• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Would you report this kind of violation of stay at home order?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 10, 2005
20,513
1,831
126
Just taking medicare means they are subject to regulations around medicare. Not in day to day business operations. The federal government has no legal authority to regulate that and never should. Scope of power for the federal government is narrowly defined by the Constitution for a reason.
Taking federal money subjects them to Medicare rules. The CMS certainly watches how their money is spent, particularly if bad nursing homes will result in greater costs elsewhere in the program, such as increased hospitalization due to infections.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
6,975
2,286
136
Incidentally, our own government has made it quite clear that the 'lockdown' is only for the oiks, not for the elites.



Boris just came out firmly in defense of him in the covid19 press briefing. And there's been a steady stream of Tory apologists on call-in radio all day, excusing and defending him. Screw the lot of them.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,103
9,970
136
South Korea had very little lock down restrictions. They did have the most testing and aggressive testing, but little in the way of lock downs. Since they were able to test more people, they were able to track cases easier and faster. That allow them to lock down the actual sick people or those around them and not the population at large. South Korea would be one of the examples in my statement about countries not doing lockdowns of their entire economy, populace, and infrastructure doing extremely well in comparison to many countries that did lock down everything.
I'll give you the SK but California had lockdowns silimar to New York and their mortality rate was half of Georgia.

Sad the once greate United States could not do better then South Korea in testing.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
The Great Depression's worst days had 15 million unemployed. Our population has risen 270% since 1930. That means 40 million today. We stood at 39 last week., based on this week's report. Great Depression? We are already there in terms of economic impact.
No we aren't already there in terms of economic impact yet. We are getting there, but not there already. There is a whole host of reasons, but mainly that is because of the differences in outcome. Everyone knows this is a virus who's time before a vaccine is found is limited. The backing and industry issues of the Great Depression were much longer lasting in nature and gave a greater sense of hopelessness. However, the longer the economic lockdown drags out, the perception of people will change. It will lead to more indirect deaths as people start giving up on their own or by the fact they cannot survive with what they have.

As for Sweden, the vast majority of their death toll is over 70 years of have with it being around 99%. They did a horrible job protecting the elderly of their country, but everything else is doing for the most part better than other places. Also, there is only so much of the elderly that can die off in any given country before there is no more elderly. Countries with larger elderly populations are going to see more deaths than those without if there is no actual good protections in place. The real issue is how long is this going to last? If Sweden has the majority of their population inoculated to the virus that there is a herd immunity large enough that it won't easily spread to the elderly or high risk population, it is going to do far better in the long term than haphazard approaches other places are doing. That is the reason we have vaccines in the first place and why there is such a thing as the term herd immunity. Sweden isn't going through the same economic crisis that we are here not likely to. They'll also be more likely to recover as a nation faster in the long run to any damage caused overall by this pandemic.

Once a vaccine is in place, the question then becomes of what happens afterwards. A vaccine isn't a cure all. It won't resolve all the outstanding issues caused indirectly.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
Taking federal money subjects them to Medicare rules. The CMS certainly watches how their money is spent, particularly if bad nursing homes will result in greater costs elsewhere in the program, such as increased hospitalization due to infections.
And Medicare can only apply rules that apply to Medicare. They can't apply arbitrary rules. Also, nothing forces nursing homes to take Medicare money. Many don't just like not all hospitals or doctors do. I don't think you realize how little leverage the federal government truly has here and that it should remain that way.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,513
1,831
126
And Medicare can only apply rules that apply to Medicare. They can't apply arbitrary rules. Also, nothing forces nursing homes to take Medicare money. Many don't just like not all hospitals or doctors do. I don't think you realize how little leverage the federal government truly has here and that it should remain that way.
If a facility accepts Medicare or Medicaid, it's going to be subject to CMS oversight to some degree. Many of these facilities do accept these forms of payment, so would be subject to the oversight. There are also homes that VA covers, so again would fall under federal oversight.

You build these farcical narratives and then stand and fight on the hill of stupidity. I don't get it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
Yes - Sweden has been moving rapidly up the table in deaths-per-capita. It won't be long before it overtakes France.

Sweden hasn't been doing well at all at keeping its elderly and sick alive, and I think it's not coincidental that despite being a supposed 'leftist' social-democracy, it's a country that spent most of the last century in love with the concept of eugenics.

The three countries that have been performing noticeably badly on that metric are the US, the UK, and Sweden (UK just overtook Italy). I suspect they ('we') will end up as the top three on the international table of deaths per capita.

I don't know what the Swedes were thinking, though I suspect it might be down to some quirky ideas of their chief epidemiologist.

Edit - oh, also so much for their hope that Stockholm would be approaching 'herd immunity' by now. Testing shows currently only 7% of the city's population have antibodies.
If you look at Sweden as compared to its immediate Nordic neighbors who would form the best control group their results have been nothing short of catastrophic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and pmv

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
South Korea had very little lock down restrictions. They did have the most testing and aggressive testing, but little in the way of lock downs. Since they were able to test more people, they were able to track cases easier and faster. That allows them to lock down the actual sick people or those around them and not the population at large. South Korea would be one of the examples in my statement about countries not doing lockdowns of their entire economy, populace, and infrastructure doing extremely well in comparison to many countries that did lock down everything.
This misses the point. Countries did lockdowns when their number of infections overwhelmed their ability to test and trace people. They were never the initial plan, they were plan B after plan A failed. South Korea just successfully implemented plan A so of course they are doing better than those that locked down. If they weren’t doing better they would have locked down too.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,734
4,684
136
True story from yesterday.

