#but at what cost (covid denialism) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

covid-safer-hotties · 3 months ago

Text

On the first night of the DNC, Georgia Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock took to the stage to give a rousing call for disease control and community care:

"The pandemic taught us how. A contagious airborne disease means that I have a personal stake in the health of my neighbor. If she’s sick, I may get sick also. Her healthcare is good for my health… we are as close in humanity as a cough!"

He made this declaration about contagious airborne disease in a sea of contagious airborne disease. With nearly 1 million new COVID-19 cases in the US each day as of August 16, approximately 1/34 Americans are currently infectious with COVID-19, a quarter of them fully asymptomatic

The DNC, though it easily might’ve, implemented no COVID safety mitigations; no test requirement, no mask requirement nor even mask distribution, no air quality information, zero of the vaunted “tools” we supposedly now have to “keep us safe” from COVID infections. Long COVID has not been mentioned. While bragging about their unprecedented “accessibility” measures, the DNC ensured that no immunocompromised person would be safe to enter the United Center this week.

Without apparent irony or cognitive dissonance, Warnock seemed to make the case for public health measures controlling the SARS-COV-2 virus while celebrating an administration that oversaw the utter destruction of public health as we once knew it, in a building this is, objectively, full of the SARS-COV-2 virus.

As kids return to school amidst record-breaking August COVID levels, multiple schools have already shut down simply because infection levels were too high for them to continue operating. Meanwhile, the CDC issued guidance encouraging students to stay in class if they have lice or “mild” diarrhea, as the absence crisis “mysteriously” continues to worsen.

The event comes just weeks after a sprawling Nature Medicine review determined the global burden of Long COVID to be about 400 million individuals less than 5 years into the crisis, already costing economies a staggering $1 trillion annually. As quoted in Fortune, lead author Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly observed that:

"I think they (government agencies) are itching to pretend that COVID is over and that long COVID does not exist."

Pretend is certainly an apt word for what has been on display in Chicago this week.

A massive collection of close-packed delegates, electeds, lobbyists, influencers, celebrities and rich people cheered the idea of protecting each other’s health while participating in pandemic denial, refusing to use any mitigations, and purposely spreading COVID.

It was, frankly, bizarre.

The explicitly false nature of Senator Warnock’s statement- along with other Democrats’ varyingly inaccurate statements about beating the pandemic- begs several questions about exactly how far these delusions go.

Does Senator Warnock know we are in a massive COVID surge?

Does Senator Warnock know over a thousand Americans died of COVID-19 last week?

Does Senator Warnock believe that immunocompromised people deserve access to public spaces and representation in a setting like say, the DNC?

Does Senator Warnock know that millions of Americans have already been disabled by COVID-19 infections?

Does Senator Warnock understand that COVID did not literally, actually disappear when Biden took office?

Does anyone in that room?

For some time, it’s been clear that Democrats, like the Republicans before them, are now married to the COVID-is-mild-because-I-got-it-and-survived narrative and that nothing can pry it from their hot little 102-degree hands.

But his particular words struck me because they seemed a leap forward, a new frontier in the competitive field of pandemic denial. He stated not just that COVID is mild and safe for everyone to repeatedly catch forever - something that no public health body has ever claimed, and no scientific study supports - but that Democrats embrace disease control measures and believe in not coughing on one another, in a room full of people actively refusing to utilize disease control measures and instead coughing on one another.

And the crowd, an estimated 3% of it currently COVID+, cheered.

The Democrats perhaps first diverged from reality on COVID during Delta, when emerging evidence indicated that the vaccine-only approach would not work to control the virus. Vaccine protection waned rapidly, the virus proved capable of mutating to evade immunity from both vaccines and infections, and early days of plummeting transmission rebounded with a vengeance.

Instead of acknowledging reality, the party, with assistance from the slobbering media, doubled down on claims that only the unvaccinated would be harmed and killed by continuing mass infection policies. It wasn’t until after Omicron wave one that data emerged showing nearly 40% of those dead in the brutal winter ‘21-’22 reopening wave had been vaccinated. That summer, 60% of the dead were vaccinated. But by that time, the Democratic Party was happy on Earth 2.

No one called them out on their alternate universe fanfic where the virus had been vanquished; people kept dying, the public was sicker than ever, it became clear that Long COVID was a serious disease. But the call of the Disneyfied Pandemic Free Future was too strong. People bought the lies because the truth was just no fun.

