Sweden?

[WarriorDad]

1. What Pakuni said.

Regarding Cuomo and DeSantis, one is following the science and known facts. The other is pissing into the wind and hoping it doesn't blow back on him.

Even if DeSantis doesn't end up with piss all over himself, he's still a moron.

Cuomo was following science by sending elderly patients with COVID 19 back to nursing homes to infect more vulnerable, while DeSantis was a moron and in March issued directives doing the exact opposite?  You going to stick to that one?

Florida has followed the science and there is no second guessing that regardless of what your political stripes or ideology is.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-crisis-ron-desantis-florida-covid-19-strategy/

Before someone accuses me of posting a conservative article, shouldn't the bigger question be why moderate and liberal media aren't publishing the same article?  This is why I encourage people to read outside their comfort zone, otherwise you are drumbeat to death the same ideas all the time.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Cuomo was following science by sending elderly patients with COVID 19 back to nursing homes to infect more vulnerable, while DeSantis was a moron and in March issued directives doing the exact opposite?  You going to stick to that one?

Florida has followed the science and there is no second guessing that regardless of what your political stripes or ideology is.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-crisis-ron-desantis-florida-covid-19-strategy/

Before someone accuses me of posting a conservative article, shouldn't the bigger question be why moderate and liberal media aren't publishing the same article?  This is why I encourage people to read outside their comfort zone, otherwise you are drumbeat to death the same ideas all the time.

He gets full credit when he stops supressing testing data.

But I do think one thing is clear from some of the anedotal evidence we have seen to date.  That outdoor crowds don't seem to be nearly the factor in spreading this as indoor spaces are. 

[forgetful]

Cuomo was following science by sending elderly patients with COVID 19 back to nursing homes to infect more vulnerable, while DeSantis was a moron and in March issued directives doing the exact opposite?  You going to stick to that one?

Florida has followed the science and there is no second guessing that regardless of what your political stripes or ideology is.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-crisis-ron-desantis-florida-covid-19-strategy/

Before someone accuses me of posting a conservative article, shouldn't the bigger question be why moderate and liberal media aren't publishing the same article?  This is why I encourage people to read outside their comfort zone, otherwise you are drumbeat to death the same ideas all the time.

You are being intellectually dishonest regarding Cuomo. The rule was that when patients, who previously resided at a nursing facility, are discharged from the hospital, they were to return to the nursing facility. If and only if, the nursing facility had the capacity and ability to continue treatment in a manner that isolated the patient. If not, alternative care would be provided.

Where should they have sent the patients, the hospitals said they need to go home. Federal rules said you couldn't send them to Gavitt, or the hospital ship. Those were for "hospital patients" only, which discharged patients are not. I fault nursing facilities there, for taking patients if they knew they couldn't support them. Why would they do so, "money".

What should have happened is the feds should have stepped in, and said discharged patients that are still COVID positive can be taken to Gavitt. Cuomo can't change federal rules.

[jesmu84]

You are being intellectually dishonest regarding Cuomo. The rule was that when patients, who previously resided at a nursing facility, are discharged from the hospital, they were to return to the nursing facility. If and only if, the nursing facility had the capacity and ability to continue treatment in a manner that isolated the patient. If not, alternative care would be provided.

Where should they have sent the patients, the hospitals said they need to go home. Federal rules said you couldn't send them to Gavitt, or the hospital ship. Those were for "hospital patients" only, which discharged patients are not. I fault nursing facilities there, for taking patients if they knew they couldn't support them. Why would they do so, "money".

What should have happened is the feds should have stepped in, and said discharged patients that are still COVID positive can be taken to Gavitt. Cuomo can't change federal rules.

On brand

[Lennys Tap]

You are being intellectually dishonest regarding Cuomo. The rule was that when patients, who previously resided at a nursing facility, are discharged from the hospital, they were to return to the nursing facility. If and only if, the nursing facility had the capacity and ability to continue treatment in a manner that isolated the patient. If not, alternative care would be provided.

Where should they have sent the patients, the hospitals said they need to go home. Federal rules said you couldn't send them to Gavitt, or the hospital ship. Those were for "hospital patients" only, which discharged patients are not. I fault nursing facilities there, for taking patients if they knew they couldn't support them. Why would they do so, "money".

