With regards to other screening tests before getting a Covid 19 test, it depends on your local area. Testing currently has 2 tiers. There is official Health Department/CDC testing. That requires that you have symptoms and known exposure or known high risk. It is also recommended that you have testing for influenza and a full viral panel and that they are negative before testing for Covid 19. Then there are the independent labs. Technically, a doctor could test anyone they want to at an independent lab and if they test positive, they then get retested officially. HOWEVER, due to the shortage of tests and supplies, many hospitals are adhering to strict CDC guidelines for all tests. For example, a patient I had with suspicious symptoms (fever and dry cough, recent international travel) saw me and was advised to stay home and self-quarantine. instead, he went to the ER. They determined that he was not sick enough to be admitted and called me to tell me he would not be tested and that I could do it if I wanted. I told them that since he technically met criteria and I can’t do it in the office (labs only taking frozen specimens-which nobody mentions) could they please test him there. They agreed, but protocol said to test for flu and other viruses first. He came up positive for another virus so was sent home without a test. It’s probable that he does have the other virus since the symptoms in adults can be identical. Then again, don’t forget the swab shortage. The local Kaiser is following CDC guidelines but they have stopped doing the screening flu and virus tests because they use the same swabs and they need to conserve them. So the short answer is, you are supposed to screen for other viruses first but you are not required to and due to shortages we may not be able to.
What? No! Too much of the gain in the economy is reserved for the ultra-wealthy. There is way too much money flowing around for the wrong reasons in our economy, and it depends on the luck of birth more than anything else.
I guess maybe I’d be willing to die if it would impact many of the people around the bottom of the pile. But I don’t think that’s the option.
Here’s a volunteer–>
Glenn Beck offers to die to save America from a COVID-19 shutdown
Okay by me. Go [del]with[/del] to God, Glenn.
“I would rather have my children stay home and all of us who are over 50 go in and keep this economy going and working …”
Umm, hate to interupt you Glenn, but could you explain to us all exactly how you keep this economy going and working? What essential product or service do you provide humanity? Thanks in advance!
CMC fnord!
Much of this debate turns on the phrase “help the economy”. Many participants in this debate still think that the economy is the stock market. No, I’m not willing to die for that.
If we’re talking about universal healthcare, UBI, free education all the way to post-grad level, that’s an economy I might find worthy of dying for.
I wonder if Glenn Beck will go to the hospital if he gets ill and starts to have shortness of breath?
If he doesn’t, then I’ll be the first to take my hat off to the dude. But if he does, I think it would be fair game to ridicule him for making that choice. You can’t boast about how you’d be willing to die for the sake of the country and then chicken out when shit gets too real for you.
This is my body and it is what it says it is and it says “No”
Where would I go anyway even my children don’t like me?
Because we can Science?
Or at least, some of us can.
I mean, I also believe Italy’s case numbers are an undercount, but even if it was as much as a 100x undercount (a very heroic figure in its own right) that still puts Italy in line for tens of thousands more deaths, and the US is still up for five times as many deaths as Italy unless it changes course
Since the people making the argument are Republicans, then we need to consider the Republican economy. The Republican economy is the stock market, not universal healthcare, UBI, free education, or any of those things.
The way I interpret the argument is “the economy (meaning the stock market) is more important than your lives.” Is there really any other way to interpret this argument?
The economy does not mean money per se, it is about producing goods and services and trading these.
If there are companies going under at a large scale…there will be no jobs to get back to and no goods or services being produced to buy with money you do have.
I’m not saying this is what Trump is actually worried about. But the lack of willingness here on the dope to see the point that is being made, and the fact it might be something to consider, is astounding. Also, very much driven by a dislike of the people saying it.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn moto g(6) met Tapatalk
Is the only way to save the economy to ignore the coronavirus, let it do it’s thing, and if some of us die that may have otherwise lived, tough cookies? That’s basically the argument Dan Patrick and Glenn Beck are making.
ETA. If the shoe were on the other foot, my guess is those on the left would still hold the same position. A President Clinton making the Dam Patrick argument would lose so badly this fall that even Walter Mondale could point at her loss and laugh about how well he did in comparison.
Rephrase the question - Are you willing to go to work (along with everyone else) with the understanding that there would be a much higher chance of catching the virus and not being able to get life-saving treatment if you need it?
In my case I’ll be going to work either way since I am a nursing home doctor. The nurses, aides, and other staff that are essential will of course be at work as well. Our job of keeping the residents alive and in the best health possible will become a lot more difficult (and dangerous, possibly life threatening) if we start seeing a flood of elderly patients with Covid-19 who caught the virus because they went about there normal everyday business in an attempt to “save the economy.” It would not help us one bit.
I had this conversation with my 70 year old father with an auto immune disease and I’m ok with him dying to not mortgage my daughters future. I don’t have to go out to the greater public any more than I am currently so its hard for me to say I’d risk myself. In general my wife and I would be ok going back to living our normal life knowing there was a 20% chance of dying in exchange not having a 10+ trillion dollar debt that will impact my daughters their whole lives.
I think the answer is I’d be ok with dying for the economy but that feels wrong.
Would you be ok with isolating yourself should you catch Covid-19, and not seeking treatment even in the event that your case was a serious one? No snark intended. This is a genuine question.
Thank you, because I’ve been struggling to figure out how to express my thoughts on this and I think you’ve done a pretty good job here. I think the idea of damaging the economy to save lives is implicitly expressed as “the coronavirus kills people; a temporary reduction of income is simply an inconvenience – a serious inconvenience, sure, but it doesn’t kill people.”
But from what I’ve read, this isn’t true. Coronavirus directly kills people, but poverty indirectly does. The fact that the poor have less access to quality healthcare is so generally accepted that I don’t think it even needs a cite, but I will also add that the stresses present in the lives of people living in poverty also contribute to poor health. As Bruce D. Perry writes in his book Born for Love, “It turns out that the impact of stress on health – and the way it is affected by hierarchies – is most related to the amount of control you have over your circumstances and work. What’s most stressful is not being in charge and taking responsibility for big decisions – but instead, being held accountable for outcomes over which you have little or no control.” And “The risks for heart disease, stroke, depression, diabetes, asthma, and even many cancers are all affected by trauma-related changes in the stress response system.”
So I think the question posed in the OP is worded in such a way to get people to respond along the lines of “No, of course I don’t want to offer up my life just so someone else can still take their annual vacation to Europe.” But I think a more accurate representation of the current situation would be to ask, “At what point is our desire to stop the current disease threat from spreading going to cause long-term damages to Americans health that is equivalent to the damage the virus is causing?” Shutting businesses down for a week or two probably won’t cause an irreversible downward spiral to the economy, and likely will help American hospital systems to maintain the resources needed to help individuals who do get sick. But if businesses are shut down all summer, it may do so much damage to the economy that the lives it saves from the Coronavirus aren’t worse the lives it sacrifices to the long-term damaging effects of poverty.
I don’t know what the critical threshold is, for the point at which shutting businesses down causes more damage than it alleviates. But I do think we should acknowledge that the threshold is there.
How does he feel about it?
I don’t get what you are saying here. Do you never go out? You never go to the store? You never run errands? You never go to the movies? You never go out to eat? Your spouse never does these things? You never have visitors who do these things? It may be hard for you to say you’d risk yourself, but you most certainly will if things go back to normal.
I don’t get this either. Let’s say we were embroiled in another world war and it was estimated to cost $10 trillion to defend the homeland. Would you be willing to let our country be occupied by a foreign power just to spare your daughter from having to take on debt? If there was a 20% chance that you could be killed by bombs dropping on you if we didn’t go to war, would you take that chance just so your daughter wouldn’t have to pay more in taxes?
It is easy to say you’d rather die than burden your daughter. But let’s say you don’t die from COVID-19. You just become crippled from it. So crippled that you cannot take of yourself and it falls on your daughter to take care of you (or at least worry about you). Is that a better deal for your daughter than her having a healthy father in exchange for paying more in taxes?
Perhaps it is because you know it is wrong.
I could imagine my father having your viewpoint, playing the “I’m thinking about my daughter’s future!” card. But as the daughter, I think that’s some bullshit. If I lose my good job and end up picking cotton for a living, I will be alright as long as I have loving people in my life. But I’d be forever crushed knowing that my father died because his life was deemed worthless by greedy capitalists.
The Glenn Beck thing and such reminds me of the phrase “chicken hawks” to describe pro-military intervention people who never served.
Time to think of an equivalent phrase for those who say they don’t care about getting Covid-19 but actually take steps to avoid it. Where’s that new coinages thead … ?
Another related question:
Are you willing to drive knowing you (and your children) will have a much higher chance of dying or becoming permanently crippled if you get into a car accident?