In the three years since Delta, we’ve been on an unending roller coaster of massive waves followed by short-lived lulls, lulls during which 1/200 Americans are still testing COVID+. No sooner had we made it through JN.1 than KP.2 was surging; no sooner is KP.2 subsiding than KP.3.1.1 is right behind. New variants are emerging before the current wave is spent, with endless mass infection giving SARS-COV-2 the ultimate playground to experiment with genetic mutations and maximize its immune evasiveness.

Vaccines are updated but fail to keep up with the virus; the current booster is for XBB, the variant that was predominant in the winter of 2022-2023. The JN.1/KP.2 boosters still await FDA approval as the KP.3 surge crests.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ Earth 2 fantasy persists. It goes a little something like this: In January 2021, the COVID-19 vaccines debuted. We all got the shots, a year later COVID also became mild somehow, everything went back to normal, and everyone lived happily ever after. There’s no Long COVID, there are no record student absences, there are no record disability numbers, hospitals aren’t overwhelmed, people aren’t sick all the time, disabled people aren’t unsafe in all public spaces, there are no worker shortages, there is no scads of scientific evidence showing long-term damage to all major organ systems following even mild infections.

None of that exists!

The Earth 2 story has even begun retroactively assigning Biden era deaths and outcomes to the Trump administration. Multiple times in recent months, both the Biden and Harris campaigns have referred to “a million people” dying under Trump. 400,000 Americans had died of COVID when Trump left office. The Biden administration even held a memorial event for those first 400,000 dead, the night before it took power and ceased to care about COVID deaths.

1.2 million Americans are dead of COVID today.

But those 800,000 dead bodies conflict with the Earth 2 story. How could hundreds of thousands of people died after COVID became mild and everything went back to normal? Maybe that somehow also happened under Trump! It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to feel true, and it sure feels like Joe Biden wouldn’t kill 800,000 people with negligence and scientific misinformation.

Just like it feels like we learned how to protect each other from airborne contagious diseases when Senator Reverand Warnock says it in a booming, inspiring, church-ready voice that invites us to relish our social justice credentials and love for our neighbors.

And doesn’t it feel like the DNC, an indoor event with hundreds of COVID+ attendees not wearing masks, is the most inclusive and accessible convention ever?

These delusions are so powerful, have been so propped up by the media, are so appealing to the public who wishes them real, that they have become indistinguishable from reality. Now, we all have to live on Earth 2, where the COVID infections never end but the pandemic is over.

“COVID no longer controls our lives,” declared outgoing President Joe Biden, who recently announced he would not seek re-election via twitter during his third COVID reinfection. It’s a favorite line of his, one that probably came to his comms people by process of elimination when they realized they couldn’t say:

“COVID is no longer a leading cause of death”

“COVID is no longer killing people”

“COVID is no longer disabling people”

“We no longer have to fear getting sick every time we leave home”

“Schools aren’t closing”

“Workplaces aren’t understaffed”

“Millions of people aren’t currently infected”

No, they settled on the most vague, subjective criteria for COVID victory, namely, “we don’t think about it anymore.” Sometimes they brag that people “aren’t wearing masks anymore.” And it’s certainly true. At the DNC, it’s quite clear, people are surely not thinking about COVID, nor wearing masks. Like Republicans in 2020, they aren’t letting some stupid old virus control their lives. Masks? More like face diapers! If a few disabled people can’t be exposed, those people should really stay home!

The Democratic National Convention is taking place on what sounds like a very nice planet. One where the oligarchs are working to solve climate change, which can be fixed with carbon credits and fracking. One where there’s no genocide in Palestine, and there aren’t any protestors outside either. Fascism is going to be defeated at the ballot box in November, and we’re all going to move forward together. COVID-19 was a virus that existed in 2020-2021 (RIP) and killed a million people under President Donald Trump (RIP), not because public services have been hollowed out over the course of decades of neoliberalism, but because one man is a rude Cheeto. We all went through something scary back then, during the pandemic. But now we know how to take care of our neighbors.

Now we know, if they get sick, I may get sick too.

Now we know, we’re as close in humanity as a cough.

But none of us are sick anymore, and none of us are coughing. Not on the planet where the Democrats live.