What should have happened is the feds should have stepped in, and said discharged patients that are still COVID positive can be taken to Gavitt. Cuomo can't change federal rules.

Wrong. Florida mandated that hospitalized patients who were still COVID positive could not be readmitted to Nursing Homes. Cuomo could have done the same, and he even had a (still) empty ship ready, willing and able to accept such patients. Instead he sent them back to the Nursing Homes. He recently rescinded his previous order so this is no longer the case - but it was an awful decision (that had nothing to do with the feds) in the first place.

[tower912]

Lenny, I won't swear to this, but it is my recollection that no COVID patients were allowed on the ship.   

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Lenny, I won't swear to this, but it is my recollection that no COVID patients were allowed on the ship.   

To start.  I believe they were allowed later on.  I don't know what the timing of everything was.

[tower912]

https://news.usni.org/2020/04/27/hospital-ship-comfort-ends-nyc-covid-19-mission-after-treating-182-patients

They did ultimately treat COVID patients.   

[forgetful]

Wrong. Florida mandated that hospitalized patients who were still COVID positive could not be readmitted to Nursing Homes. Cuomo could have done the same, and he even had a (still) empty ship ready, willing and able to accept such patients. Instead he sent them back to the Nursing Homes. He recently rescinded his previous order so this is no longer the case - but it was an awful decision (that had nothing to do with the feds) in the first place.

Lenny, what you say is simply not true, or not possible. Where do you want the patients who are discharged to go? They can't stay in the hospitals, they needed the beds/capacity, and they no longer needed hospital care. The couldn't go to either Gavitt's or the hospital ship, both due to federal rules required they were hospital patients. Both only accepted hospital transfers. They were not, they were being discharged. Not to mention, since they didn't need hospital care, the federal run Gavitt's and hospital ship would have simply discharged them...to where?

So, they are to go home for care. But home is a nursing facility. There plan was perfectly reasonable, they should return to their home/nursing facility, provided the nursing facility can treat and isolate a COVID patient. If not, an alternative plan would be identified. The problem is nursing facilities wanted the money, so took patients they knew they couldn't handle. That broke a perfectly reasonable plan, and required change. Fortunately, we saw a decline in cases, and there was then excess capacity to keep the patients in house.

Florida never had a capacity issue. It isn't a remotely fair comparison.

Ideally we'd have COVID recovery wards at hotels or other temporary facilities. But those require health care workers. NY was out of those, which is why Gavitts was being run by the federal government...which meant federal rules.

He went with a non-ideal option, because there were no ideal options, and trusted nursing facilities to do the right thing. They didn't, they did the most financially lucrative thing, so he had to formulate a new plan.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, what you say is simply not true, or not possible. Where do you want the patients who are discharged to go? They can't stay in the hospitals, they needed the beds/capacity, and they no longer needed hospital care. The couldn't go to either Gavitt's or the hospital ship, both due to federal rules required they were hospital patients. Both only accepted hospital transfers. They were not, they were being discharged. Not to mention, since they didn't need hospital care, the federal run Gavitt's and hospital ship would have simply discharged them...to where?

So, they are to go home for care. But home is a nursing facility. There plan was perfectly reasonable, they should return to their home/nursing facility, provided the nursing facility can treat and isolate a COVID patient. If not, an alternative plan would be identified. The problem is nursing facilities wanted the money, so took patients they knew they couldn't handle. That broke a perfectly reasonable plan, and required change. Fortunately, we saw a decline in cases, and there was then excess capacity to keep the patients in house.

Florida never had a capacity issue. It isn't a remotely fair comparison.

Ideally we'd have COVID recovery wards at hotels or other temporary facilities. But those require health care workers. NY was out of those, which is why Gavitts was being run by the federal government...which meant federal rules.

He went with a non-ideal option, because there were no ideal options, and trusted nursing facilities to do the right thing. They didn't, they did the most financially lucrative thing, so he had to formulate a new plan.

Forgetful

You say that Florida never “had a capacity problem” - so they could keep still contagious “recovered” nursing home patients in hospitals (rather tHan returning them to the nursing homes). It is my understanding that had Cuomo elected to use the (then and still) empty ship or the Javitt’s Center he wouldn’t have had a capacity problem either.