I live in a Pennsylvania county that is still under a stay at home order. Yesterday while riding by bike (allowed) through a neighborhood passed a house setting up for a backyard party. There was a keg, lawn chairs and people arriving. I guess somewhere around 20 people.

Question: Should I have called the police a reported them?
Um, honestly, yes. Not sure I would but the right answer is 'yes'
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
If a facility accepts Medicare or Medicaid, it's going to be subject to CMS oversight to some degree. Many of these facilities do accept these forms of payment, so would be subject to the oversight. There are also homes that VA covers, so again would fall under federal oversight.

You build these farcical narratives and then stand and fight on the hill of stupidity. I don't get it.
No. You don't understand the scope of what the federal government can and cannot due to regulate private businesses like nursing homes based on current laws. If a nursing home takes Medicare, that payment can be conditional on certain terms, but not to the scope you think it is. The federal government certainly couldn't force the nursing homes to do anything and if they tried with using Medicare payments as leverage then the nursing homes can tell the federal government they can fuck off because they won't be taking Medicare anymore. You really fail to understand that point. There certainly can be conditions and strings attached to Medicare, and the government can certainly provide money to incentivize certain day to day operational actions that they would like to see done, but they certainly couldn't force anything without new laws being written. Most of the laws and regulations governing local businesses are from local governments, and not federal. Again, there is a specific reason for state sovereignty in our political system. I am sorry you fail to understand why we as a nation in our past have chosen to limit the powers of the federal government as a whole through various means.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
This misses the point. Countries did lockdowns when their number of infections overwhelmed their ability to test and trace people. They were never the initial plan, they were plan B after plan A failed. South Korea just successfully implemented plan A so of course they are doing better than those that locked down. If they weren’t doing better they would have locked down too.
No it doesn't miss the point. It points out that haphazard lock downs are not the way to best make it through this virus problem until a vaccine or cure (cure being highly unlikely) is found.
 
Nov 8, 2012
17,674
3,440
126
suicide verses deaths caused byu somebody getting the virus.......not the same.....so sorry!!
Oh so human lives are worth more or less depending on how they die?

Good to know you don't hold value in those with any mental issues over random covid patients that are likely more vulnerable (through obesity or other issues that are controllable)
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,277
2,973
126
Oh so human lives are worth more or less depending on how they die?

Good to know you don't hold value in those with any mental issues over random covid patients that are likely more vulnerable (through obesity or other issues that are controllable)
First of all you are attemping to put words in my mouth as opposed to what is in your mouth.....
Mental health issues are a terribly complex thing!
Yet, how many people do you believe have committed suicide because they are not able to cope with the stay at home order?? I would guess NONE !
Mental illness can be treated and those people need special treatment!
Yet -- There are alot of "normal" people who are staying at home and functioning. Everybody has moments of doubt and fear and sorrow and Joy, but for the most part they don`t act on them in a negative way!
The mental aspect is no reason to suspend stay at home orders!
I find the mental illness issue to be a cop out for people who want to go out and possibly get this virus!
You are going over the deep end!
In fact the above is just your usual BS~!
Nobody is arguing the value of a life!
But somebody electing to consciously commit suicide as opposed to somebody who died of the virus, who did not want to die......are nowhere in the same catagory other than they both are dead!
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
7,179
2,377
136
Plenty. Suicide rates have spiked.

Data?
Your article is missing actual data.

For example, from March 2019

An article that provides "information" based on data

1998


I realize that Trump supports are REALLY concerned about suicide rates and the #MeToo movement and those topics have always been at the forefront of their feels....
but

“We’re two years away from having data,”
...
Take the Great Recession of 2008, she points out. “About 4.8 million people lost their jobs, and the suicide rate didn’t skyrocket,” she says. “We’re much more resilient than we give people credit for.”
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
7,179
2,377
136
Which is, of course, also an argument for banning guns. I presume you take the same position on both issues?

Just in case you needed a study...

This cross-sectional study found that suicide rates in the United States increased from 1999 to 2016, with the greatest increase in rural counties. Deprivation had a disproportionately negative association with suicide rates in rural counties, the presence of gun shops and a higher percentage of uninsured individuals were associated with higher suicide rates, and high social capital was associated with lower suicide rates.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2749451
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,277
2,973
126
see these idiots post links with no data whatsoever and try to make a baseless argument to attempt to back up their meaningless diatribe......
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Which is, of course, also an argument for banning guns. I presume you take the same position on both issues?
No, I don't. People have the right to own guns.

How is that relevant? Someone asked how many people have died as a result of the lockdown, and I provided evidence that suicides have spiked.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
No, I don't. People have the right to own guns.

How is that relevant? Someone asked how many people have died as a result of the lockdown, and I provided evidence that suicides have spiked.
So in other words suicide is a good reason to stop trying to control a pandemic disease but not a good reason to limit gun ownership?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
So in other words suicide is a good reason to stop trying to control a pandemic disease but not a good reason to limit gun ownership?
There are trade-offs to gun ownership.

There are trade-offs to this lockdown.

That is the only point I was making.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
So in other words suicide is a good reason to stop trying to control a pandemic disease but not a good reason to limit gun ownership?
There mere act of owning a gun doesn't cause suicide rates to go up or go down if said ownership is removed. False equivalency logic fallacy. The lock down is causing spikes in suicide rates across the globe and will continue to do so as economic burdens increase. The statements you make are no where near comparable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY