People Died Because Cuomo Put Coronavirus Patients in Nursing Homes

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And visit Real Clear Politics, they have tons of articles you can access (morning and afternoon edition) that displays various perspectives juxtaposed. It is a mine field of information.
 
Bloomberg, seriously, they are a mouthpiece for China at this point.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to Jim Rodgers who’s made a bundle investing in them. Business is business, making money shouldn’t be left or right.
 
Last edited:
JanR said:
When our dad was dying of cancer and in the hospital, a representative in charge of the local nursing home visited us to discuss our options. A hospice representative also visited us. I directly and specifically asked the representative from the nursing home if she could guarantee that our dad would be well treated and cared for if we put him in there, and that he wouldn’t be neglected or abused, and she STONEWALLED my question. She wouldn’t answer it. That told me all I needed to know.

We went with hospice, and he got to die in his own home with us present. His pain was well controlled and we were all treated with the utmost respect and caring. I’ll take hospice any day over a nursing home.
Click to expand...
That is very sad.
 
Saw President Trump introduced yesterday measures to help look after seniors in nursing homes. I hope these help prevent anything similar from what happened in New York.

I have seen one reference that California had done similar as New York with nursing homes, but haven’t seen any other articles on that.

“President Trump Announces Measures To Protect America’s Seniors”

https://www.oann.com/president-trump-announces-measures-to-protect-americas-seniors/
 
I find Bloomberg to be pretty good as long as one stays away from their coverage of China and of Michael Bloomberg himself. Deeply biased with respect to those two subjects but otherwise decent reporting, especially on business and finance.

Back on topic: it’s hard to blame this one on Trump when only three states made this absolutely idiotic policy. NY, NJ and CA. No other state forced nursing homes to accept Covid-19 patients from hospitals as a matter of policy promulgated by the state department of public health. Every other state figured out some level of accommodation that didn’t involve forcing nursing homes to take those patients. Other states’ policies mostly consist of either sending patients home for strict self quarantine with continued monitoring, or sending patients into facilities dedicated to them. But the media are trying when they should be questioning Cuomo’s fitness to be Biden’s VP nominee.
 
Roselle said:
I have seen one reference that California had done similar as New York with nursing homes, but haven’t seen any other articles on that.
Click to expand...
California’s policy here.


For those who don’t like Breitbart, there are links in this article to related articles at NY Times and LA Times. Not to mention there are links to the actual policy page at the public health websites for all three states CA, NJ and NY. So check out those links.
 
I’m intrigued by this proposal, but nursing homes have needed more staffing for a very long time, even before the pandemic.

More staffing.
 
So, am I right in reading this that the regulation is that if someone is removed from a nursing home, their home, for a covid-19 infection, that, once “cured”, they must be allowed to return?

The article makes a leap that these people, deemed “cured” by a hospital, are still shedding virus and can infect other people. Is that the premise of the article?

Is it true? Do you continue to shed virus after a negative covid 19 test?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think you can infect if you are negative. But you can still test positive even if you are well.

I follow a deacon on twitter who had covid, is now feeling better and was retested. His test was still positive after being well for a couple of weeks.
 
If you are going to have error in testing, what you describe is the better error because the error results in inconvenience, not infection
 
I mean that people who were sick but have no more symptoms can still be positive and still spread the disease.

I think we need the capacity for tests for most people, and frequent tests for essential workers. It makes no difference if I test negative today, if tomorrow I can catch it, and spread it.

Without that capacity For widespread testing, I don’t see how this ends soon.
 
PaulinVA said:
So, am I right in reading this that the regulation is that if someone is removed from a nursing home, their home, for a covid-19 infection, that, once “cured”, they must be allowed to return?
Click to expand...
It seems that people who went to the hospital with covid but who either were not sick enough to stay or who had enough reduction in symptoms after staying were released from the hospital.

The NY rule was that at this point, when someone might be anywhere from a little bit sick to quite sick but not sick enough to stay in the hospital, the nursing homes could not refuse to take them in on the grounds they had the virus.

Nursing homes are not normally equipped to care for people with dangerous contagious diseases, and communicated their distress to the health authorities.

And they were still forced by the NYS health authority to take them despite the presence of two facilities set up precisely to take this type of patient which remained largely empty.

It is in many ways a truly horrible thing that they did, which caused unnecessary death and distress and which showed a huge disregard for efforts others made to help them.
 
If you don’t bring new infection to zero, like Taiwan, ( excepting infection that flies here) it is a perpetual risk.
 
If nursing homes need more staff, they need to pay staff better.

When I was in training as a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), part of my training consisted of participation in resident care out on the floor, under the supervision of an experienced employee. CNAs are considered the lowest on the totem pole, yet we do the bulk of the dirtiest dirty work, are under constant pressure to get everything done within an almost impossible time limit, and we endure getting barked at if we don’t do everything perfectly all of the time.

The head honcho of our local nursing home came out and actually said, “CNAs are a dime a dozen.” That’s how little he valued us and our work.

And the pay was little more than a pittance when taking into account all that was required of us, the exorbitant workload we carried every day, and the excessive number of hours we had to put in.

They also had draconian rules and policies, hypocritical practices, and very unjust treatment of employees who were only trying to obey state laws and do the right things.

For example: State law requires that we report anyone we catch stealing or otherwise abusing a resident. Yet, if we DID report such behavior, WE would get written up and risked losing our jobs, due largely to cronyism and nepotism, and the unwritten understanding that you don’t rock the boat, no matter what! In other words, POLITICS!

Of course, one shouldn’t go into the health professions just for the money, but one still has a right to expect the system to be fair.

I wasn’t paid much better as a home health aide, but at least I had more independence, my workload was reasonable, and the work was much more rewarding because I was taking care of just one client instead of several dozen, and I could give that person much more of my attention, and help in many more ways because there weren’t so many time constraints. Plus, I got to see to it they stayed in their own homes, in familiar surroundings, where they could still see their family members and friends. There were different kinds of problems, too, but not the hectic overload and the walking-on-eggs environment one encounters when working in a nursing home.

So, if they need more staff, pay them better and treat them better. And train them sufficiently, as well.
 
ProVobis said:
Tell that to Jim Rodgers who’s made a bundle investing in them. Business is business, making money shouldn’t be left or right.
Click to expand...
Depends how that money is attained, no? And who is passing it out to influence the politics?

Didn’t Bloomberg just run as a presidential candidate for one particular party?

Apparently, “making money” is sometimes dependent upon whether you are on the right or on the left. Most of big tech is on the left — far to the left. Ever wondered why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top