Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
I guess maybe that solves some of the data glitches that happen with daily reporting. The bigger question is if they go to a weekly reporting how delayed would it be? If you issue a report on Friday that covers the previous week that’s a long lag if you need to take corrective actions, but if the plan is to not take corrective actions anymore anyway then I suppose it’s less of an issue.

I wonder how this would impact their ability to get removed from other states' quarantine lists if the change goes through. It's possible that reporting once a week instead of daily might make some governors reluctant to remove them since, as you said, the lag could delay any potential response to an increase in cases. I know NY and NJ only update their list weekly (I think they use Tuesday as the end of the reporting period to determine who is on or off their list), but if FL decides to publish their report on Friday, for example, then there will always be a lag between the reported numbers and when a decision is made about their status on the list.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
I know doctors can get paid more for pushing certain brands of prescription medicine, etc.
Don't know if that was ever the case, but it hasn't been in the 20 years since I've been in practice. I've heard stories about drug-company sponsored junkets, but I've never talked to a physician who has actually attended one.

Drug companies formerly (and perhaps still do in some states) would sponsor free dinners to learn about their products, or the drug rep would bring lunch to the office in exchange for listening to a spiel about their med. Sometimes these were useful, because it helped you decide who might benefit from the product and how to use it. Other times, though, it was clear the drug was a more expensive "me-too" formulation that offered little clinical benefit beyond existing similar medications. You took the bad with the good, with the good usually being a supply of free samples to give to your patients who might not have been able to afford any medication at all.

I now practice in a state where it is illegal for me to accept any freebee from a pharmaceutical or device manufacturer, so much so that when I attend a conference, since my home state is identified on my badge, the reps can't even offer me the snacks that physicians from other states can receive. I'm certainly not receiving any kick-backs for prescribing medications.

The choice of what medication to prescribe to a given patient usually comes down to the insurance formulary preference. Otherwise, its useless to prescribe an expensive medication that the insurance company won't cover, since the patient probably can't afford and won't want to pay (rightly so) the full cost.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I wonder how this would impact their ability to get removed from other states' quarantine lists if the change goes through. It's possible that reporting once a week instead of daily might make some governors reluctant to remove them since, as you said, the lag could delay any potential response to an increase in cases. I know NY and NJ only update their list weekly (I think they use Tuesday as the end of the reporting period to determine who is on or off their list), but if FL decides to publish their report on Friday, for example, then there will always be a lag between the reported numbers and when a decision is made about their status on the list.
It could certainly delay the removal if the timing doesn’t match up. I don’t think that’s really an issue right now based on case trends but it could if things improve.
 

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
I can tell you for a fact that it is in the financial best interest of any hospital to treat a COVID patient. If somebody is in the hospital for any issue but tests positive for COVID they will 100% be "treated for COVID" even if they have no symptoms. If they die, no matter what the reason, COVID will be listed among the causes of death. Between the agreements the insurance companies made to reimburse COVID treatment and the giant pile of government money for people without private insurance, it would be incompetent for them not to do this.

There seems to be a perception that everybody who dies gets an autopsy and the medical examiner or coroner (depending on jurisdiction) is actually making a determination that COVID caused a death. That's not the reality. The vast majority of death certificates are filled out based on the medical records if somebody died in a hospital.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/healt...ble-financial-incentive-of-covid-19-patients/ Thats just one of the many debunks on that. Also people who have pre-existing conditions who have COVID are listed as "complications from COVID" Its just like no one dies of AIDS. You die because of additional illnesses that AIDS allows to exist. To say someone who has a pre-existing condition can't die from COVID complications is like saying the tree that fell through your house during a hurricane was simply because it was old, and the wind had nothing to do with it :/
 

SamusAranX

Well-Known Member
https://www.tampabay.com/news/healt...ble-financial-incentive-of-covid-19-patients/ Thats just one of the many debunks on that. Also people who have pre-existing conditions who have COVID are listed as "complications from COVID" Its just like no one dies of AIDS. You die because of additional illnesses that AIDS allows to exist. To say someone who has a pre-existing condition can't die from COVID complications is like saying the tree that fell through your house during a hurricane was simply because it was old, and the wind had nothing to do with it :/

that comparison sounds like something a Floridian homeowners insurance company would say to deny your claim 😂
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Just to circle back on the vaccine for a minute here‘s the official letter released by Pfizer CEO on the timeline for their Covid vaccine.
To summarize he says they need to meet 3 hurdles before they can file for emergency use authorization:
  1. Provide data showing the vaccine is effective in preventing Covid (at least 50%...hopefully more)
  2. Provide data showing the vaccine is safe. The FDA is requiring at least 2 months of safety data on at least half the trial participants following their second injection. Pfizer will continue monitoring and reporting safety data for all trial participants for two years.
  3. Provide manufacturing data that demonstrates the quality and consistency of the vaccine that will be produced.
He goes on to say that depending on infections Pfizer may meet the effectiveness requirement as soon as the end of October. They have also ramped up production of the vaccine (at risk to the company) so they will have the manufacturing data already compiled by the time they are ready to apply for emergency use authorization. The final hurdle on safety cannot be met until the 3rd week of November at the earliest based on when participants were vaccinated (they must wait 2 months from the 2nd dose). If the vaccine proves effective then they will file for emergency use authorization in the US shortly after the safety hurdle is met the third week of November. The FDA would then need to review and an independent panel will make the ultimate call on EUA or not.