#covid #mask up #pandemic #covid 19 #wear a mask #coronavirus #sars cov 2 #public health #still coviding #wear a respirator #vote blue #democratic party #dnc 2024 #long covid #us politics

76 notes · View notes

lotus-tower · 9 months ago

Text

it’s not that there aren’t very real challenges and difficulties that come with covid mitigation

but at the core of it even the measures that require no imagination would be highly effective in driving down transmission, which would in return make other activities that are more difficult to mitigate infection risk for less risky

like we’re sitting here pretending we don’t understand the concept of ventilation or filtration, or that the idea of staying home when sick is weird and alien, or that it’s inconceivable that putting something on your face that filters air will reduce sickness. and we’re pretending that it’s normal for people to get sick at the hospital because hospitals are overflowing and have so many outbreaks happen in them. we’re acting like doing things outdoors or opening the windows is a concept that has never been seen before.

there are many ways we could transform society into one that respects disabled people and that values health and well-being over profit, but that’s honestly not even on the table at the moment. what we’re talking about is rejecting the use of ordinary tools and technologies that have literally been used for decades. I’ve heard about teachers and healthcare workers who purposefully go out of their way to turn off air filters that have been bought for them. repeatedly, every day. I’ve watched a video where a farmer wore an N95 to clean the chicken coop due to particles, but took it off to go to the store.

what’s happening right now isn’t just “people did the calculation and decided money is more important than people’s lives” in a pure rational way. because that’s not how capitalism works anyway. we all know by now that happy workers are more productive, some companies saw good results when going remote for the first time under lockdown, etc. but the goal is to control workers as a class, and to preserve the status quo.

obviously, long covid will cost more to the economy than updating ventilation will. obviously, children who are sick all the time won’t perform as well at school. obviously, reducing infection would reduce the burden on collapsing hospitals. prevention is always cheaper than attempted treatment. but these facts don’t mean anything. people are ideologically committed to covid denialism to such a degree that it’s pushed them to do utterly absurd things. they’re overcorrecting like crazy in order to try to get to the 2019 “normal” state.

people are trying to gaslight us into believing that we were always sick all the time, that measles is a normal winter illness like the flu, that PPE measures were like this before the pandemic. scientific research and facts aren’t going to convince these people.

and it’s just ridiculous because the situation at hand is literally one where improving air quality, a multipurpose measure with no downsides whatsoever, is a no-go specifically because it could reduce covid, whether that’s the stated goal or not, and they balk at the idea of accidentally reducing covid transmission.

meanwhile, private bioscience firms are trying to invent ridiculously complex long covid treatments with hundreds of millions of funds from rich sponsors. and that’s okay, because that’s a Thing. rich genius saviors are always okay. but opening the windows for free? for prevention? to prevent getting the untreatable illness to begin with? that’s weird and unfathomable

#just a personal rant

46 notes · View notes

meandmybigmouth · 1 month ago

Text

WILL REPUBLICAN CLIMATE DENIAL END UP COSTING AS MANY LIVES AS REPUBLICAN COVID DENIAL? WHAT'S THE VEGAS BET? OVER OR UNDER?

4 notes · View notes

transmutationisms · 1 year ago

Note

also I am not trying to convince the other side to mask, I am trying to convince other leftists to do any kind of pandemic advocacy, but I've largely been met with resistance and pandemic denialism, and I may be wrong but I can't help but attribute it to guilt surrounding a refusal to even consider any kind of accommodations for disabled people in their spaces, covid or otherwise. this usually comes in the form of masking, ventilation, and/or remote options. I understand it's not feasible to Always have accommodations but it feels like people could at least consider it, and that frustration often does come out in the form of "why can't you just do the bare minimum that costs nothing and mask for a half hour". that's not perfect optics, I admit, but it is exhausting to have to be looking for the correct combination of words to tell someone who claims to be an ally to get them to not immediately shut me out. perhaps your point is that all of that is wasted effort, anyway, and maybe that does count as "the other side" in this case

hey, i really do sympathise with your frustration here. like i said: i <3 masks. i <3 other pandemic interventions. and i agree that a lot of resistance to these things comes down to ableism, whether overt (actively exterminatory mindsets toward disabled people) or more 'subtle' (just not giving a fuck). my point was just that i have observed a tendency, including among those nominally on the left, to shift any conversation about pandemic safety to technical interventions that they believe obviate the need for political action, and that among a certain subset of those who do take covid seriously, masks can sometimes serve this rhetorical function. if that's not you then great. again i repeat that the point here is not to reduce mask usage but the opposite. in fact i would say pushing for accommodations to be offered as a matter of course and not a 'special exception' is exactly the sort of political action that the technical-intervention crowd doesn't want to think about or deal with, because that points to a way in which masks (although great) do not 100% solve a social and political issue (the fact that large groups of people gathering together in person is inherently inaccessible for some people and always will be). like, this is precisely the sort of larger political issue i'm pointing to—capitalist valuation of disabled people, social designs that are exclusionary, and the way that the covid pandemic ought to be prompting us to think, "hey, even if we masked up and got vaccinated and dealt with This specific illness, don't we also have ongoing issues with eg accessibility as a result of living in a society designed around capitalist notions of productivity rather than the social responsibility we all have toward one another?"

