreading it during daily activity to the general population (which includes a crap ton of compromised folks).  This is especially true as we see that "herd immunity" is seeming more and more of a pipe dream. However, if we believe 185,000+ folks dead in six months is fine (with active though irregular and disorganized countermeasures), then maybe a number of dead in the millions is also fine.  Old and infirm folks do need to die sometimes, and maybe sooner rather than later is not as bad as it sounds.

It remains a time where it would be nice to know which way to pull the cart - towards a "let's fight this tooth and nail" direction or a "let's let this burn itself out come what may" direction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

I would say that what you might want to worry about or consider is whether or not those people with no symptoms are able to SPREAD it to others.   That's one point of testing, since treatment is pretty random depending upon severity.  If what we know is true - compromised folks can easily die from it - the  last thing we really want (I hope) is a bunch of "healthy" folks spreading it during daily activity to the general population (which includes a crap ton of compromised folks).  This is especially true as we see that "herd immunity" is seeming more and more of a pipe dream. However, if we believe 185,000+ folks dead in six months is fine (with active though irregular and disorganized countermeasures), then maybe a number of dead in the millions is also fine.  Old and infirm folks do need to die sometimes, and maybe sooner rather than later is not as bad as it sounds.

It remains a time where it would be nice to know which way to pull the cart - towards a "let's fight this tooth and nail" direction or a "let's let this burn itself out come what may" direction.

I agree with what you are saying.  The one thing that I keep thinking about is the fact that most of the people that I see that are positive are the exact people that should die from it.  Diabetes, renal failure, amputations, heart disease, overweight.  But yet they show no symptoms.  I know that there is a lot I don't know or understand, it's just extremely frustrating to me to keep working extra shifts of "pos" patients with no outward symptoms.  

And yes, I wonder all the time if these people are able to spread it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Parr8hed said:

I agree with what you are saying.  The one thing that I keep thinking about is the fact that most of the people that I see that are positive are the exact people that should die from it.  Diabetes, renal failure, amputations, heart disease, overweight.  But yet they show no symptoms.  I know that there is a lot I don't know or understand, it's just extremely frustrating to me to keep working extra shifts of "pos" patients with no outward symptoms.  

And yes, I wonder all the time if these people are able to spread it.

Some of the reading from other COVID threads indicated that some of our countermeasures - particularly masking - likely result in "getting COVID but a very mild case" due to the wonder of the immune system.  IOW, exposure to COVID in very small amounts - like the lower amounts that get through simple masks - result in the body getting a high enough exposure to trigger an immune response and develop antibodies, but not a high enough exposure that the body goes into overdrive and over-reacts or is overwhelmed by it.  So, there may be a LOT of people out there now with some level of COVID - active or past - that can test positive to different types of testing. What then remains to be seen is if the folks with the mild cases are spreading it (and to what degree if they are) and also if the micro-exposure & related antibody reaction lasts and offers long-term immunity or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

Some of the reading from other COVID threads indicated that some of our countermeasures - particularly masking - likely result in "getting COVID but a very mild case" due to the wonder of the immune system.  IOW, exposure to COVID in very small amounts - like the lower amounts that get through simple masks - result in the body getting a high enough exposure to trigger an immune response and develop antibodies, but not a high enough exposure that the body goes into overdrive and over-reacts or is overwhelmed by it.  So, there may be a LOT of people out there now with some level of COVID - active or past - that can test positive to different types of testing. What then remains to be seen is if the folks with the mild cases are spreading it (and to what degree if they are) and also if the micro-exposure & related antibody reaction lasts and offers long-term immunity or not.

But on the other side of your argument, there were a high percentage of asymptomatic cases long before mask wearing became more prevalent.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

But on the other side of your argument, there were a high percentage of asymptomatic cases long before mask wearing became more prevalent.

Not the "other side"". There can be many reasons for low-exposure to COVID.  The point being more that a LOW exposure to COVID will trigger a response from the body and also, for a period, a positive test.  I don't think the testing is nuanced enough to show whether a person is slightly infected or heavily infected and likely is geared more towards ANY level of COVID in the nostrils (or wherever), not a "critical mass" level.  So, lots of folks may have been exposed enough for them to test positive during a test, but not be super sick. Likewise they may or may not build some natural immunity to getting sick from it again (unknown), and may or may not be able to spread it - mildly or severely - to others they come in contact with.

