COVID-19 Thread

[OldSchoolSnapper]

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852435761/as-hospitals-lose-revenue-thousands-of-health-care-workers-face-furloughs-layoff

 

I don't know about nurse-specific data but healthcare has not been immune to furloughs and layoffs by any stretch.

 

The cancellation of electives combined with onslaught of patients never happening has caused issues.

 

I've also received two phone calls to schedule physicals in my household, something that has NEVER happened before.

 

They would have lost money even with the onslaught of patients though. The electives are much more lucrative. I read an article over the weekend about "collateral damage" in healthcare as the article called it. Basically people are not going to the hospital with non-Covid issues and some are dying from treatable things directly because of it. They're afraid of imminent COVID19 death so they opt not to go the hospital, and end up dying. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[PeaveyFury]

When you state something as blunt as "there are just as many nurses being laid off as there are treating covid patients", it implies that there is data being cited to back that up. As none has been provided, it raises questions about whether that's fact, or the person's opinion. And it's happened multiple times in this thread.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Well I didn't make the comment, just chiming in that hospitals are suffering economically too (boo hoo, I know).

[Machu Peach]

One thing I'm curious to know is what the overall 2020 deaths are relative to expected overall deaths (compared to 2018, 19, etc). Does anyone have the statistics on these? I think this can help put things in perspective of how much if at all that the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to deaths in society. We know many people died with COVID-19, but how many died with it and how many died BECAUSE of it, if that makes sense.

 

Is this what you're looking for? The two big caveats is that reporting on data like this can be severely delayed and that this is counting all deaths; directly COVID related, indirectly COVID related, and COVID unrelated.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

[Machu Peach]

Removing support systems from vulnerable people was alway going to have a negative impact.

https://abc7news.com/health/suicides-on-the-rise-amid-stay-at-home-order-bay-area-doctors-say/6201962/

 

However quantifying that impact is going to be quite difficult. This NYT article highlights some of the difficulties.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/health/pandemic-coronavirus-suicide-health.html

 

Whether that's the cure being worse than the disease? I don't know. I suspect that most people will interpret the (eventually available) data as needed to help them believe what they want to believe, just like with everything else related to COVID.

[tmwiese55]

Popped in to read a few pages and see someone say that the shutdown has little to no effect on the spread. Shake my head and leave. Impossible to converse with this faction of folks that so adamantly took a side on this back in Feb/early March and refuse to acknowledge all the data that has proven them wrong. Just continue to dig their heals in instead of just reading and learning with an open mind.

[LouisEly]

And an ER nurse I’m friends with couldn’t be more thankful for the stay at home order, considering his role as a COVID screener. Anecdotal is anecdotal. Not fact.

 

It’s extraordinary sad any time someone decides to take their own life, but how could your friend possibly know that any of those 14 suicides were directly related to COVID? It’s impossible to know for sure, just like it’s impossible to know how many actual deaths were prevented by the quarantine. We’ll never really know what the true positive/negative was.

A NIH study of the 2007-2009 financial crisis concluded that every 1% increase in unemployment resulted in a 1.6% increase in the suicide rate:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24973571/

 

An analysis by the Well Being Trust estimates that the COVID-19 pandemic could result in an additional 75,000 deaths from drug/alcohol abuse and suicide:

 

https://wellbeingtrust.org/news/new-wbt-robert-graham-center-analysis-the-covid-pandemic-could-lead-to-75000-additional-deaths-from-alcohol-and-drug-misuse-and-suicide/

 

If this is true, considering that an approximately 100,000 people in the US have died of COVID-19 to date, if you exclude nursing home deaths these two numbers as of right now are not that far apart.

[PeaveyFury]

And an ER nurse I’m friends with couldn’t be more thankful for the stay at home order, considering his role as a COVID screener. Anecdotal is anecdotal. Not fact.

 

It’s extraordinary sad any time someone decides to take their own life, but how could your friend possibly know that any of those 14 suicides were directly related to COVID? It’s impossible to know for sure, just like it’s impossible to know how many actual deaths were prevented by the quarantine. We’ll never really know what the true positive/negative was.