On the safety front, I know there was a lot of back and forth on why this vaccine can be approved in a fraction of the normal time. The 2 month safety data requirement was discussed in an interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the FDA division that approves vaccines. He said, “Most bad reactions to vaccines come between two and three months after people get them. For instance, Guillain-Barre, perhaps it's six weeks, but for transverse myelitis, it's more like three months," Marks said. "We picked two months as something that was reasonably aggressive, yet also somewhat, kind of in the middle," said Marks "Not too aggressive, not too conservative -- in the middle."

Pfizer will be continuing to monitor their trial participants for 2 years but the key concept here is they would expect adverse reactions in 3 months or less which be well before the general public starts getting vaccinated. Just some food for thought if you are on the fence on vaccine safety.

here’s the full article which has a link halfway down to the the full Youtube video of the JAMA interview if you are really interested.

 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
You can't have a spike or anything if you dont publish the numbers

Where did anything in that article say that they wouldn't publish the numbers. Even if they went to weekly, you can certainly see a spike on seven day totals.

It's not like the daily numbers really represent the number of new cases each day. The test results from multiple days are included. There is so much variability in test result volume from day to day it's not all that useful. Once a week would basically give the seven day rolling average all at once.
 

oceanbreeze77

Well-Known Member
Where did anything in that article say that they wouldn't publish the numbers. Even if they went to weekly, you can certainly see a spike on seven day totals.

It's not like the daily numbers really represent the number of new cases each day. The test results from multiple days are included. There is so much variability in test result volume from day to day it's not all that useful. Once a week would basically give the seven day rolling average all at once.
its a joke
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Where did anything in that article say that they wouldn't publish the numbers. Even if they went to weekly, you can certainly see a spike on seven day totals.

It's not like the daily numbers really represent the number of new cases each day. The test results from multiple days are included. There is so much variability in test result volume from day to day it's not all that useful. Once a week would basically give the seven day rolling average all at once.
I prefer the 7 day average over daily numbers. Takes away the weekend drops and smoothes out a lot of the data dump issues. The only caveat is they need to release weekly numbers on a timely basis. Sunday to Saturday weekly totals released on Monday would be reasonable or Monday to Sunday data released Tuesday if you don’t want people working a Sunday to compile the data.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
I prefer the 7 day average over daily numbers. Takes away the weekend drops and smoothes out a lot of the data dump issues. The only caveat is they need to release weekly numbers on a timely basis. Sunday to Saturday weekly totals released on Monday would be reasonable or Monday to Sunday data released Tuesday if you don’t want people working a Sunday to compile the data.
Why not both? Too much work or what?
I really think our state can afford to bring all the info and I am smart enough to watch the daily but look at an average to gauge trends?
Sounds more like controlling the message rather than providing a service to the people of the state.
I vote no, just report as you have so we are all eating apples.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Why not both? Too much work or what?
I really think our state can afford to bring all the info and I am smart enough to watch the daily but look at an average to gauge trends?
Sounds more like controlling the message rather than providing a service to the people of the state.
I vote no, just report as you have so we are all eating apples.
I have no issue with the daily reporting. I just prefer to use the 7 day averages as an indicator of trends vs the daily movements. It would be easy to continue to do both.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
I can tell you for a fact that it is in the financial best interest of any hospital to treat a COVID patient. If somebody is in the hospital for any issue but tests positive for COVID they will 100% be "treated for COVID" even if they have no symptoms.

I think you are seriously overestimating the frequency that this actually matters. The odds of being hospitalized at any given moment are rare. The odds of an individual having COVID at any one point in time are also rare. I'm not really sure where all these admitted patients who just happen to have totally asymptomatic COVID are coming from. I'm sure it happens, but I'm also sure it's statistically insignificant compared to the number of individuals who were not accounted for due to lack of testing early in the pandemic.

Rehashing the numbers of dead does not really accomplish anything but give ammunition to the fear mongers. I am more interested in the massive numbers of people that have contracted this disease and RESOLVED, RECOVERED as in GOT BETTER. I am interested in how those numbers can be increased. What can be done to prevent people from succumbing to this disease, yes, increase those numbers. The greater the numbers of people overcoming COVID19 the lower the death numbers associate with COVID19. Now that is a conversation worth having.

A vaccine. I'm not being facetious, but that's the way out.

Doctors get paid based on what they are treating. The same financial incentives to treat a "COVID patient" exist for them that exist for the hospitals.

I can only speak to several provinces, but no. Most codes are based on a "Consult" and/or "Visit" and are time based.

There are very few things within the purview of Internal Medicine that have a specific code to a specific diagnosis. By not many I mean BC has one, DKA. COVID is not one. Whatever ICD-9 code (diagnostic code) assigned to a consult does not impact its renumeration.

All billing systems in different places are essentially the same. Increasingly hospital based employees are on ARP's (Alternate Remediation Plans). So their compensation if even less tied to this as they are salaried.
 

Miss Bella

Well-Known Member
If they are directly employed by the hospital it is in their best interest for the hospital to bring in a steady revenue stream. The diagnosis doesn't normally matter for private practice billing but it does with COVID.
I don't think the physicians have any incentive to bring in Covid patients, but keep in mind hospitals are for profit even if they are non-profit. I've seen many questionable Covid admissions, but then again I work for healthcare system that has had a history of medicare fraud and a CEO with an eight figure salary.
 

Jwink

Well-Known Member
Woah, check out this epidemiologist's website:

View attachment 505564

Gosh by the looks of this and that other link a few posts back, we are about to see another major spike 😩
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom