Quote:Good morning. We have a special edition of the newsletter on a misleading C.D.C. statistic.
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines last month for mask wearing, it announced that “less than 10 percent” of Covid-19 transmission was occurring outdoors. Media organizations repeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission.
But the number is almost certainly misleading.
It appears to be based partly on a misclassification of some Covid transmission that actually took place in enclosed spaces. An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.
That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said.In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.
Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.
These recommendations would be more grounded in science if anywhere close to 10 percent of Covid transmission were occurring outdoors. But it is not.There is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table.
But, hey, it's okay, because everyone makes mistakes and it's not like the CDC is some Expert or professional organization or anything, right? they're just Amateurs who have no real idea how to correctly communicate information. Good thing they don't have responsibility for anything important, right? What a left-Wing Clownshow!
gee, even Democrat-friendly allegedly-R Sen. Susan Collins has changed her mind:
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) tells CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky: “I always considered the CDC to be the gold standard. I don’t anymore.”pic.twitter.com/pWim7VX9V3
Quote:That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said.In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.
I have been saying this in one way or another for nearly the entire pandemic: "Public health guidance" is shameful (yet shameless) pseudoscience. Rather than just give it to the public straight, and trust people to take the facts and make their own risk assessments and behavior adjustments -- which per the wisdom-of-crowds truism will always collectively be superior to the judgment of a self-anointed priesthood of "experts" -- they arbitrarily multiplied their "guidance" and "standards" to unreasonable levels, based on arrogant assumptions about how much "noncompliance" they expected from a public they view as beneath them.
The thinking clearly has been, "If '3 feet apart' is reasonable, we have to tell them '6 feet apart' so they will end up 3 feet apart. Even if there is effectively zero outdoor risk, screaming 'Shelter in place!' is justified because it's 'more understandable.' Even once we learn it's not spread in any significant way by surface contact, we should keep gravely urging extraordinary sanitizing and deep cleaning, because the great unwashed could stand to be cleaner anyway." And so on.
Going insanely overboard on the general idea of "better safe than sorry" is not "following science." It is a (ludicrous) judgment that I do not begrudge anyone the right to make for themselves (like my neighbor who mows his yard in a mask), but these pseudoexperts never had any business foisting it on all of society. And in doing so, they opened Pandora's box. The initial hysterics of "shelter in place" et al. begat countless downstream needless overreactions. People were always going to constrict their activity anyway -- resulting in the necessary saving of lives -- but local officials went further and summarily declared entire segments of the economy "nonessential," exacerbating the economic consequences . . . and then leading to even further insanity in government spending.
And millions of heretofore closeted Napoleons and neurotics felt suddenly justified, everywhere from social media to school board meetings to this here message board, to ostentatiously parrot "follow the science!" while advocating policies miles from the nearest science. In many places in this country -- with a direct correlation to the political makeup of the area -- kids were kept out of school for months and months longer than was justifiable, learning loss and mental health consequences be damned. Even now, in my deep-blue, highly educated, fully vaccinated Chicago suburb, my kid is only allowed in-person learning at 25% of normal, and 6-year-olds still must play outdoor soccer with masks on. This isn't science, it is virtue signaling, risk-assessment illiteracy, and literal mental illness. People who believe the earth is flat are mentally ill, and people who believe outdoor activity is only "safe" with a mask on are also mentally ill, but the first group is ridiculed while the second group literally sets public policy now -- and why not? Their neuroticism has been government endorsed from the start.
The damage done by the CDC and the public health bureaucracy has been incalculable and if there were any justice some people would go to jail over it.
(05-11-2021 09:47 PM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ]The damage done by the CDC and the public health bureaucracy has been incalculable and if there were any justice some people would go to jail over it.
I've got a slightly different, but basically agreeing, take. The problem is that public health bureaucrats and emergency responders have two different thought processes that are almost diametrically opposed, and this was an emergency response situation.
Public health bureaucrats live and work in a relatively antiseptic environment and are good at gathering data, compiling statistics, and preparing charts and graphs. Emergency responders live and work in an environment where nothing is where it is supposed to be, nothing works the way it is supposed to work, and people are dying all around them. Public health bureaucrats do everything by the book. The first rule of emergency response is to throw the book away.
It's not that they were bad people, but that they were the wrong people. Unfortunately, we as a country don't have a reservoir of the right people to draw upon. It's why our response to emergencies is fairly consistency poor.
