Higher health insurance premiums for the unvaxxed? (1 Viewer)

[Stealthycat]

That the floor ("at least") was set at 155 patients, not your ceiling.   

you're right

could have been 156

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes. 1/4 of the beds being filled with one type of patient is problematic as the doc said. This is why doctors are begging people to get vaxed. 

so covid isn't overrunning hospitals and taking beds - 75% of the people taking beds are there for something else

which was the point - headlines makes it looks like because of covid hospitals are maxxed when in the case I quoted, 75% of the beds are filled because of something else 

 

[The General]

The ICU nurses would probably rather be hanging out at the cafeteria, but, hospitals purposely like to be near capacity for budgetary reasons.  This little example, and article, where they were able to ship them just 10 miles away to another hospital just proves this isn't a dire situation that the news and some posters keep trying to make it out to be.

Here’s another one: Link

Another: Texas

Another: Kentucky

This has a bunch of states that are are at different levels

This doesn’t sound positive. 

There’s a pretty simple step that could help here. 

 

[The General]

so covid isn't overrunning hospitals and taking beds - 75% of the people taking beds are there for something else

which was the point - headlines makes it looks like because of covid hospitals are maxxed when in the case I quoted, 75% of the beds are filled because of something else 

If Covid wasn’t taking up an inordinate amount of space would this be good or bad?

Almost 78% of beds in U.S. hospital intensive care units are in use, and roughly one-third of adult ICU patients (or 22,345) have the coronavirus, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

 

[tonydead]

Here’s another one: Link

Another: Texas

Another: Kentucky

This has a bunch of states that are aren’t different levels

This doesn’t sound positive. 

There’s a pretty simple step that could help here. 

Here is what each of your links say.  None at capacity.  We could do this all day long, it's the same false narrative.

The hospital has 28 beds and on Monday 20 were filled with COVID patients, leaving just 8 beds for others needing help.

The state is divided into 22 trauma service areas, and half of them reported 10 or fewer available ICU beds on Sunday. 

Louisville hospital officials say they still have capacity to accept patients including in intensive care but space is getting tighter as the numbers of COVID-19 patients increase.

These 6 States Have Almost No ICU Beds

 

[tonydead]

so covid isn't overrunning hospitals and taking beds - 75% of the people taking beds are there for something else

which was the point - headlines makes it looks like because of covid hospitals are maxxed when in the case I quoted, 75% of the beds are filled because of something else 

This is always the case, that is how it is designed.  Covid pushing it up to 85% sounds alarming, but, it's not.  So far no one can provide a link where people aren't being treated.  

Flatten the curve!  Mission accomplished, a lone time ago.

 

[The General]

Here is what each of your links say.  None at capacity.  We could do this all day long, it's the same false narrative.

The very first hospital says the ICU is filled that there are no ICU beds. 

"You have a heart attack, you have a stroke, you are in a car accident, you need to come into the hospital, guess what? You can hang out in the ER until we can get a place for you. How do we do get a place for you? Either we have people who get better and get discharged from the hospital or either have people who get worse, and they die”

I guess I don’t see why this is important, rather  it’s an odd thing to get hung up on.

These people being vaxed would certainly help this, no?

 

[The General]

This is always the case, that is how it is designed.  Covid pushing it up to 85% sounds alarming, but, it's not.  So far no one can provide a link where people aren't being treated.  

Flatten the curve!  Mission accomplished, a lone time ago.

This doesn’t look flattened

 

[KarmaPolice]

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it.

...yeah, I didn't have words.  

 

[tonydead]

The very first hospital says the ICU is filled that there are no ICU beds. 

"You have a heart attack, you have a stroke, you are in a car accident, you need to come into the hospital, guess what? You can hang out in the ER until we can get a place for you. How do we do get a place for you? Either we have people who get better and get discharged from the hospital or either have people who get worse, and they die”

I guess I don’t see why this is important, rather  it’s an odd thing to get hung up on.

These people being vaxed would certainly help this, no?

Why do you choose to skip over the parts I quoted?  

