Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Coronavirus

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This has been a great thread to read. Please help me out with this question:

Do the symptoms change significantly if the corona disease is contracted by coming into contact with a relatively few virus particles (e.g. touching a contaminated surface), as opposed to contact with a massive number (e.m. a patient's sneeze)? What about when acomparison is made to sequential contact with several people who are infected.
 
I'm all for the President encouraging companies to increase ventilator production, but essentially rage tweeting? Unreal. If I'm not mistaken, isn't he the head of the administration that just backed out of a $1B procurement of 80,000 ventilators?

Donald J. Trump on Twitter
The hilarity is he recently gave himself the power to force these or other companies to do this through the Defense Production Act, and he refuses to use that power.
 
How was your experiences dealing with Medicare?

Honestly, I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, unlike traditional insurance companies, they were quick to pay for services and didn't often question medical necessity.

On the other hand, I lost money on most medicaid patients that walked through the door. The reimbursement rates were so low that after I paid staff, supplies, and overhead, there was nothing left. This is one of the reasons many physicians over the past 20 years have stopped taking government payment (Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, etc.). It just doesn't pay the bills.


There is the argument that if you have less staff in a universal payer system, that you can make up for this downfall. But even if I was not paying front office staff, a biller, a coder (terminology for the person that helps the biller determine what was done and is billable services), a medical assistant, and a nurse, it would still be tight.

I won't argue that 1/2 my staff would be un-necessary in a single-payer system, and I always had reservations paying someone for work that added un-necessary complexity to the system, but it was the system that I had to work within.

I once considered going 100% concierge, and not even having an office but going to my patients. I would have had no nurse, no staff, no insurance to deal with, and could have spent a lot more time with my patients. It would have also likely been cheaper for the patients. About the same time I considered this, my side business became my main job, so I never pursued it further.
 
Inoculum --- the starting viral load.

The underlying notion is that a smaller load will give the body longer to mount an immune response before it is overwhelmed. By analogy it is not much different than saying it is better to take public health measures sooner rather than later in an epidemic curve.

It could also be true that a mask reduces immediate viral penetration to the lower airways during the exposure. Think of inhaler use at a difference Vs placing the inhaler at the lips.

Can a make-shift vaccine by created by giving people a tiny viral load?

Has that ever been done? I know about a live attenuated virus vaccine, is giving just a tiny viral load any easier?
 
This is patently false. The Doctors office first ASKS you what your insurance is. The cost of the procedure / treatment / office visit is dictated by the contract between the doctor and your insurance provider. As you know it, you just have a co-pay or deductible to meet, but that's now how the process actually works when you look at the system as a whole.

Take that power away from insurance companies by forcing the publication of prices, and the entire landscape becomes MUCH more competitive and cost effective.

Based upon years of practice both in an office and hospital setting, I can tell you that the rates vary not by a few %, but hundreds of %. Sometimes this is to the benefit of the hospital (almost never to the actual doctor), sometimes it is not.

I could be persuaded to allow the government to compete with insurance companies, and that would be good (it already happens in the pediatric space with Medicaid). But to allow the government to take it all over and dictate everything would be a colossal blunder.
My wife refers to visits to the ER as "wallet biopsy". We have the best and most expensive health insurance we can buy in CA, and unless you are actually admitted to the hospital, the co-pay for going to the ER is $100.
 
Inoculum --- the starting viral load.

The underlying notion is that a smaller load will give the body longer to mount an immune response before it is overwhelmed. By analogy it is not much different than saying it is better to take public health measures sooner rather than later in an epidemic curve.

It could also be true that a mask reduces immediate viral penetration to the lower airways during the exposure. Think of inhaler use at a difference Vs placing the inhaler at the lips.

Oh I see, that is very interesting and a good argument for mask use. Thank you!
 
This has been a great thread to read. Please help me out with this question:

Do the symptoms change significantly if the corona disease is contracted by coming into contact with a relatively few virus particles (e.g. touching a contaminated surface), as opposed to contact with a massive number (e.m. a patient's sneeze)? What about when acomparison is made to sequential contact with several people who are infected.

Great questions. I don't think anyone can fully answer these, except in the general sense of what we know about viruses.

In inoculum (i.e. the number and density of the viral particles that you encounter) has a direct determinant on if you get infected. That much we know from prior studies. In theory, a higher inoculum would start you out higher on the infection curve for the virus to get the upper hand, but we really just don't know there for sure.

My gut feeling is healthcare workers seeing patients all the time with COVID-19 have higher infection rates, despite using PPE, washing hands repeatedly, etc.
 
Honestly, I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, unlike traditional insurance companies, they were quick to pay for services and didn't often question medical necessity.

On the other hand, I lost money on most medicaid patients that walked through the door. The reimbursement rates were so low that after I paid staff, supplies, and overhead, there was nothing left. This is one of the reasons many physicians over the past 20 years have stopped taking government payment (Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, etc.). It just doesn't pay the bills.
Is that really the effect of socialist vs. privatized medicine, or is that the effect of a medical system that's funded at X vs. one that's funded at 2X?

I once considered going 100% concierge, and not even having an office but going to my patients. I would have had no nurse, no staff, no insurance to deal with, and could have spent a lot more time with my patients. It would have also likely been cheaper for the patients. About the same time I considered this, my side business became my main job, so I never pursued it further.

Interesting. How would you avoid the staff? My concierge physician practices with 1 partner (each having a 50-patient limit), and they have 4 nurses between them.
 
The US is an 'undeveloping' country :( 'Glad' I wasted 8 years of my life protecting their freedom in the Navy so ~half of them can slowly rot the nation I served with ignorance........ truly pathetic.

Coronavirus: Teenage boy whose death was linked to COVID-19 turned away from urgent care for not having insurance

This one is . . . odd. In my experience anyone under 18 can get an emergency provision under Medi-Cal and / or CHIP by the US Gov. This one is a failure of the hospital to pursue proper coverage for an emergent patient. The family should seek legal counsel here, as I believe this might fall under malpractice.

There ARE safety nets in place, and a hospital social worker should have been able to assist the family, given the limited information presented in the article.
 
Is that really the effect of socialist vs. privatized medicine, or is that the effect of a medical system that's funded at X vs. one that's funded at 2X?

Interesting. How would you avoid the staff? My concierge physician practices with 1 partner (each having a 50-patient limit), and they have 4 nurses between them.

I cannot answer your first question, I don't know if that is a byproduct of funding levels, or simply of congressmen and bureaucrats seeing how low they can push payments for physicians until they squeal.

In my practice, I was a pediatric endocrinologist (diabetes, thyroid problems, growth issues, etc. - anything to do with hormones). I could have done just fine without a nurse. In fact, nearly 100% of the time my nurse never saw patients. She was stuck in an office doing prior authorizations with insurance companies (no joke) and was on the phone all the time. So I got used to being without a nurse just fine.
 
Great questions. I don't think anyone can fully answer these, except in the general sense of what we know about viruses.

In inoculum (i.e. the number and density of the viral particles that you encounter) has a direct determinant on if you get infected. That much we know from prior studies. In theory, a higher inoculum would start you out higher on the infection curve for the virus to get the upper hand, but we really just don't know there for sure.

My gut feeling is healthcare workers seeing patients all the time with COVID-19 have higher infection rates, despite using PPE, washing hands repeatedly, etc.
So, I'm wondering whether one approach would be for us to undergo a controlled exposure to a very small number of the virus particles and endure a mild illness. Might beat waiting at home more than a year for a vaccine to show up -- if one does prove safe and effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PlaidCPA
I think it's #1. ....

One of the critical failures in all this is the complete failure to ramp up testing. If we had militarized the medical supply system as the law Trump signed over a week ago allows for, the entire economic resources of the country could be focused on testing for active cases, making equipment necessary, and ramp up testing for the antibody.

Antibody testing is absolutely critical to tell us who had silent cases. If we can get a handle on how many people actually have it and how many are recovered, that's going to get us way down the road. Another thing is those who are known to have recovered can be tested for contagiousness and we can know for sure how long people remain contagious after infection.