I think one good example is Dr. Chu in Washington. She identified the initial US outbreak in Seattle-area nursing homes. For her work CDC sent her a "cease and desist" order.
We need both public health administrators and emergency responders, but don't send one to do the job of the other.
(05-11-2021 09:47 PM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ]The damage done by the CDC and the public health bureaucracy has been incalculable and if there were any justice some people would go to jail over it.
I've got a slightly different, but basically agreeing, take. The problem is that public health bureaucrats and emergency responders have two different thought processes that are almost diametrically opposed, and this was an emergency response situation.
Public health bureaucrats live and work in a relatively antiseptic environment and are good at gathering data, compiling statistics, and preparing charts and graphs. Emergency responders live and work in an environment where nothing is where it is supposed to be, nothing works the way it is supposed to work, and people are dying all around them. Public health bureaucrats do everything by the book. The first rule of emergency response is to throw the book away.
It's not that they were bad people, but that they were the wrong people. Unfortunately, we as a country don't have a reservoir of the right people to draw upon. It's why our response to emergencies is fairly consistency poor.
I think one good example is Dr. Chu in Washington. She identified the initial US outbreak in Seattle-area nursing homes. For her work CDC sent her a "cease and desist" order.
We need both public health administrators and emergency responders, but don't send one to do the job of the other.
Minor correction - the CDC basically punted the issue to the FDA and the FDA is the one that said they could not repurpose her flu testing to evaluate the coronavirus outbreak.
The point still stands about having flexibility built in for quick pivots/authorizations when time is of the essence.
Quote:But there was a hitch: The flu project primarily used research laboratories, not clinical ones, and its coronavirus test was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. And so the group was not certified to provide test results to anyone outside of their own investigators. They began discussions with state, C.D.C. and F.D.A. officials to figure out a solution, according to emails and interviews.
Dr. Scott F. Dowell, a former high-ranking C.D.C. official and a current deputy director at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which funds the Seattle Flu Study, asked for help from the leaders of the C.D.C.’s coronavirus response. “Hoping there is a solution,” he wrote on Feb. 10.
Later, Dr. Lindquist, the state epidemiologist in Washington, wrote an email to Dr. Alicia Fry, the chief of the C.D.C.’s epidemiology and prevention branch, requesting the study be used to test for the coronavirus.
C.D.C. officials repeatedly said it would not be possible. “If you want to use your test as a screening tool, you would have to check with F.D.A.,” Gayle Langley, an officer at the C.D.C.’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, wrote back in an email on Feb. 16. But the F.D.A. could not offer the approval because the lab was not certified as a clinical laboratory under regulations established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a process that could take months.
Perhaps the strangest aspect of it all is the way the CDC's initially misguided "safety" overkill was seized on by many as a political mantra and in-group signal -- one that provoked an entirely predictable backlash (which was also unhelpful), and one that far too many people still cling to for political/signaling reasons.
(05-12-2021 07:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The point still stands about having flexibility built in for quick pivots/authorizations when time is of the essence.
Bureaucrats do everything by the book. The first rule of emergency response is to throw the book away. Dr.Chu threw the book away and got her wrists slapped by the Blob.
(Blob is a term that seems to be popular with the in-the-know crowd for what others have called the deep state. One site I frequent is WarOnTheRocks, run out of TexasU-Austin that has a lot of defense insiders posting, and that is the term they use. The first time I saw it, I was like, "What is the Blob? Oh, yeah, OK, i know." When I use the term in the future, and I will, you will know what I mean.)
(05-12-2021 08:24 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps the strangest aspect of it all is the way the CDC's initially misguided "safety" overkill was seized on by many as a political mantra and in-group signal -- one that provoked an entirely predictable backlash (which was also unhelpful), and one that far too many people still cling to for political/signaling reasons.
Virtue signaling galore!
Frank Luntz is working with the de Beaumont Foundation to try and identify how to best communicate and build support for public health measures (primarily related to vaccinations). Within the last week I heard a bit of an interview on CNN and a friend told me about an episode of This American Life that focuses on this effort.
I still maintain that the overarching problem is that we needed an emergency response and we got a bureaucrat response--because that's whom we had to respond. It's a systemic problem, independent of person or party, and it will persist until we fix it.
It's the same problem as Katrina or Maria or the BP blowout or Colonial Pipeline. Being ready for things costs money, and we don't want to spend money until it is too late.