She starts off with "we are getting nervous and scared".  Sure, that's why the rest of her comments are overly dramatic.  The facts, as reported in the article, shows there are 8 beds left to deal with a stroke or an accident.  Get back with me when the beds are actually filled up and the neighboring hospitals are too and can't take patients because that's the picture you are trying to paint.  That dog won't hunt.

 

[The General]

Why do you choose to skip over the parts I quoted?  

She starts off with "we are getting nervous and scared".  Sure, that's why the rest of her comments are overly dramatic.  The facts, as reported in the article, shows there are 8 beds left to deal with a stroke or an accident.  Get back with me when the beds are actually filled up and the neighboring hospitals are too and can't take patients because that's the picture you are trying to paint.  That dog won't hunt.

Are these ICU beds? Just giving you what the hospital ls are saying.

The important takeaway for me is they are begging people to get vaccinated.

 

[Stealthycat]

If Covid wasn’t taking up an inordinate amount of space would this be good or bad?

we can apply that to everything - if smokers, if obese, if if if

combining them all yes - its pushing hospitals absolutely 

but these headlines makes it looks like hospitals are full of covid patients - it appears to be very much a fear campaign in many ways 

 

[The General]

we can apply that to everything - if smokers, if obese, if if if

combining them all yes - its pushing hospitals absolutely 

but these headlines makes it looks like hospitals are full of covid patients - it appears to be very much a fear campaign in many ways 

Is there a shot to give people that reduce their chances of going to the ICU?

If so I’d suggest that. 

 

[tonydead]

Are these ICU beds? Just giving you what the hospital ls are saying.

The important takeaway for me is they are begging people to get vaccinated.

See, when I have to explain what is in the links you yourself provided is when you start to loose credibility.

Yes, there are 28 ICU beds and 20 of them are full leaving only 8 available.  Maybe she was just having a bad day, or some of her fellow workers didn't show because their website shows 50 staffed ICU beds during that time period (ramped up from `35).  Sounds like to me they were just short staffed.

 

[Bogeys]

The ICU nurses would probably rather be hanging out at the cafeteria, but, hospitals purposely like to be near capacity for budgetary reasons.  This little example, and article, where they were able to ship them just 10 miles away to another hospital just proves this isn't a dire situation that the news and some posters keep trying to make it out to be.

No, hospitals like to be near budgeted ADC for budgetary reasons.  Hospitals don't staff for max capacity.  We do have a good idea of what our ADC will be based on historical data, but that goes out the window in a pandemic. You can't magically hire and orient RNs and Docs and RRTs, etc within even months...there was a shortage or RNs before the pandemic and it has just gotten worse during. 

Also, people keep saying there are beds...but beds aren't really the issue (unless you are talking negative pressure beds for infectious patients) it is staffing those beds and having safe care for the number of patients you have in the hospital.  And Covid patients are most definitely skewing those numbers.  

 

[The General]

See, when I have to explain what is in the links you yourself provided is when you start to loose credibility.

Yes, there are 28 ICU beds and 20 of them are full leaving only 8 available.  Maybe she was just having a bad day, or some of her fellow workers didn't show because their website shows 50 staffed ICU beds during that time period (ramped up from `35).  Sounds like to me they were just short staffed.

Thanks that’s good research. I will go with your numbers in this place and this person who works there was incorrect or can be explained away with some other matter of semantics related to hospital administration or poor journalism. 

Let’s say that all these articles are some level of fear mongering and the anecdotal stories given from posters in here who work in hospitals are explained by short staffing, it’s just their hospital but nearby ones are fine, the system is not overly taxed by covid

The important part is that the vaccine could drastically reduce these numbers.

 

[tonydead]

No, hospitals like to be near budgeted ADC for budgetary reasons.  Hospitals don't staff for max capacity.  We do have a good idea of what our ADC will be based on historical data, but that goes out the window in a pandemic. You can't magically hire and orient RNs and Docs and RRTs, etc within even months...there was a shortage or RNs before the pandemic and it has just gotten worse during. 