in a more narrow conversation about public health communication strategies i would maybe say that assuming a guilty conscience on the part of your interlocutors is understandable but probably not helping you much (i'm not accusing you of something here. i would also not communicate to the public in the exact manner i do on this tumblr blog lol) and, although this is not my complete or definitive account of pandemic denialism, i do think a certain amount of it is fuelled by the sort of techno-optimism i'm talking about: the belief that we just need to get the right medical-technology intervention, and then that obviates our need to change our behaviour in any meaningful way. among those who are resistant to masks, often the vaccine is the technology of choice here, but this attitude is (i think) somewhat malleable in terms of what actual technical intervention it invokes. again: not a comprehensive theory of pandemic denialism but i do think this is part of the puzzle and is happily encouraged by a lot of mainstream news coverage & general attitudes toward science and technology as quasi-magical Forces For Good that will simply Solve Society (at its most concentrated this is simply technocracy). my position is that we need to be watchful for this sort of attitude, and resist it, whilst also using and encouraging those technical interventions that are useful for public health (masks, vaccines, ventilation, &c) or other reasons.

31 notes · View notes

andarthas-web · 1 month ago

Text

Are humans evil?

I wouldn't say that humans are predisposed to evil. It's just that evolution has equipped us with a few common traits that helped us survive and thrive, but which can also lead to evil, monstrous outcomes. Humanity has existed for about 200.000 years (according to a 2017 discovery, it might even be over 300.000 years). First forms of civilization (behavioural modernity), with art, abstract thinking and symbolism and planning ahead, probably emerged between 150.000 and 75.000 years ago. And for most of our history, resources were very scarce and obtaining them was very work-intensive and required cooperation, periods where hunger reigned were common, and dangers large and small, from natural catastrophes to predatory animals and illnesses were very common.

Human beings survived because they banded together in groups and cooperated, so groups mean safety to us. It also meant that being kicked out was a terrifying danger. So those who prioritized the will of the group had better chances to survive and get ahead. And to this day, we very, very easily bend to group pressure and are afraid to say or do things that might upset the group and which might get us kicked out, and that instinct is far greater than out need to do what's right and just and true.

We also crave stability, since that too feels like saftety, so humans absolutely HATE change. So we put change off, even if it's necessary and sensible. (See resistance to climate change mitigation measures.)

We also want simplicity, since most people's brains do NOT deal well with complexity, so we crave simple solutions and black-and-white answers. We also don't do that well with diversity for that same reason, because for all the advantages diversity brings in the long run, like having more information and input, which allows us to find more creative and better solutions to complex problems and respond more flexible to new challenges, it also comes with more complexity, which, again, can feel very overwhelming to people and which we do not deal well with.

We're also short-sighted, since for most of our evolution, we had to think ahead a few days, maybe a full turn of the seasons or two at most. Anything that might have an impact ten, twenty, fourty years down the road? (Hello smokers!) Just doesn't really compute. It just doesn't feel real to us (btw, dito to most things we can't see, hear or touch. Hello covid denial.)

We also hate taking risks and maybe being wrong (because for most of history, being wrong often meant being hurt or being dead, for us and for our group), so we LOVE when someone leads us and takes that responsibility from us. Thing is, giving someone that kind of power also risks them abusing that power, and many do, since it means more resources and safety for their close family group. And they can use that very power we gave them to ward off criticism and negative consequences of their failure. And because being wrong carries risks and dangers, we also absolutely LOATHE taking responsibility for our mistakes and taking accountability for them and making amends (with the latter also usually costing precious and scarce resources, and maybe requiring to go against the group, so we prefer to victim blame instead).

Facing painful truths and building a better future requires overcoming these very human and very powerful instincts and traits, and that's really, REALLY hard to do for most people.

#humanity #Yetzer Hara #judaism #doing it right #doing it wrong #discussions #nederys #straynoahide #evolution #good #evil #good vs evil #tribal thinking #group think

3 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 1 year ago

Text

Although many Canadians act as though the pandemic has ended, the airborne virus that causes COVID-19 continues to evolve at an amazing pace with devastating consequences for both individuals and the public at large.