(05-12-2021 08:24 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps the strangest aspect of it all is the way the CDC's initially misguided "safety" overkill was seized on by many as a political mantra and in-group signal -- one that provoked an entirely predictable backlash (which was also unhelpful), and one that far too many people still cling to for political/signaling reasons.
Virtue signaling galore!
Frank Luntz is working with the de Beaumont Foundation to try and identify how to best communicate and build support for public health measures (primarily related to vaccinations). Within the last week I heard a bit of an interview on CNN and a friend told me about an episode of This American Life that focuses on this effort.
Funny - when I have quoted Frank Luntz from an appearance on Fox you ignored it because of the source.
It is good to see he is spreading his appearances around. I do not believe he is tailoring his output to the audience, so presumably he is saying the same things on CNN as he has been saying on Fox for several years.
(05-12-2021 08:24 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps the strangest aspect of it all is the way the CDC's initially misguided "safety" overkill was seized on by many as a political mantra and in-group signal -- one that provoked an entirely predictable backlash (which was also unhelpful), and one that far too many people still cling to for political/signaling reasons.
Virtue signaling galore!
Frank Luntz is working with the de Beaumont Foundation to try and identify how to best communicate and build support for public health measures (primarily related to vaccinations). Within the last week I heard a bit of an interview on CNN and a friend told me about an episode of This American Life that focuses on this effort.
Funny - when I have quoted Frank Luntz from an appearance on Fox you ignored it because of the source.
Please provide a source for that, that it was ignored because of the source.
Quote:It is good to see he is spreading his appearances around. I do not believe he is tailoring his output to the audience, so presumably he is saying the same things on CNN as he has been saying on Fox for several years.
(05-12-2021 08:24 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps the strangest aspect of it all is the way the CDC's initially misguided "safety" overkill was seized on by many as a political mantra and in-group signal -- one that provoked an entirely predictable backlash (which was also unhelpful), and one that far too many people still cling to for political/signaling reasons.
Virtue signaling galore!
Frank Luntz is working with the de Beaumont Foundation to try and identify how to best communicate and build support for public health measures (primarily related to vaccinations). Within the last week I heard a bit of an interview on CNN and a friend told me about an episode of This American Life that focuses on this effort.
Funny - when I have quoted Frank Luntz from an appearance on Fox you ignored it because of the source.
Please provide a source for that, that it was ignored because of the source.
Quote:It is good to see he is spreading his appearances around. I do not believe he is tailoring his output to the audience, so presumably he is saying the same things on CNN as he has been saying on Fox for several years.
OK.
I like Frank, and find his polling interesting. i remember him on Fox from looooong before the 2020 election. I too saw him recently on CNN, first time, and noted that he has spread his influence. Nod of approval.
You often skip or debase reporting on Fox, as biased, do you not? Interesting to hear you quote the same sources when they appear on CNN.
I'm not so good on research, you know, old guy and all, so feel free to take the same advice you often give me - look it up yourself.
I am familiar enough with Frank that I have watched him go back and forth from clean shaven to a beard and back. One vote here for the beard. I would love to be on one of his panels, as the panelists don't just tick boxes yes or no responding t leading questions, as in most polls, they explain their thoughts on the topic.
Whether he is reporting on CNN, FOX, or any other network, he has interesting stuff.
(05-12-2021 08:24 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps the strangest aspect of it all is the way the CDC's initially misguided "safety" overkill was seized on by many as a political mantra and in-group signal -- one that provoked an entirely predictable backlash (which was also unhelpful), and one that far too many people still cling to for political/signaling reasons.
Virtue signaling galore!
Frank Luntz is working with the de Beaumont Foundation to try and identify how to best communicate and build support for public health measures (primarily related to vaccinations). Within the last week I heard a bit of an interview on CNN and a friend told me about an episode of This American Life that focuses on this effort.
Funny - when I have quoted Frank Luntz from an appearance on Fox you ignored it because of the source.
Please provide a source for that, that it was ignored because of the source.
Quote:It is good to see he is spreading his appearances around. I do not believe he is tailoring his output to the audience, so presumably he is saying the same things on CNN as he has been saying on Fox for several years.
OK.
I like Frank, and find his polling interesting. i remember him on Fox from looooong before the 2020 election. I too saw him recently on CNN, first time, and noted that he has spread his influence. Nod of approval.
You often skip or debase reporting on Fox, as biased, do you not? Interesting to hear you quote the same sources when they appear on CNN.