Also, people keep saying there are beds...but beds aren't really the issue (unless you are talking negative pressure beds for infectious patients) it is staffing those beds and having safe care for the number of patients you have in the hospital.  And Covid patients are most definitely skewing those numbers.  

Almost 100% agree. But I won't get into where and how many hospitals are built.

Agree it's not number of beds, that's another reason all these reports are dead wrong but I was trying to let others come to that conclusion on their own.   They are more likely to believe it if they think they came up with it.

 

[Stealthycat]

Is there a shot to give people that reduce their chances of going to the ICU?

If so I’d suggest that. 

I actually don't know if there is. 

I know that's what we're told .... but I honestly don't know. The whole " well you just won't get as sick" .... I mean I've never heard in my life such a thing.

How many vaccinated with covid wouldn't have gotten really sick anyway? Its a guess, nobody knows ......... I mean right now they're saying 39,200,000 confirmed cases, lets add 25% to that for people not confirmed so maybe 50,000,000 have had covid ?

what % is that 639,000 deaths out of 39,200,000 ?  I'm not sure anyone tracks how many covid positives are on ICU

tracking's/counting has changed - nobody wants to know how many covid positives are in vaccinated people 

 

[the moops]

you never spanked kids?  

Not yet. My kids are 10 and 8

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I’ve seen and heard this idea being discussed recently, thought I’d throw it out for discussion.  Should health insurance carriers be allowed to charge a higher premium to an unvaxxed person than they would a vaxxed person?  Keep in mind, being vaxxed or not is a pre-existing condition- and currently the only thing the ACA allows to be a factor in premiums are age and tobacco use.  If you allow vaxxed vs unvaxxed, how about obese vs not obese (and so on)?

If they'll charge by the pound then i would be in favor of the premium hit to the Vax/UnVax...I am still fighting my weight, it's a daily battle for some of us to try and stay in shape, play tennis 2-3x a week, ride a bike, walk, have tried to start working more on my feet vs sitting at a desk pushing papers around. And I used to weight close to 300 lbs but yeah its sacrifice and hard work to look even this bad so i am all for charging by the pound for insurance, that's a great idea and will SHOCK the unhealthy not crucuify the anti-vax, no way the premium on someone not taking a flu shot would cost more than someone who is 50+lbs overweight. 

Good job Matty

 

[The General]

I actually don't know if there is. 

I know that's what we're told .... but I honestly don't know. The whole " well you just won't get as sick" .... I mean I've never heard in my life such a thing.

How many vaccinated with covid wouldn't have gotten really sick anyway? Its a guess, nobody knows ......... I mean right now they're saying 39,200,000 confirmed cases, lets add 25% to that for people not confirmed so maybe 50,000,000 have had covid ?

what % is that 639,000 deaths out of 39,200,000 ?  I'm not sure anyone tracks how many covid positives are on ICU

tracking's/counting has changed - nobody wants to know how many covid positives are in vaccinated people 

Dude. I don’t know how many times this info has been posted. ICU’s are filled with covid patients the vast majority of these are unvaxed. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Dude. I don’t know how many times this info has been posted. ICU’s are filled with covid patients the vast majority of these are unvaxed. 

true but there are other factors involved

what % of vaccinated are under 40 years old ? because toss all of those out - they were never going to get covid anyway (this info has been posted many times)

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not yet. My kids are 10 and 8

Maybe this is why SC is mistaking parenting with bullying.  

 

[the moops]

true but there are other factors involved

what % of vaccinated are under 40 years old ? because toss all of those out - they were never going to get covid anyway (this info has been posted many times)

They were never going to get covid? Where are you getting that outrageous claim

 

[Shutout]