Bottom line: it was his edict that sent those infected people back into those nursing homes. Because of public outrage (and disastrous results) he has rescinded that edict. For you to try to pin this on the feds is disingenuous.

[Hards Alumni]

Forgetful

You say that Florida never “had a capacity problem” - so they could keep still contagious “recovered” nursing home patients in hospitals (rather tHan returning them to the nursing homes). It is my understanding that had Cuomo elected to use the (then and still) empty ship or the Javitt’s Center he wouldn’t have had a capacity problem either.

Bottom line: it was his edict that sent those infected people back into those nursing homes. Because of public outrage (and disastrous results) he has rescinded that edict. For you to try to pin this on the feds is disingenuous.

Did you read what he typed?

[forgetful]

Forgetful

You say that Florida never “had a capacity problem” - so they could keep still contagious “recovered” nursing home patients in hospitals (rather tHan returning them to the nursing homes). It is my understanding that had Cuomo elected to use the (then and still) empty ship or the Javitt’s Center he wouldn’t have had a capacity problem either.

Bottom line: it was his edict that sent those infected people back into those nursing homes. Because of public outrage (and disastrous results) he has rescinded that edict. For you to try to pin this on the feds is disingenuous.

Your proposal is a reasonable one, if I'm understanding it correctly. Where they transfer ill patients still requiring hospital care to Javitt's (sorry I kept using the wrong name), so they can keep patients that should be discharged in hospitals. It is reasonable, but I wonder about safety issues regarding transporting seriously ill patients. I also think there would have been substantial attacks on him the moment one of those patients dies because of transport.

And I'm not pinning this on the feds. I know one can read my text that way, but that is not my intent. My intent is that when we have multiple levels of regulations, state and federal, things become more complicated than those saying "Javitt's was empty" are admitting. Javitt's did end up allowing these patients to be sent there.

If I'm blaming anyone, it is the nursing facilities that took patients back in that they knew they couldn't care for properly. That is unacceptable. The blame lies there. Cuomo's original rule/plan was fine, as long as nursing facilities didn't get greedy...they did.

And Florida was allowing discharges to nursing homes of positive patients up until May 7th. 3-days before the  change in NY.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I was surprised to see this thread so active and no discussion of the serology study just released.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-strategy-idUSKBN22W2YC

[Pakuni]

I was surprised to see this thread so active and no discussion of the serology study just released.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-strategy-idUSKBN22W2YC

I was going to post that earlier, but at this point it almost feels like piling on.
The Swedish experiment to date has been a disaster. No evidence they're developing herd immunity more quickly than anyone else (if at all). No evidence that staying open has spared the economy. Death rates are worsening relative not only to their Nordic neighbors, but Europe as a whole.
Feel bad for those suffering as a result of what seems to be a terrible miscalculation.

Cue Cheeks arriving to say we can't possibly know if Sweden acted recklessly ...

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I was going to post that earlier, but at this point it almost feels like piling on.
The Swedish experiment to date has been a disaster. No evidence they're developing herd immunity more quickly than anyone else (if at all). No evidence that staying open has spared the economy. Death rates are worsening relative not only to their Nordic neighbors, but Europe as a whole.
Feel bad for those suffering as a result of what seems to be a terrible miscalculation.

Cue Cheeks arriving to say we can't possibly know if Sweden acted recklessly ...

I don’t know.  My interpretation is They are about as bad as everyone else outside of scandanavian neighbors, germany and a handful of Asian countries.  I think the point is they aren’t better off health wise and are taking a hit economically too. 

[Pakuni]

I don’t know.  My interpretation is They are about as bad as everyone else outside of scandanavian neighbors, germany and a handful of Asian countries.  I think the point is they aren’t better off health wise and are taking a hit economically too.

Excluding tiny nations like Andorra and San Marino, Sweden's deaths per million is sixth worse in the world. They're actually worse off than most, not just their neighbors and a few other places. Their deaths per million is even 21 percent higher than that of the U.S., and we're by no measure a success story.
Even more troubling, its death rate the past week is higher than any place in Europe.
 
One could try to argue - and some have - that it will even out once the Swedes have herd immunity, but this study shows that they're not markedly closer to obtaining herd immunity than countries that imposed strict lockdowns.