A NIH study of the 2007-2009 financial crisis concluded that every 1% increase in unemployment resulted in a 1.6% increase in the suicide rate:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24973571/

 

An analysis by the Well Being Trust estimates that the COVID-19 pandemic could result in an additional 75,000 deaths from drug/alcohol abuse and suicide:

 

https://wellbeingtrust.org/news/new-wbt-robert-graham-center-analysis-the-covid-pandemic-could-lead-to-75000-additional-deaths-from-alcohol-and-drug-misuse-and-suicide/

 

If this is true, considering that an approximately 100,000 people in the US have died of COVID-19 to date, if you exclude nursing home deaths these two numbers as of right now are not that far apart.

 

Not at all what I was asking. Please quantify how many people have been saved by social distancing?

[LouisEly]

When you state something as blunt as "there are just as many nurses being laid off as there are treating covid patients", it implies that there is data being cited to back that up. As none has been provided, it raises questions about whether that's fact, or the person's opinion. And it's happened multiple times in this thread.

According to the research that we have done, about 2/3rds of physicians we have surveyed said that they have or are likely to furlough or lay off staff. These physicians tend to see patients in a private practice or non-hospital setting.

 

And no, I can't release that data, it's proprietary.

[LouisEly]

Not at all what I was asking. Please quantify how many people have been saved by social distancing?

Your second paragraph that I quoted said, "but how could your friend possibly know that any of those 14 suicides were directly related to COVID? It’s impossible to know for sure". That's what I was responding to - you're correct in that it is not possible to know precisely, but it is possible to do a analysis of the data and come to a really good estimate.

 

As for how many have been "saved" by social distancing, until a vaccine or treatment comes out they haven't been saved yet, they've just delayed it. And my point is if they're a victim of suicide, alcohol/drug overdose, domestic violence, etc., they haven't been saved from anything, they're still a victim of COVID-19. The only people who have been "saved" are those who were hospitalized in serious condition/ICU and medical care saved them.

[PeaveyFury]

According to the research that we have done, about 2/3rds of physicians we have surveyed said that they have or are likely to furlough or lay off staff.

 

Staff presumably also includes the receptionists, schedulers, etc. that are mostly overhead vs. patient treaters?

 

Not at all what I was asking. Please quantify how many people have been saved by social distancing?

Your second paragraph that I quoted said, "but how could your friend possibly know that any of those 14 suicides were directly related to COVID? It’s impossible to know for sure". That's what I was responding to - you're correct in that it is not possible to know precisely, but it is possible to do a analysis of the data and come to a really good estimate.

 

So, if we assume that data from a 2-year recessionary period that was longer than a typical recession with market performance also worse than a typical recession is applicable to a 2-month, artificially-created recessionary environment with mass sudden unemployment and assume a 30% increase in the suicide rate, the sad reality is that 11 of those 14 people were making that choice regardless of the 'stay at home' order.

 

It's inherently flawed to try and attribute 100% of a situation like that to a situation or event without recognizing that the baseline isn't 0.

 

As for how many have been "saved" by social distancing, until a vaccine or treatment comes out they haven't been saved yet, they've just delayed it.

 

Yep. Which makes the odd attempted comparison of 'the cure is worse than the disease' all the more impossible to state. The correct hypothesis isn't something attempting to compare the deaths associated with COVID-19, it's the deaths SAVED by social distancing/stay at home vs. those lost due to increased suicide rates, etc.

[reillymcshane]

Had a COVID test today. The nurse said it would be 'awkward' and 'uncomfortable' - but not painful. She was exactly right. It's a weird experience, but it doesn't hurt. And only takes a couple of seconds.

[LouisEly]

Staff presumably also includes the receptionists, schedulers, etc. that are mostly overhead vs. patient treaters?

Patients haven't been in the office - patient volume has been down 50+% and many of them have been seen by virtual means - so nurses have been the first to go. They still need ancillary staff to do the scheduling/billing/ordering.

So, if we assume that data from a 2-year recessionary period that was longer than a typical recession with market performance also worse than a typical recession is applicable to a 2-month, artificially-created recessionary environment with mass sudden unemployment

Yes, the recession was longer (this ain't over yet), but unemployment now is a lot higher than at any point in the recession, and the article I linked to showed a strong correlation between unemployment and suicide, not stock market performance and suicide.

 

How about a study done during the height of an economic boom that shows a correlation between economic hardship and suicide:

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-09-06/economic-hardship-suicide-rates

 

Ironic that this is one of the first sentences in the article:

 

The new research ties high suicide rates everywhere to the unraveling of the social fabric that happens when local sports teams disband, beauty and barbershops close, and churches and civic groups dwindle.

 

That was written last September.