Once we have a handle on who is now immune, those who are immune can be set free to move about society and do the work necessary to keep things going. Some people might be called on to do different jobs, but this is an emergency.

Sadly the problem with this is that we don't know for certain that having antibodies confers immunity!!! Right now that is the hope but the actual data aren't clear or really available now - and if the virus mutates????
Of course we need MASSIVE testing for antibodies and to get this question answered ASAP (clearly if immunity is clear than allowing those people back to work would be a great first step)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lessmog
So, I'm wondering whether one approach would be for us to undergo a controlled exposure to a very small number of the virus particles and endure a mild illness. Might beat waiting at home more than a year for a vaccine to show up -- if one does prove safe and effective.

I decline to be in the test subjects group. :D
 
Well.... in their 'defense' #StatusQuoMatters just doesn't have the same ring to it...

Screen Shot 2020-03-27 at 12.44.03 PM.png
 
This has been a great thread to read. Please help me out with this question:

Do the symptoms change significantly if the corona disease is contracted by coming into contact with a relatively few virus particles (e.g. touching a contaminated surface), as opposed to contact with a massive number (e.m. a patient's sneeze)? What about when acomparison is made to sequential contact with several people who are infected.
No one knows the answer to this!!! Wish we did
 
That 80,000 assumes agressive self isolation and hospitals will not exceed capacity and have to let savable patients die because they don't have the ventilators. With COVID-19 the number of people who have life threatening cases and require hospitalization or they will die is much, much higher than any flu outbreak since the 1918 flu.

Look at the hospital situation in many places that are hardest hit. In some places in Italy they have had to let savable patients die because they didn't have the ventilators and other resources. New York City, Atlanta, and New Orleans are on the verge of that point right now with cases growing in every city.

If we do aggressive self isolation, we can keep the death rate down to 80,000 in the next four months. If we don't, there is a study out of the UK that showed if the virus was allowed to run its course. In the UK, they would see 500,000 dead. The US in the same scenario would see 2.2 million dead. We would be done with the virus by mid to late summer because almost everyone left alive will have had it and gotten over it.

Then there are the long term consequences. There is news coming out of China that about 20% of those hospitalized who recover have permanent heart damage. Some percentage (probably fairly high) will have permanent lung damage too. About 68 million Americans are vulnerable to get serious cases. If all of them got it at once, a huge percentage of them would die and most of the rest would be left with permanent, chronic health conditions that will require treatment the rest of their lives.

If you want to see millions die and the economy melt down for a generation, go back to business as usual.
And that's the danger of basing policy on one study. That report from the Imperial College pegged the overall mortality rate above 2%, which is around 10-20x greater than what we've seen out in the real world. Yes, 80M+ Americans are going to be infected with this coronavirus, but only about .2% or likely less will die.

The guy who published that report is a genius, and likely in the top handful of people qualified to write such a report, but he was wrong.

Staying locked down will probably help us flatten the curve, but this thing is spreading. There's not much we can do now since we decided not to test people, so that 80k(or I think more like 40k) are going to die eventually regardless of staying home. If the hospital crunch happens, it'll be worse.

I have been computing the death rate of every report and it has consistently been 2.2%, NOT .2%. Your decimal is in the wrong place. In Italy right now, it has spiked to 10%. The guy in another post here said if 1/3 of the US population got the virus, 2.2 million Americans would die. That is correct, mathematically. That is why he was arguing to shelter in place NOW. We cannot allow 100,000,000 people to catch the illness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phantasms
This has been a great thread to read. Please help me out with this question:

Do the symptoms change significantly if the corona disease is contracted by coming into contact with a relatively few virus particles (e.g. touching a contaminated surface), as opposed to contact with a massive number (e.m. a patient's sneeze)? What about when acomparison is made to sequential contact with several people who are infected.

There are no proof right now. But one can logically deduce that initial viral load determines how fast this virus invade.Since it is very easy for this virus to latch on to cells, it also should multiply fast.

There were some speculation that n to tye symptoms from the infection route. As the ones from eyes are milder and less likely to fe threatening, the ingest cases causes diarrhea and the deep inhalation ones from aerosol gets pneumonia.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: abasile