I'm not so good on research, you know, old guy and all, so feel free to take the same advice you often give me - look it up yourself.
I am familiar enough with Frank that I have watched him go back and forth from clean shaven to a beard and back. One vote here for the beard. I would love to be on one of his panels, as the panelists don't just tick boxes yes or no responding t leading questions, as in most polls, they explain their thoughts on the topic.
Whether he is reporting on CNN, FOX, or any other network, he has interesting stuff.
My current job is (said simply) to convince people who don't want to, or don't know to, or how to take care of themselves/manage their health... to do so.....
and I'm DAMN good at it...
and the CDC did EVERYTHING wrong as a primary source for personal behavior. That isn't what they do... DOCTORS are given leeway from their advice, and yet when they do it NOW, the press calls them out?? Pitiful.
The press has been complicit in this (as a problem) in that they are the ones who ask the questions and decide whom they will ask, whom they will interview. FROM THE START, they focused on inconsistencies in the comments between Trump and Fauci... while ignoring the differences in their job descriptions. Even when Fauci SAID that he and Trump didn't really disagree, but they had different job descriptions and purposes, the press chose to ignore that and IMO, THEY drove a wedge between Trump and Fauci... and yes, Trump failed to correct that. But the press isn't supposed to be an adversarial organization. They acted like they worked for the enquirer... like the photographer who pushed Bernie Madoff in order to get a reaction from him so they could have a picture of him 'pushing back' or with an 'ugly' look on his face for their cover. They MADE news... they didn't REPORT it. The left of course ate it up because they hated Trump... some of the right did too because Trump 'fighting the swamp' is what they wanted to see....
This isn't what 'the free press' is supposed to be. Even if it's currently working for 'your party', you still know its not right. Even within the various factions of the left, there are 'truths' that the media is favoring, and not. Social media is part of this, but they aren't usually the source. They just repeat it... but SOME of the sources of the BS are 'mainstream' media.
We act as if healthcare delivery is factory work. Its not. If it were, you wouldn't need years of medical school. The biggest thing doctors learn in medical school is that ALTHOUGH THERE IS A 'BEST PRACTICE' FOR EVERYTHING, you MUST treat the patient and their specific situation and not simply follow a rubric. People are not a 2007 Honda.
(05-11-2021 09:47 PM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ]I have been saying this in one way or another for nearly the entire pandemic: "Public health guidance" is shameful (yet shameless) pseudoscience. Rather than just give it to the public straight, and trust people to take the facts and make their own risk assessments and behavior adjustments -- which per the wisdom-of-crowds truism will always collectively be superior to the judgment of a self-anointed priesthood of "experts" -- they arbitrarily multiplied their "guidance" and "standards" to unreasonable levels, based on arrogant assumptions about how much "noncompliance" they expected from a public they view as beneath them.
The thinking clearly has been, "If '3 feet apart' is reasonable, we have to tell them '6 feet apart' so they will end up 3 feet apart. Even if there is effectively zero outdoor risk, screaming 'Shelter in place!' is justified because it's 'more understandable.' Even once we learn it's not spread in any significant way by surface contact, we should keep gravely urging extraordinary sanitizing and deep cleaning, because the great unwashed could stand to be cleaner anyway." And so on.
Going insanely overboard on the general idea of "better safe than sorry" is not "following science." It is a (ludicrous) judgment that I do not begrudge anyone the right to make for themselves (like my neighbor who mows his yard in a mask), but these pseudoexperts never had any business foisting it on all of society. And in doing so, they opened Pandora's box. The initial hysterics of "shelter in place" et al. begat countless downstream needless overreactions. People were always going to constrict their activity anyway -- resulting in the necessary saving of lives -- but local officials went further and summarily declared entire segments of the economy "nonessential," exacerbating the economic consequences . . . and then leading to even further insanity in government spending.
And millions of heretofore closeted Napoleons and neurotics felt suddenly justified, everywhere from social media to school board meetings to this here message board, to ostentatiously parrot "follow the science!" while advocating policies miles from the nearest science. In many places in this country -- with a direct correlation to the political makeup of the area -- kids were kept out of school for months and months longer than was justifiable, learning loss and mental health consequences be damned. Even now, in my deep-blue, highly educated, fully vaccinated Chicago suburb, my kid is only allowed in-person learning at 25% of normal, and 6-year-olds still must play outdoor soccer with masks on. This isn't science, it is virtue signaling, risk-assessment illiteracy, and literal mental illness. People who believe the earth is flat are mentally ill, and people who believe outdoor activity is only "safe" with a mask on are also mentally ill, but the first group is ridiculed while the second group literally sets public policy now -- and why not? Their neuroticism has been government endorsed from the start.