I wrote a lot of words that essentially explain what facts are....not what I think them to be, but what they are. To the bold, I agree, but "knowledge" <> "facts" and facts were we were talking about.  So if it's just shoving goal posts around that you want to do, that's fine.  We were talking about facts.  The future is unknowable.  There is no way of getting around that.  Facts are things that are known or proven to be true.  Being uninformed simply means you don't know about the thing known or proven true which goes to the underlined.  Facts can absolutely exist without you knowing they do.  In that case you'd be uninformed.  Facts do not go beyond what the evidence tells us.  Anything beyond that point is a belief, not a fact.  So any prediction of something that might happen in the future is a belief.  Can beliefs become facts in time?  Of course.

~~~~~~~~~

To the rest it's all stuff I've replied to before in various other threads.  I get that people want more time.  That's their prerogative.  The funny part is, very few can give a timeframe that they are comfortable with.  It's one of the most avoided questions I've seen in these threads.  But a few have thrown out their arbitrary number and really have no good reason for said arbitrary number other than touchy feely reasons which are weak sauce to me.  People are basing life altering decisions on those sorts of things.  I need something more concrete when making those kinds of decisions.

It probably should be pointed out again that you are conversing with a person who was dead set on NOT getting the vaccine when it came out because of....you guessed it "it was too fast".  Fortunately for me my wife, who is doing heart research this very second in her lab today, on COVID and it's impacts to bodily organs sat me down in front of a mound of literature and made me read it.  Once doing so, I was in line to get my shot as soon as it was available.  If anyone takes 10 minutes to look into the timeline of a drug to market, you'll see that well over 90% of that time is tied up in red tape and bureaucracy.  It's NOT tied up in studies and research.  And it's well documented that if you want to cut down on time to market on the research/study side, you get as many people as you can to participate.  The larger and more diverse the sample set, the quicker you can get beyond that phase.  Would it shock you to learn that the solution for this virus was found in or around March 2020?  It was.  The time difference you see is what happens when you cut out the bureaucracy (which I give Trump all the credit on).  No short cuts were made in the labs/studies and we have the largest participant pool we've ever had.  All that translates to quick turn around.

Do with this information what you will.

I am doing with it as I will. We will leave it here. I see your stake in this but I'm still going to defer to the likes of John Hopkins et. al mainly because your statement that there is not a lot of time tied up in studies and research is basically stating that the entire purpose these programs exist are historically inaccurate and I do not agree. 

If nothing else,  the statements dance around what should be the core issue here and that is that you are telling us you were inundated with a ton of info and you were sold. I respect that if that is how you got to where you are. I have no issues with that. I just ask that you honor the same with others because there are a lot of people out there that, upon hearing your reasoning, would be quick to say "that's nice but it doesn't address the main issue that this vaccine was never tested on humans as is done traditionally before it was emergency approved and has not been around long enough to do the tests that accompany all FDA approved vaccines and drugs."  

It is ok and your choice to accept or reject it in any way you want but there is always going to be a counter opinion on this that is deep-rooted in facts that state that we, the people, the consumers, do not have the knowledge of the long-term effects of this vaccine as we normally do with other vaccines and meds.  It's not an evil thing. It is what it is. But it IS the truth and it is too big of an issue to gloss over and leave out when trying to reason that people should take it. 

 

[The Commish]

I am doing with it as I will. We will leave it here. I see your stake in this but I'm still going to defer to the likes of John Hopkins et. al mainly because your statement that there is not a lot of time tied up in studies and research is basically stating that the entire purpose these programs exist are historically inaccurate and I do not agree. 

If nothing else,  the statements dance around what should be the core issue here and that is that you are telling us you were inundated with a ton of info and you were sold. I respect that if that is how you got to where you are. I have no issues with that. I just ask that you honor the same with others because there are a lot of people out there that, upon hearing your reasoning, would be quick to say "that's nice but it doesn't address the main issue that this vaccine was never tested on humans as is done traditionally before it was emergency approved and has not been around long enough to do the tests that accompany all FDA approved vaccines and drugs."  