Again, it remains an evolving understanding.  From what I can tell, it remains a top killer for those who get it bad, and it certainly can be a greater killer if given free rein to go forth and multiply. I await a reliable vaccine so none of us have to guess anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I don't think a lot of old folks would agree with that, there might be some level of resistance.

But if we agree on the plan (well, most of us at least), then we have a plan we can follow. None of this wishy-washy "do this, no don't do this" or "do as I say not as I do" or "do whatever you want" sort of guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Old and infirm folks do need to die sometimes, and maybe sooner rather than later is not as bad as it sounds.

This is what I told our son. He is afraid to come over because he doesn’t want to risk infecting us if he or one of the family is asymptomatic but exposed. I told him we probably don’t have many years left anyway, come over, we want to see you. I would like to get the house cleared up from accumulated stuff before I croak so he doesn’t have to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Randomguy said:

I don't think a lot of old folks would agree with that, there might be some level of resistance.

I have two relatives around 90 YO and in bad health. Both are full codes. WoJSTL, a nurse, explained to them that could mean bunches of broken ribs; living on a ventilator; and other painful things which might extend their lives but at the expense of quality of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JerrySTL said:

I have two relatives around 90 YO and in bad health. Both are full codes. WoJSTL, a nurse, explained to them that could mean bunches of broken ribs; living on a ventilator; and other painful things which might extend their lives but at the expense of quality of life. 

Yeah, My dad's dr. explained to him how painful that death is after a little CPR for a 90+ yo.  We had a DNR order and made it clear for both of his hospital visits.  Saving a life for a life not worth living.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Parr8hed said:

I agree with what you are saying.  The one thing that I keep thinking about is the fact that most of the people that I see that are positive are the exact people that should die from it.  Diabetes, renal failure, amputations, heart disease, overweight.  But yet they show no symptoms.  I know that there is a lot I don't know or understand, it's just extremely frustrating to me to keep working extra shifts of "pos" patients with no outward symptoms.  

And yes, I wonder all the time if these people are able to spread it.

I get your frustration, I do feel for you.  But please, trust science over anecdotal information.  This IS life or death, it's crucial we base our choices on facts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Reverend_Maynard said:

Consider that if the test has a rate of false positives of only 5%, that's somewhere around 2 to 10 times higher than the number who are actually positive!

?

Check your math.  100 positive readings.  5% are false positives.  That's 95 people sick instead of 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 12string said:

?

Check your math.  100 positive readings.  5% are false positives.  That's 95 people sick instead of 100.

Well, according to wiki, the false positive rate is number of false positives out of the negatives.  So 5% is 5 false positives out of every 100 negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate#:~:text=The false positive rate is,events (regardless of classification).

If the actual rate of positives is actually 1 or 2 in 100, that's 5 to 2.5 times more false positives than real positives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Parr8hed said:

She is the ONLY patient treating here today.  Disrupted her from her other clinic and made her get transportation across city to treat here because she tested pos for the rona.  

She ain't got the rona.  I have seen patients with the rona.  I see this time and time again.  They tested her at her nursing home.  She has no idea why.  She was not sick.

Something ain't right.  Yea, I know that they go on and on about the rate of people that have the rona but are asymptomatic..... I ain't buying any of it.  I will say it again.  I don't believe this shit.  I just don't.  I don't believe the testing.  I don't trust any of it.  I don't believe ANY of the numbers that we are being told.  I do believe that there is a virus, and I believe that it can be devastating to the right people.  But as far as the numbers that we are being reported?  I think it is 100% bull shit.  

That's all.  Carry on and have a great day!

I think it's like car and homeowner's insurance. You don't expect a problem but you're a fool if you don't have it if you own a car or home.

I'm not convinced the numbers are accurate - many experts say they are probably vastly underreported.

My sister says even the COVID-19 researchers at Johns Hopkins don't have much of a clue about the extent of the virus, though they expect us to get whacked in late-Fall and Winter.

But, just as I have car and homeowner's insurance, I'm wearing a mask when inside or where a lot of people are and I'm social distancing. It's foolish not to do so.

Remember the Herman Cain?  His Twitter account said COVID-19 wasn't the threat it's made out to be.  Now he's the LATE Herman Cain: he attended the Trump rally in Tulsa and caught COVID-19 and died from it.