The damage done by the CDC and the public health bureaucracy has been incalculable and if there were any justice some people would go to jail over it.
My goodness! How anti-Rice. I have to give you +3 for that excellently articulated response sir. There is some hope in Chicagoland after all!
(05-12-2021 10:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]My current job is (said simply) to convince people who don't want to, or don't know to, or how to take care of themselves/manage their health... to do so.....
and I'm DAMN good at it...
and the CDC did EVERYTHING wrong as a primary source for personal behavior. That isn't what they do... DOCTORS are given leeway from their advice, and yet when they do it NOW, the press calls them out?? Pitiful.
The press has been complicit in this (as a problem) in that they are the ones who ask the questions and decide whom they will ask, whom they will interview. FROM THE START, they focused on inconsistencies in the comments between Trump and Fauci... while ignoring the differences in their job descriptions. Even when Fauci SAID that he and Trump didn't really disagree, but they had different job descriptions and purposes, the press chose to ignore that and IMO, THEY drove a wedge between Trump and Fauci... and yes, Trump failed to correct that. But the press isn't supposed to be an adversarial organization. They acted like they worked for the enquirer... like the photographer who pushed Bernie Madoff in order to get a reaction from him so they could have a picture of him 'pushing back' or with an 'ugly' look on his face for their cover. They MADE news... they didn't REPORT it. The left of course ate it up because they hated Trump... some of the right did too because Trump 'fighting the swamp' is what they wanted to see....
This isn't what 'the free press' is supposed to be. Even if it's currently working for 'your party', you still know its not right. Even within the various factions of the left, there are 'truths' that the media is favoring, and not. Social media is part of this, but they aren't usually the source. They just repeat it... but SOME of the sources of the BS are 'mainstream' media.
We act as if healthcare delivery is factory work. Its not. If it were, you wouldn't need years of medical school. The biggest thing doctors learn in medical school is that ALTHOUGH THERE IS A 'BEST PRACTICE' FOR EVERYTHING, you MUST treat the patient and their specific situation and not simply follow a rubric. People are not a 2007 Honda.
It seems more that too many have been conditioned to completely outsource any smidgeon of personal responsibility for their own healthcare and well-being. You say above yourself that you view your job to convince the patient of what is prudent from your perspective where the patient often is not given to prudence themselves and convince them to actually take action. If the patient does not want to take action, let them suffer the consequences. Too, if the patient chooses otherwise from your advise, in an allegedly free society, allow them the freedom and respect to make that decision and act on their own accord.
It is not your job as a doctor, nor the job of the unelected administrators and bureaucrats of government agencies like the CDC to demand compliance of average Americans in such personal and often minute matters as they have been given carte blanche in. The elected officials who sub-serve and outsource their decisions to these folks are acting in conflict with why they are elected representatives in the first place: they need to also weigh and give substantial weight to other areas and concerns rather than purely the areas under the direct purview of these government agencies and bureaucrats and balance them.
Sometimes there are good reasons for regular people to ignore or modify doctors advice, or environmental, or cancel culture zealots, or totalitarian leftist leaders, etc... We are seeing the extreme totalitarian attitudes and decisions of the Leftist and marxist who are lording their power over our country fall apart before our eyes. In less than 5 months, we have seen our once strong and resilient country under repeated attack, mostly from within its own alleged "leadership" and it is showing that their perspectives and decisions do not work and are in fact unsustainable. Our enemies laugh and salivate over their next moves.
(05-12-2021 10:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]My current job is (said simply) to convince people who don't want to, or don't know to, or how to take care of themselves/manage their health... to do so.....
and I'm DAMN good at it...
and the CDC did EVERYTHING wrong as a primary source for personal behavior. That isn't what they do... DOCTORS are given leeway from their advice, and yet when they do it NOW, the press calls them out?? Pitiful.
The press has been complicit in this (as a problem) in that they are the ones who ask the questions and decide whom they will ask, whom they will interview. FROM THE START, they focused on inconsistencies in the comments between Trump and Fauci... while ignoring the differences in their job descriptions. Even when Fauci SAID that he and Trump didn't really disagree, but they had different job descriptions and purposes, the press chose to ignore that and IMO, THEY drove a wedge between Trump and Fauci... and yes, Trump failed to correct that. But the press isn't supposed to be an adversarial organization. They acted like they worked for the enquirer... like the photographer who pushed Bernie Madoff in order to get a reaction from him so they could have a picture of him 'pushing back' or with an 'ugly' look on his face for their cover. They MADE news... they didn't REPORT it. The left of course ate it up because they hated Trump... some of the right did too because Trump 'fighting the swamp' is what they wanted to see....
This isn't what 'the free press' is supposed to be. Even if it's currently working for 'your party', you still know its not right. Even within the various factions of the left, there are 'truths' that the media is favoring, and not. Social media is part of this, but they aren't usually the source. They just repeat it... but SOME of the sources of the BS are 'mainstream' media.
We act as if healthcare delivery is factory work. Its not. If it were, you wouldn't need years of medical school. The biggest thing doctors learn in medical school is that ALTHOUGH THERE IS A 'BEST PRACTICE' FOR EVERYTHING, you MUST treat the patient and their specific situation and not simply follow a rubric. People are not a 2007 Honda.
It seems more that too many have been conditioned to completely outsource any smidgeon of personal responsibility for their own healthcare and well-being. You say above yourself that you view your job to convince the patient of what is prudent from your perspective where the patient often is not given to prudence themselves and convince them to actually take action. If the patient does not want to take action, let them suffer the consequences. Too, if the patient chooses otherwise from your advise, in an allegedly free society, allow them the freedom and respect to make that decision and act on their own accord.
It is not your job as a doctor, nor the job of the unelected administrators and bureaucrats of government agencies like the CDC to demand compliance of average Americans in such personal and often minute matters as they have been given carte blanche in. The elected officials who sub-serve and outsource their decisions to these folks are acting in conflict with why they are elected representatives in the first place: they need to also weigh and give substantial weight to other areas and concerns rather than purely the areas under the direct purview of these government agencies and bureaucrats and balance them.
Sometimes there are good reasons for regular people to ignore or modify doctors advice, or environmental, or cancel culture zealots, or totalitarian leftist leaders, etc... We are seeing the extreme totalitarian attitudes and decisions of the Leftist and marxist who are lording their power over our country fall apart before our eyes. In less than 5 months, we have seen our once strong and resilient country under repeated attack, mostly from within its own alleged "leadership" and it is showing that their perspectives and decisions do not work and are in fact unsustainable. Our enemies laugh and salivate over their next moves.
Except quite often at least SOME of the consequences of those decisions don't simply land on the person making the decisions.
The cost of your health insurance is determined by the 'collective' choices being made... The availability of services for you depend on the 'collective' choices being made. Healthcare is an incredibly highly regulated industry and as a result, personal responsibility has been replaced by regulation. DOCTORS and INSURERS get penalized for patient decisions that don't follow regulations... like getting your health screenings... so we spend HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS on convincing you to get screenings... and not on actually delivering those screenings, increasing access or lowering the costs
I have long advocated for higher copays for illness/injuries of 'choice'... which would be consistent with what you describe. This would reduce the cost for those who make 'good' choices. If someone doesn't want a COVID vaccine, then don't take one... and pay a little more if you get COVID. Put YOUR money where your choices are. If the government 'incentivizes' you to get a vaccine and you have a reaction, THEY pay for the treatment... and now you can let the CDC recommend things in a vacuum, but then allow CMS to put the appropriate weight (and money) behind it. Makes perfect sense.... hence no politician will support it.
(05-12-2021 11:41 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It seems more that too many have been conditioned to completely outsource any smidgeon of personal responsibility for their own healthcare and well-being. You say above yourself that you view your job to convince the patient of what is prudent from your perspective where the patient often is not given to prudence themselves and convince them to actually take action. If the patient does not want to take action, let them suffer the consequences. Too, if the patient chooses otherwise from your advise, in an allegedly free society, allow them the freedom and respect to make that decision and act on their own accord.
It is not your job as a doctor, nor the job of the unelected administrators and bureaucrats of government agencies like the CDC to demand compliance of average Americans in such personal and often minute matters as they have been given carte blanche in. The elected officials who sub-serve and outsource their decisions to these folks are acting in conflict with why they are elected representatives in the first place: they need to also weigh and give substantial weight to other areas and concerns rather than purely the areas under the direct purview of these government agencies and bureaucrats and balance them.
