TennTradition
Defended.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,919
- Likes
- 822
I think we would see Flu confirmed deaths skyrocket if we tested for the Flu for every patient, every time, coming into a hospital or doctors office exhibiting 1 or any symptom of the Flu. We would also see those numbers skyrocket if we also gave 15% extra reimbursement for every positive Flu case. I still contend the 40K lab confirmed deaths is not a product of CV death, it is a product of increased focus of CV testing and the simple fact that we are looking for it. Test for the Flu they way we are testing for CV right now where everybody and their mother gets tested for a runny nose and the Flu is all of a sudden a pandemic. Seriously, how many sick people in hospitals right now would test positive for some trace amount of a Flu strain? Additionaly, how many would we feel confident saying have the Flu just based on case history?
Yes - CV death numbers can't be trusted. Heart attacks and car accidents are a small part, I agree. But they are there, and at this point we are looking for CV deaths in a way we aren't for the Flu or anything else. Simply looking for the cold virus or the Flu virus will make the numbers increase. So, what is the real story with CV?
I'm with you on parts of this but not others.
Looking for CV, testing more, and then counting those positive cases as deaths doesn't make CV numbers somehow worse than flu numbers. And you agree that the non-CV deaths shortly after a person tests positive for CV are going to be a small contribution to the total. So that isn't going to skew them. If the probable deaths were a big part of the total (let's say 20%), then I personally get more concerned about that. 10% or so is not that bad - but I've always taken the stance that I'd rather see the probable deaths where there was no test given placed in a separate category.
My comments about flu were not intended to try to discredit the flu death estimates. But rather, to ask why are we holding that up as a standard for CV? We have given as many CV tests in 6 weeks as we give in a flu season. Of course we also know there are a ton of people told to stay at home and don't come in for a test. And some of those also happen to be dying. But point is we are testing hard and trying to identify the CV cases and if those people die we are tracking that. Unless you are arguing that we are manufacturing positive tests so that in case those people happen to die of some other condition over the next few weeks we can get a paycheck at a certain hospital, then I'm not tracking with how this leaves us with an untrustworthy CV death number (was this payment in the stimulus bill or where does it come from? I hear about it on here all the time but have never read where the statute exists for the payment) - particularly when a modeled flu number that isn't as aggressively tested for is held up against it as a standard.