It is ok and your choice to accept or reject it in any way you want but there is always going to be a counter opinion on this that is deep-rooted in facts that state that we, the people, the consumers, do not have the knowledge of the long-term effects of this vaccine as we normally do with other vaccines and meds.  It's not an evil thing. It is what it is. But it IS the truth and it is too big of an issue to gloss over and leave out when trying to reason that people should take it. 

There wasn't a single step missed in the testing phase for either Pfizer or Moderna.  I can't speak to the others.  If that's your main issue, it's not an issue.  We don't have knowledge of the future of any of the vaccines we've ever taken.  As I said before, if that's your bar, that's fine.  It applies to every single vaccine you've ever taken.  The question you have to answer for yourself is why is this one different in your mind?  If the answer is, "this is the way we've always done it", that's fine.  Just stop pretending it's something significantly more than that.  Pfizer is now FDA approved, so I have no idea what you're talking about with "been around long enough to do tests that accompany all FDA approved vaccines and drugs".  Again, the larger the sample size, the more diverse the sample size, the quicker the testing/trial phase can happen.  I addressed this before, you ignored it (or at least didn't acknowledge it).  I really recommend the FFA thread if you have a genuine interest in learning about all the variables involved....there are MANY more than time.

 

[Shutout]

There wasn't a single step missed in the testing phase for either Pfizer or Moderna.  I can't speak to the others.  If that's your main issue, it's not an issue.  We don't have knowledge of the future of any of the vaccines we've ever taken.  As I said before, if that's your bar, that's fine.  It applies to every single vaccine you've ever taken.  The question you have to answer for yourself is why is this one different in your mind?  If the answer is, "this is the way we've always done it", that's fine.  Just stop pretending it's something significantly more than that.  Pfizer is now FDA approved, so I have no idea what you're talking about with "been around long enough to do tests that accompany all FDA approved vaccines and drugs".  Again, the larger the sample size, the more diverse the sample size, the quicker the testing/trial phase can happen.  I addressed this before, you ignored it (or at least didn't acknowledge it).  I really recommend the FFA thread if you have a genuine interest in learning about all the variables involved....there are MANY more than time.

What you have is the knowledge of a decade or more of historical data with ALL other vaccines you've taken (assuming you are less than about 65 years old). That is the difference.  None of us know what tomorrow brings. That is universal truth. But by being practical and reasonably cautious, you can have knowledge based on procedures that are set up for some very important reasons.  There is a very good reason why the FDA exists. Your blind dismissing of that extremely important aspect is the glaring thing here. 

Again, you can choose what you want.  But don't be so myopic as to totally act as if the issues aren't vitally important. You seem to be the one pretending. Pretending that because the FDA approved something after-the-fact...after millions of people had already taken it, it's all water under the bridge. It might not be. I hope it is irrelevant. I really do. I hope we do NOT find out in a few years that thousands or more people are now having complications due to this.  But to act as if everything is magically okay without a shadow of the doubt is irresponsible because again (as has always been the point) nobody on the planet has the information to know this as a certainty...yet some people speak as if it is a foregone conclusion.  

If a typical FDA-approved vaccine is a 50 page book, this one is a cover with a dedication page. Nobody knows what any of the chapters in this book contain yet and we won't until time passes. That is enough cause for consideration to warrant we respect that point of view.  

 

[AAABatteries]

Dude. I don’t know how many times this info has been posted. ICU’s are filled with covid patients the vast majority of these are unvaxed. 

Just one more time and he'll get it.  I'm sure of it.

 

[The Commish]

What you have is the knowledge of a decade or more of historical data with ALL other vaccines you've taken (assuming you are less than about 65 years old). That is the difference.  None of us know what tomorrow brings. That is universal truth. But by being practical and reasonably cautious, you can have knowledge based on procedures that are set up for some very important reasons.  There is a very good reason why the FDA exists. Your blind dismissing of that extremely important aspect is the glaring thing here. 

Again, you can choose what you want.  But don't be so myopic as to totally act as if the issues aren't vitally important. You seem to be the one pretending. Pretending that because the FDA approved something after-the-fact...after millions of people had already taken it, it's all water under the bridge. It might not be. I hope it is irrelevant. I really do. I hope we do NOT find out in a few years that thousands or more people are now having complications due to this.  But to act as if everything is magically okay without a shadow of the doubt is irresponsible because again (as has always been the point) nobody on the planet has the information to know this as a certainty...yet some people speak as if it is a foregone conclusion.  