Sometimes there are good reasons for regular people to ignore or modify doctors advice, or environmental, or cancel culture zealots, or totalitarian leftist leaders, etc... We are seeing the extreme totalitarian attitudes and decisions of the Leftist and marxist who are lording their power over our country fall apart before our eyes. In less than 5 months, we have seen our once strong and resilient country under repeated attack, mostly from within its own alleged "leadership" and it is showing that their perspectives and decisions do not work and are in fact unsustainable. Our enemies laugh and salivate over their next moves.
Except quite often at least SOME of the consequences of those decisions don't simply land on the person making the decisions.
The cost of your health insurance is determined by the 'collective' choices being made... The availability of services for you depend on the 'collective' choices being made. Healthcare is an incredibly highly regulated industry and as a result, personal responsibility has been replaced by regulation. DOCTORS and INSURERS get penalized for patient decisions that don't follow regulations... like getting your health screenings... so we spend HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS on convincing you to get screenings... and not on actually delivering those screenings, increasing access or lowering the costs
I have long advocated for higher copays for illness/injuries of 'choice'... which would be consistent with what you describe. This would reduce the cost for those who make 'good' choices. If someone doesn't want a COVID vaccine, then don't take one... and pay a little more if you get COVID. Put YOUR money where your choices are. If the government 'incentivizes' you to get a vaccine and you have a reaction, THEY pay for the treatment... and now you can let the CDC recommend things in a vacuum, but then allow CMS to put the appropriate weight (and money) behind it. Makes perfect sense.... hence no politician will support it.
It seems to many that our government has overstepped its bounds on the extent of regulation in the healthcare and medical business. This skews the decision-making and outcomes the more they interfere, and usually to the negative. Since the 1960s when Ronald Reagan warned about MediCARE being a bad idea and an unreasonable government over-intrusion into this area, our medical system and establishment has been basically government-controlled. With Medicare making the payment decisions and setting prices and allowable procedures, it appears clear the over-micromanagement of government interference in both a free market and a free-will decision of allegedly sovereign people was abridged to an unreasonable extent, and we have been both seeing and paying the cost of that poor decision to allow this over-intrusion for decades.
But to backup a bit, when you say the words "health insurance" what do you mean? Most Americans actually mean many things that have little actual bearing on pure health "insurance", they actually mean a govt-controlled bureaucracy that loads additional costs, 'services' that often are superfluous to one's needs, and regulation that at best discourages free decision-making and responsibility and at worst 9and most often) forbids those very things from even happening. How un-American can you get?
I think it would sevre our country and its Legal Citizens far better if first and foremost, we returned health insurance to meaning just that and not the bundled services bloat that has been force-fed down our throats since the 1960s so much that the average person, and even above average ones, have no idea what it even really means, or that it most certainly does NOT mean anything close to the "system" we have, which still doesn't come close to working. Obamacare was just the latest in bad government over-intrusion that made things worse and far more expensive than they need to be. result: poor people suffer, middleclass (what's left of them) suffer more, and rich people suffer, but can afford to pay for work-arounds to fool themselves the 'system" works if they wish to. Bad all around.
(05-12-2021 01:39 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]But to backup a bit, when you say the words "health insurance" what do you mean?
By health insurance, I mean the means by which we finance our health care. The actual definition. That includes the government as well as the myriad of individual decisions and options that are part of it. Much of what you talk about is a value judgement on those components... and ignores the reality that many people can't possibly afford the cost of their own care, often through no fault nor lack of responsibility of their own. If you want that sort of society where 'survival of the fittest' is the norm, that's fine... but we would differ here, and I'm 'on the right' of this issue.... just not that far right. I believe supporting those who cannot support themselves (through no fault of their own) is a reasonable goal and purpose for government and a developed society. My issue is with the lies being told about it. If its such a good thing, you shouldn't need to lie about it. Despite what the left likes to argue, the majority of 'the right' isn't 'in bed with' wealthy business owners. Again, it is telling that the ONE aspect of the ACA that focused on 'taxing the rich' (The Cadillac Tax), somehow never passed the Democratic controlled House, Senate or White House.
![[Image: NYT-Headers-N-TheMorning%402x.png]](https://static.nytimes.com/email-images/New_Headers/NYT-Headers-N-TheMorning%402x.png)
![[Image: 11ambriefing-mask01-articleLarge-v2.jpg]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/05/11/lens/11ambriefing-mask01/11ambriefing-mask01-articleLarge-v2.jpg)