My sister tested negative twice while the experts she works with at Johns Hopkins assured her she had it. She had a 101°-104° fever for over two weeks and almost died twice. She has seen the data and the people and even a guy who got it bad twice and was literally in tears over it at the hospital.  Seeing how bad the Fall and Winter may be, she retired on September 1 at age 61 - she figures it will kill her if she gets it again.

On the other hand, COVID-19 was probably brought into her family's home by my sister's son.  The son tested positive and asymptomatic and his father tested positive and mildly symptomatic.

So I'm being careful.  If there are days I have to watch my 12 year-old now-attending-school nephew or pick him up from school, we're wearing a mask in the car and we're social distancing in the house.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Reverend_Maynard said:

Did you think you were making a point?

That your link was not applicable to testing for a virus.

a 5% false positive rate for COVID means that for every 100 tests, 5 are false positive.  That's how it works.

Of course, insignificant considering false negatives run 20% - 40%, depending on when you get tested.

 

try this description of COVID falses:

Results of COVID-19 antibody tests may not always be accurate, especially if the test was done too soon after infection or the test quality is questionable. Many different manufacturers rushed to put antibody tests on the market with little oversight. Now the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posts data online about the performance of certain antibody tests.

COVID-19 antibody testing could lead to false-positive or false-negative test results:

  • False-positive result. The test result is positive, but you actually don't have antibodies and you did not have an infection in the past. A false-positive result could give you a false sense of security that you're protected from getting another COVID-19 infection — and even with a true positive result, immunity is questionable.
  • False-negative result. You have antibodies to the COVID-19 virus, but the test does not detect them. Or you're tested too soon after infection and your body has not had time to develop antibodies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 12string said:

That your link was not applicable to testing for a virus.

a 5% false positive rate for COVID means that for every 100 tests, 5 are false positive.  That's how it works.

Of course, insignificant considering false negatives run 20% - 40%, depending on when you get tested.

ok...

my link is applicable and says (almost) exactly what you did (it's 5 FPs out of every 100 True Negatives).  Your first reply to me implied that the rate of false positives was somehow calculated from to the number of true positives (5 FPs vs 95 positives), which is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Reverend_Maynard said:

ok...

my link is applicable and says (almost) exactly what you did (it's 5 FPs out of every 100 True Negatives).  Your first reply to me implied that the rate of false positives was somehow calculated from to the number of true positives (5 FPs vs 95 positives), which is false.

No. your link applies to proving statistical hypothesis, not testing for COVID.  If 100 COVID tests are positive, and 5 of them are falsely positive, that's a false positive rate of 5%.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 12string said:

No. your link applies to proving statistical hypothesis, not testing for COVID.  If 100 COVID tests are positive, and 5 of them are falsely positive, that's a false positive rate of 5%.  

statistics are statistics... There are not different definitions for viruses versus other types of tests.  You literally just contradicted yourself between this post and the last...

This one I mostly agree with...

Quote

a 5% false positive rate for COVID means that for every 100 tests, 5 are false positive.  That's how it works.

This is not a real thing...

Quote

If 100 COVID tests are positive, and 5 of them are falsely positive, that's a false positive rate of 5%.  

 

if you have a source that says what you claim, now's the time to post it (what you edited in does not say anything about how rates are calculated).  Otherwise I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says exactly how rates are measured (no "calculation" required), you just chose to not understand  or accept it:

 

The test result is positive, but you actually don't have antibodies and you did not have an infection in the past.

Covid false positives are based on positive test results, no matter how many test came back negative.  You are adding data that isn't applicable.  Simple math, 5% of the test results that come back positive are incorrect.  20% (or more) Negative results are incorrect.  One has nothing to do with the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 12string said:

This.  It has happened in every pandemic ever.  It's the nature of counting during the event as opposed to having time to fully examine results.

Plus people deliberately trying to obscure the actual numbers rather than lay the facts out.    Vastly underreported seems far more likely than not. 

Changing reporting structures, removing funding from research/watchdog outfits like WHO, firing qualified leaders of our own CDC and appointing non-qualified people in their place, directives from above to mislead about data, or to not test when the situation calls for it, these are measures taken by people with things they are trying to hide from you.  Why would you trust those people and make decisions based on what you know (or should know if you are not a child) to be lies?

  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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