[forgetful]

I was surprised to see this thread so active and no discussion of the serology study just released.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-strategy-idUSKBN22W2YC

I like how it says that they expected 1/3 of the city to have contracted the virus. Then say that the 7.3% that actually got it is roughly in line with the expectations/models. "maybe a percentage point lower".

I think I see the problems in Sweden's models. They thing 7.3% and 33% are only different by a percentage point.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I like how it says that they expected 1/3 of the city to have contracted the virus. Then say that the 7.3% that actually got it is roughly in line with the expectations/models. "maybe a percentage point lower".

I think I see the problems in Sweden's models. They thing 7.3% and 33% are only different by a percentage point.

That was totally confusing.  The only Somewhat rational explanation I could come up with is that the target for herd immunity is assumed at like 50%.  But even that is a big gap from 7 to 15

[Lennys Tap]

I like how it says that they expected 1/3 of the city to have contracted the virus. Then say that the 7.3% that actually got it is roughly in line with the expectations/models. "maybe a percentage point lower".

I think I see the problems in Sweden's models. They thing 7.3% and 33% are only different by a percentage point.

Noticed that too. Either Sweden’s head epidemiologist is full of it or there’s a mistake in the article about the numbers.

[Pakuni]

Noticed that too. Either Sweden’s head epidemiologist is full of it or there’s a mistake in the article about the numbers.

Some discussion on this:

Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation some weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of the capital’s population had probably contracted the virus.
However, the public health agency had previously said it expected about 25% to have been infected by 1 May and Tom Britton, a maths professor who helped develop its forecasting model, said the figure from the study was surprising.
“It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that’s the case it’s surprising they are so wrong,” he told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. “Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

One thing I would note is that in late April the Swedish health authorities predicted that 33 percent  of Stockholm County would be infected by May 1. They then adjusted it to 26 percent by May 1. Now they're saying maybe "a little more than 20 percent" by May 21.

[Lennys Tap]

Some discussion on this:

Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation some weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of the capital’s population had probably contracted the virus.
However, the public health agency had previously said it expected about 25% to have been infected by 1 May and Tom Britton, a maths professor who helped develop its forecasting model, said the figure from the study was surprising.
“It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that’s the case it’s surprising they are so wrong,” he told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. “Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

One thing I would note is that in late April the Swedish health authorities predicted that 33 percent  of Stockholm County would be infected by May 1. They then adjusted it to 26 percent by May 1. Now they're saying maybe "a little more than 20 percent" by May 21.

Not exactly trending positive.

[Lennys Tap]

Did you read what he typed?

Every word. Either you didn’t or you misunderstood his post or my response.

[WarriorDad]

He gets full credit when he stops supressing testing data.

But I do think one thing is clear from some of the anedotal evidence we have seen to date.  That outdoor crowds don't seem to be nearly the factor in spreading this as indoor spaces are.

Moving the goalposts on data then.  Why are we giving other governors full credit when their data has been mixed as CNN stated today, or overstated like Colorado and potentially New York?  Why are so many trying to have it both ways?

[WarriorDad]

You are being intellectually dishonest regarding Cuomo. The rule was that when patients, who previously resided at a nursing facility, are discharged from the hospital, they were to return to the nursing facility. If and only if, the nursing facility had the capacity and ability to continue treatment in a manner that isolated the patient. If not, alternative care would be provided.

Where should they have sent the patients, the hospitals said they need to go home. Federal rules said you couldn't send them to Gavitt, or the hospital ship. Those were for "hospital patients" only, which discharged patients are not. I fault nursing facilities there, for taking patients if they knew they couldn't support them. Why would they do so, "money".

What should have happened is the feds should have stepped in, and said discharged patients that are still COVID positive can be taken to Gavitt. Cuomo can't change federal rules.

If that is the case, why did he (Cuomo) change his orders two weeks ago.  That had nothing to do with federal rules, those were his directives.  The order is available online to see.  It was a state order, not a federal rule.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/21/why-governor-andrew-cuomo-praised-coronavirus-response-column/5220164002/

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Moving the goalposts on data then.  Why are we giving other governors full credit when their data has been mixed as CNN stated today, or overstated like Colorado and potentially New York?  Why are so many trying to have it both ways?

Apparently you don’t understand what shifting goalposts means cause I have done no such thing.