 

Dude, what's your deal? Do you not believe that economic hardship is related to suicide, drug/alcohol abuse, and domestic violence?

[ilikewisco]

No matter my feelings on the posts in this thread, I appreciate that I'm forced to not be in an echo chamber. I still have my informed opinion, but I also respect everyone's here, and it has made me respect the opinion of those around me more as well.

[igor67]

Moving to a purely qualitative mode I do think the general covid stress is the difference here in the Twin Cities between the riots we are seeing now in response to the police shooting, and previous demonstrations. It is a one off type of event, so it is not ever going be amenable to a hardcore quantitative analysis. The number of stores that closed early today was surprising in its own way.

[PeaveyFury]

Dude, what's your deal? Do you not believe that economic hardship is related to suicide, drug/alcohol abuse, and domestic violence?

 

Considering that you oddly cutoff your quote of my post before the part where I accepted the premise and used it to apply the data and create an estimate as you called for in your first response, I'll throw a 'what's your deal?' back your way as well. I'd suggest hitting pause, then rewind to go back and re-read the context of the part of my posts you're isolating to take us down this tangent. You're hyper-focused on a tree within the forest that was the point I was making, and even then you've mistakenly identified the type of that tree.

[FVBrewerFan]

So, now wearing masks is not a good idea, again. I swear they're making this up as they go along, yet people are still listening to the "experts" and their junk science.

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/who-guidance-healthy-people-should-wear-masks-only-when-taking-care-of-coronavirus-patients/ar-BB14JBI4?li=BBnb7Kz

[homer]

I thought we weren't supposed to listen to WHO anymore.

 

This isn't new by the way. WHO has had this stance since the end of March. CDC disagrees obviously.

[FVBrewerFan]

I thought we weren't supposed to listen to WHO anymore.

 

And now you see why.

[homer]

I thought we weren't supposed to listen to WHO anymore.

 

And now you see why.

 

I guess you're saying we should all wear masks then?

[tmwiese55]

The WHO thing isn't saying it won't help stop the spread (though it's probably taking the stance that it's negligible). It's saying that masks shouldn't be wasted on non health care workers. Essentially, if we have a fixed amount masks they can do the most amount of good if used by healthcare workers or those knowingly affected. Though I think they're writing this poorly. Especially the phrasing of "if healthy" since people can go days without knowing they're not healthy. Thus, just where the mask since you don't know if you have it or not. And I think they're probably taking the stance of it probably won't make a substantial difference, so don't waste the masks. I'd guess most would agree that it's not going to make some drastically huge change in any percents, which is fine. But even if it's just a marginal help, what does it hurt to toss it on when around people? It can't hurt. But I know everyone needs to make extreme stances and judgments to support their preconceived view so.

 

Also, if you're one that is going back and ripping for how early on they said not to where masks and how they've flip flopped. That was on purpose. They did not want mass hoarding of masks like idiots did with TP as they needed all the masks in hospitals. They were exactly correct to lie.

[Machu Peach]

People who wear masks vs People without masks

[FVBrewerFan]

I thought we weren't supposed to listen to WHO anymore.

 

And now you see why.

 

I guess you're saying we should all wear masks then?

 

Not sure, maybe you shouldn't wear masks like the CDC said originally. Or listen to them now and wear one. No, maybe listen to WHO and not wear one. Wait, Qdoba said I should so I guess I will.

[JackNicholson1974]

So, now wearing masks is not a good idea, again. I swear they're making this up as they go along, yet people are still listening to the "experts" and their junk science.

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/who-guidance-healthy-people-should-wear-masks-only-when-taking-care-of-coronavirus-patients/ar-BB14JBI4?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Just so I know what to look out for, what exactly is the definition of “junk science”?

 

Is it any science?

Science I agree with?

Science I disagree with?

science by someone who is not a scientist?

Science by many people who are scientists?

[FVBrewerFan]

So, now wearing masks is not a good idea, again. I swear they're making this up as they go along, yet people are still listening to the "experts" and their junk science.

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/who-guidance-healthy-people-should-wear-masks-only-when-taking-care-of-coronavirus-patients/ar-BB14JBI4?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Just so I know what to look out for, what exactly is the definition of “junk science”?

 

Is it any science?

Science I agree with?

Science I disagree with?

science by someone who is not a scientist?

Science by many people who are scientists?

 

Great question. Junk science is "science" that does nor follow the scientific method. Commonly, it is influenced by any and all of: bias, politics, and money.