If a typical FDA-approved vaccine is a 50 page book, this one is a cover with a dedication page. Nobody knows what any of the chapters in this book contain yet and we won't until time passes. That is enough cause for consideration to warrant we respect that point of view.  

I've found where our breakdown is.  You put significantly more weight behind the FDA than I do.  Our FDA is a joke and has been for my adult life (well, since I've been paying attention).  I don't hold that organization in high regard.  But you need to decide if you believe the FDA or not.  In one sentence you are saying they are an "extremely important aspect" of this whole thing and in the next you are downplaying their approval.  You also pump up history as a meaningful factor in one sentence but then downplay the history of the last 18 months in another.  So you have to reconcile which it is.  

I'll also say that history is virtually useless to us in terms of this conversation.  Right now, history is akin to that board you find at roulette tables that tracks all previous spins.  They put it out there to give you the perception that it's meaningful, but in reality what is on that board has exactly ZERO bearing on what the next roll is going to be (and according to you not knowing what's going to happen next is the problem).  All it tells you is what's happened so far.  None of this makes sense to me and is wildly inconsistent, but its not for me to understand.

 

[Shutout]

I've found where our breakdown is.  You put significantly more weight behind the FDA than I do.  Our FDA is a joke and has been for my adult life (well, since I've been paying attention).  I don't hold that organization in high regard.  But you need to decide if you believe the FDA or not.  In one sentence you are saying they are an "extremely important aspect" of this whole thing and in the next you are downplaying their approval.  You also pump up history as a meaningful factor in one sentence but then downplay the history of the last 18 months in another.  So you have to reconcile which it is.  

I'll also say that history is virtually useless to us in terms of this conversation.  Right now, history is akin to that board you find at roulette tables that tracks all previous spins.  They put it out there to give you the perception that it's meaningful, but in reality what is on that board has exactly ZERO bearing on what the next roll is going to be (and according to you not knowing what's going to happen next is the problem).  All it tells you is what's happened so far.  None of this makes sense to me and is wildly inconsistent, but its not for me to understand.

That's not what I am saying. I downplay their approval in this instance BECAUSE of the lack of historical data. If they were acting traditionally and approving this after several years of testing and study, as is the normal procedure, I would give this the same merit it receives with all other approvals. 

There is that saying that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it so I can't toss history out on this even if it is inconvenient for the discussion. 

I do think we differ on the FDA in this case, for sure. I'm not trying to make a point they are perfect; nobody or no organization is. But it is their work and their reason for existence and they have been doing it a long time. I am only illustrating the difference here vs. typical and saying I see why that gives some people reason for a more cautious approach. In the end, I hope there are no issues at all and if that is the case, I hope that some people don't use that as their reasoning to suggest vaccines and drugs should be approved much quicker without thorough studies (saying "well, Covid vaccine was fine, release all those cancer and dementia drugs you are testing for years). I think, just by default, there has to be great value to a lengthy, meticulous testing of drugs and vaccines before accepted by the general population. 

 

[The Commish]

If they were acting traditionally and approving this after several years of testing and study, as is the normal procedure, I would give this the same merit it receives with all other approvals. 

There is nothing meaningful in the testing timeline that is different between this vaccine and many other vaccines.  The testing windows were basically same.  The procedures to resolve issues were the same (more cautious than others I've seen and that cautiousness was a breeding ground for misinformation).  Again, the part that was cut out to reduce the number of years here was on the bureaucracy side...not the science side.  I can't state that enough.  Because when I read things like the below

I think, just by default, there has to be great value to a lengthy, meticulous testing of drugs and vaccines before accepted by the general population. 

it makes me think you think that shortcuts were taken in the science.  Again, they weren't.  So if people are focused on time it took to get to market, they need to understand what makes up that time both for this vaccine and others in the past.  They need to understand what was cut out to reduce time for these vaccines.  It wasn't the science.

ETA:  The thing that time is going to primarily give you now is length of efficacy for vaccinations.  And that length of time is the 1-2 year window not 5-10.  For that arbitrary time frame, I can't think of a single potential concern we'd have then that we don't have now.