The pandemic may no longer be a major conflagration but it still kills about 140 Canadians a week while morphing into a steady viral blaze sustained by dirty air, waning immunity and overt political indifference.

What was once a giant wave of acute illness has become a series of often unpredictable wavelets driven by ever-changing variants that can cause chronic illness. Long COVID, a disabling health event that can affect multiple organs and destabilize the immune system, now affects millions and continues to claim new victims.

A 2023 Danish study recently confirmed that about 50 per cent of those diagnosed with long COVID fail to improve 18 months after infection regardless of the variant.

Long COVID has taken a huge toll among health-care workers. Anywhere from six to 10 per cent of Quebec’s health-care workforce, for example, has been derailed by long COVID.

Seventy-one per cent of health-care workers impaired by long COVID reported that their state of health now interferes with their ability to function. Another 16 per cent said that they are often unable to work. Multiply this data across the country and then ask: How sustainable is this trend?

The cost of living in a ‘viral soup’

While the media focus concern on the potential next big nasty viral wave, evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory says that threat seems less likely than before, but the current reality is nothing like normal.

“We are not dealing with Omicron-like waves but a viral soup,” Gregory told The Tyee. “We are seeing a near-constant high level of hospitalizations that falls just below overwhelming them but is nonetheless unsustainable. More health-care workers are getting sick and that just adds to the strain on the whole system.”

What worries Gregory, an expert on the evolution of COVID variants at the University of Guelph, “are the long-term effects of multiple infections and the sustained pressure on the health-care system and well-being.”

Yet the current impact of COVID — measurably higher than at some previous points during the pandemic — remains largely ignored or poorly reported.

Tara Moriarty, a University of Toronto infectious disease expert and co-founder of COVID 19 Resources Canada, recently tallied the imperfect data, and it is bracing. She calculates that about one in every 23 Canadians is now infected with COVID. We are not at the low point of the pandemic in Canada. To the contrary, compared with a previous time during the pandemic, infections are 25 times higher and the rate of long COVID is 19 times higher. Meanwhile the hospitalization rate is 13 times higher and deaths are 25 times higher.

In the middle of October, Moriarty calculated that COVID patients occupied about nine per cent of intensive care beds and 21 per cent of hospital beds across the country. (The average hospitalization rate during the pandemic has been seven per cent.) The estimated cost of this sustained viral assault is $274 million a week.

Governments peddling denial

Most governments seem intent on diminishing or hiding these realities. They avoid any talk about the effectiveness of masking in public places or the value of improved ventilation and filtration in schools and workplaces. It’s a demonstrated fact that the virus travels through the air in tiny smoke-like aerosols that can infect people at much greater distances than six feet, but the natural responses to this reality are not encouraged by our leaders.

Alberta, for example, now pretends that COVID is just another mild respiratory disease and reports its doings along with influenza and RSV activity.

Despite this push for “normalization,” only one disease stands out as a routine killer and dominant occupant of hospital beds on the province’s “respiratory virus dashboard.” And that’s COVID. COVID also dominates outbreaks in Alberta’s hospitals and long-term care facilities where masking and attention to ventilation have become haphazard practices.

Lumping COVID in with other respiratory diseases is also patently misleading. A recent Swiss study compared hospitalized patients infected with COVID and those infected with the flu. Those with COVID had a 1.5-fold higher risk of dying in hospital up to 30 days after infection than patients infected by influenza A. The death rate was even higher for unvaccinated people.

A 2023 Swedish study also found the death rate from Omicron greatly surpassed that of influenza patients.

And next comes the increased risk of cardiovascular problems. Medical researchers have long observed strokes and acute myocardial infarctions in patients after respiratory infections, such as influenza. But COVID breaks the mould here. Compared with patients with the flu, the risk of stroke is more than sevenfold higher in COVID-19 patients.

This is likely tied to the fact that COVID can inflame the vascular system through which the body’s blood travels. New non-peer-reviewed evidence suggests that even a mild infection can temporarily damage endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels.

COVID may begin with the symptoms of a cold or flu for most people, but it often ends as thrombotic or vascular disease in a small percentage for reasons researchers don’t clearly understand. The virus can therefore infect multiple organs from the brain to the kidneys.

Immune systems and long COVID

COVID can also unsettle the immune system by damaging T-cell response, as recent studies have illustrated.

These findings make all the more illogical the current, widespread blasé attitude towards the ever-evolving virus.

Let’s begin with diabetes, which itself stresses the immune system and makes it less effective.

Early in the pandemic, researchers suspected there might be a connection between having COVID and later developing diabetes. Now it’s confirmed. Earlier this year the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai organization in Los Angeles found that a COVID infection dramatically increases the risk for developing Type 2 diabetes and that this risk continues with Omicron variants.

“The trends and patterns that we see in the data suggest that COVID-19 infection could be acting in certain settings like a disease accelerator, amplifying risk for a diagnosis that individuals might have otherwise received later in life,” noted Susan Cheng, a senior author of the study and a professor of cardiology.

Another study found that the incidence of diabetes in Black and Hispanic youth has increased by 62 per cent since the pandemic. The authors noted that COVID can bind to receptors in the pancreas, resulting in damaged cells.

A Canadian study also found steep increases in diabetes after COVID infections. University of British Columbia researchers examined a large population of British Columbians (more than 600,000) and discovered that people infected with COVID had a 17 to 22 per cent higher risk of developing diabetes within a year compared with uninfected people.

Concluded the researchers: “SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher risk of diabetes and may have contributed to a three per cent to five per cent excess burden of diabetes at a population level.”

Related research has also demonstrated that COVID infection can trigger or lead to a variety of autoimmune disorders.

One recent Lancet study that looked at nearly a million people who were unvaccinated between 2020 and 2021 found that COVID cases experienced much higher incidence of autoimmune disease than non-infected people.

These autoimmune conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, vasculitis (inflamed and swollen blood vessels), inflammatory bowel disease and Type 1 diabetes mellitus.

A similar German study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, evaluated a cohort of 640,701 unvaccinated individuals with PCR-confirmed COVID infection during 2020 for the risk of autoimmune conditions. The researchers identified “a 42.6 per cent higher likelihood of acquiring an autoimmune condition three to 15 months after infection” compared with a group of 1,560,357 individuals who weren’t infected.

The researchers also found that a COVID infection “increased the risk of developing another autoimmune disease by 23 per cent” in individuals with pre-existing immune conditions.

The autoimmune studies confirm that COVID can be a significant immune deregulator. The Yale University immunologist Akiko Iwasaki, who has dedicated her lab to studying long COVID, notes that “there's misfiring of the immune response happening in the severe COVID patients that lead to pathology and lethality.” Even a mild infection can lead to this misfiring and long COVID, and this group tends to be women between the ages of 30 and 50.

Reinfection is no trifle

The autoimmune studies, of course, don’t tell us anything about the current crop of variants and what autoimmune or cardiovascular diseases they might trigger in the future. But the precautionary principle would suggest avoiding infection.

The highly regarded U.S. epidemiologist Ziyad Al-Aly, who also studies long COVID, has been very clear about the hazardous consequences of reinfection in terms of chronic disease such as diabetes, brain inflammation and heart disease: “Two infections are worse than one and three are worse than two.”

His most recent research shows that people with mild infections are still at risk for chronic disease two years after the fact. Patients who were hospitalized with COVID were at even greater risk for chronic complications.

“The concern here is that this pandemic will generate a wave of chronic disease that we did not have before the pandemic,” Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, recently told Euronews Next.

“Even when the pandemic abates and is in the rear-view mirror, we will be left with it after the fact in the form of a chronic disease that for some people may last for a long time or even a lifetime,” added Al-Aly.

The Tyee has repeatedly reported evidence that immunity to COVID from natural infection or vaccination is not long-lasting because of the nature of the virus.

The research now confirms that infections can even leave some people more vulnerable to reinfection. A startling Canadian study published this year looked at 750 vaccinated elders at long-term care facilities where COVID deaths continue to be high. They found infection with Omicron in its first wave actually made these inmates more susceptible to reinfection in subsequent waves. Counterintuitively, these people were more prone to reinfection than patients who had never experienced COVID.

“Our current vaccine schedules are based on the assumption that having had an infection provides some level of protection to future infections, but our study shows that may not be true for all variants in all people,” noted Dawn Bowdish, an immunologist and one of the study’s authors.

What our health leaders should be saying

The implications of these findings are plain enough. The pandemic has a long tail, and it can be found in a growing population of people experiencing chronic disease. Therefore, limiting transmission is still the most important public health goal.

We know how to do that but are reluctant to employ the tools. Masking in crowded public spaces or poorly ventilated buildings during periods of high infection is a proven viral risk reducer. Cleaning dirty air in workplaces and schools removes the virus and other pollutants such as wildfire smoke and should be an urgent public health crusade.

We might all take inspiration from what happened at one Australian school. Concerned parents studied airflow and then installed HEPA filters with the result that improved air circulation stopped COVID transmission dead.

Rigorous surveillance testing is also essential to inform citizens of the advancing or retreating COVID risks.

Vaccinations play a role because they can significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization, death and long COVID. But current vaccines will not stop transmission. Or end the pandemic.

In a recent study a group of U.S. researchers modelled a variety of paths that COVID might take in the future.

If repeat infections and vaccinations actually work to improve immunity and dent the pandemic over time, then models suggest infections and the incidence of long COVID should decline too.

But as Omicron demonstrated, community immunity is unlikely to be achieved via existing vaccines and especially at a time when vaccine hesitancy is rising.

In one pessimistic scenario the researchers posited that “a first infection may provide partial protection against a second infection” but the combination of new variants and complexities surrounding immune responses “could then increase the susceptibility to tertiary and quaternary infections.”

That means a good proportion of the population could end up with long COVID in the absence of effective public health measures and the development of a durable, transmission-blocking vaccine.

“More pessimistic assumptions on host adaptive immune responses illustrate that the longer-term burden of COVID-19 may be elevated for years to come,” added the researchers.

#covid #covid 19 #pandemic #long covid #public health

17 notes · View notes

eaglesnick · 1 year ago

Text

“They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition” - Paul the Apostle

“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned. And I will earn yours."

These were the words of Rishi Sunak to the nation when he entered Downing Street October 2022. What we were unaware of then was that multi-millionaire Sunak had already forfeited that trust by valuing money more than human life.

At the Covid Inquiry yesterday, Patrick Vallance revealed the moral bankruptcy of Sunak. Trust Mr Sunak requires people to tell the truth and it seems you have been as guilty as Johnson in trying to hide your role in the thousands of unnecessary deaths caused by Covid.

“Patrick Vallance contradicts Rishi Sunak’s evidence to Covid inquiry.” (Guardian: 20/11/23)

Writing to the inquiry, Sunak had claimed he did “not recall any concerns about the scheme” Eat Out To Help Out, being raised at any meetings despite the fear that his scheme would boost the spread of the deadly virus.

According to Vallance, Sunak would have almost certainly have known of the scientific objections to his scheme, and was “very surprised” Sunak was in denial of this fact.

We already knew that Boris Johnson was prepared to “let the bodies pile high”, and now it seems so was Sunak.

“Rishi Sunak 'thought it was OK to just let people die' instead of imposing an economy-crippling second lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Covid-19 inquiry has heard.” (itvX: 20/11/23)

Sunak’s ‘Eat Out To Help Out ‘ scheme was NOT run past scientists for approval and no scientific advisors knew about the scheme until AFTER it had been announced. More concerned with the financial cost of the pandemic than human life:

“Rishi Sunak was overheard saying the Government should focus on handling its scientific advisers rather than the spread of Covid-19…" (The Irish News: 20/11/23)

Patrick Vallance has stated that the Eat Out To Help Out scheme is “highly likely" to have led to increased Covid deaths in the UK.

So much for trust! We have an unelected Prime Minister who actively and deliberately introduced a scheme that he knew would lead to an increase in Covid fatalities. For rich-boy Sunak it was “OK to just let people die" because to multi-millionaire Sunak money is more important than the lives of ordinary people.

#uk politics #rishi sunak #boris johnson #covid-19 #let them die #rich-boy #trust #lies #deceit #morality

7 notes · View notes

voskhozhdeniye · 5 months ago

Text

I also said in 2020. If the country could not handle the dangers of Covid, something that was killing people left and right here in America without fucking it up, and I'm talking about citizens co-opting the government's do whatever policy.

How were they going to handle the existential crisis of what's happening now?

The same way they handled Covid, denial.

Early in the pandemic I saw a post from someone that said, America is a very masculine country. If you tell them someone needs to be saved, they run for a gun. (The Aaron Bushnell video.....) Obsessed with appearing strong, they only learn lessons the hard way.

Which means many people have to die before change ever occurs, if it occurs at all.

I have been wanting to write a long work shit post for a while. I'm noticing something there that I'm seeing everywhere.

Coworker has been having shoulder pain for a year now. She probably needs surgery. I don't think she can afford it, plus I don't think she has the support around her to care for her in recovery like she would need. She lives with her BFF, our old boss, but I'd rather hang out with T Swizzle.

So she does nothing.

And the shoulder pain is just getting worse.

Her inaction, whether from her inability to afford the surgery, or whatever is leading to a bigger more rigorous obstacle in the future, possibly permanent damage.

She's calling out every week because of the pain, which is fucking her money up. She's afraid of the cost, but is losing money not doing anything.

I do what I can to help her, but I am being physically destroyed by the job too. I have also reached the point where I have realized many of my coworkers.........

In a Souls game, the point is to reach from checkpoint to checkpoint. When you reach a checkpoint and unlock it, all of the enemies you fought your way through to get there are revived in their original positions. The point is to remember enemy position and tactics. If you're having trouble fighting an enemy, practice, spar with it to learn how it attacks you. I like to imagine it's Groundhogs Day for enemies when I go farming in the game. ( I know that knight by the Artist's Shack in the lakes hates me!)

There is a checkpoint somewhere at work, because these people have no memory, and make the same mistakes everyday. People who have been with the company for 20, 30, 40, and some 50 years. I have coworkers in their '60s who started here in high school.

Watching people in their '50s and '60s running around at a job they've had for decades unsure how to do something they're suppose to do everyday is killing me more than anything. Gaza, I get that, that's colonialism.

A lot of these people, nobody's home. I feel like for a lot of them, making it to adulthood, finishing high school was the accomplishment of their lives. They're an adult, a finished product. They're nothing more to learn, that's how they act.

We have a coworker, who cannot read or write, but bosses everyone. Will ask you to read something for him, and then disrespect you.

A special needs employee who calls female employees cunts to their face.

Rape coworker is deteriorating physically and mentally. He refuses to take care of himself and is paying for it. He brought a water gun to work the other day and was shooting people.........................................

And coworker called out last night, Thursday is a holiday, we get holiday pay. I bet she thought she would call out last night and make up the money Thursday. Management took her off the schedule for Thursday

Fucking up her money even more.

This inaction, this denial of what's happening. On an earthly, country and for some personal level, no object permanence.

As Dark Souls coworker told me a few months back, he does his best to not know what's going on. I think he's lying though. This man used to read every bill that went through congress. I think he's having trouble swallowing the lie.

5 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 2 years ago

Text

The fat body has long been a site of medical surveillance, and this has not changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early research focused on linking fatness with more severe disease outcomes, yet many have questioned the strength of this association, including within the pages of this journal.

Fat communities, such as the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA), have contested society’s stubborn generalizations that associate fatness with disease and poor health outcomes, and push back against the assumption that fat people have little regard for themselves or their own well-being. They argue that thinking about obesity as a disease or medical risk (such as for severe COVID-19) contributes to stigma because it positions larger bodies as drains on an already-taxed health care system.

The NAAFA mobilizes the term “fat” in its fight against weight discrimination and fatphobia in all aspects of life, including in employment, health care and education. Similarly, as social scientists, we use the term “fat” rather than the deeply problematic medical term, “obesity,” which causes harm to people under the guise of benign objectivity. Categories can shape how individuals view themselves, as philosopher Ian Hacking has argued; they reinforce judgments about people who do not conform to a norm. Thus, “obesity” is not merely a statistical category, but is rather an evaluation about what constitutes an ideal weight. To “fatten” a category, Mollow and McRuer explain, “means examining it through the lenses of fat studies and the fat justice movement.”

Scholars of fat studies understand fatness as a way of thinking about bodily diversity. This literature maintains that fatness should be uncoupled from pathology, as such framings attach fatness to a sense of moral weakness and failed citizenship, and can fuel stigma in various settings, even health care. Such an uncoupling is increasingly supported by medical and population health research, which suggests that people who are labelled obese are not necessarily unhealthy.

There's a really weird intersection between people who want to shame and scold anti-vaxers - whether COVID or MMR - over "the science," and those who want to celebreate obesity, and deny or outright lie about "the science" and the health impacts of obesity because recognizing scientific reality is "shaming."

Not everything needs to be "destimatized." That doesn't mean people need to be actively harassed. But anti-science, denial of basic human biology, and rejection of objective reality don't need to be "normalized," nor do we need to pretend there are no consequences, no human or financial cost, just because some people prefer to hear a comforting lie over a painful truth. Any more than Flat Earth needs to be "normalized."

People who are obese know they're obese. They carry the awareness and the guilt. And in some cases, it's a symptom of a larger problem, particularly mental health issues, resulting in a feedback loop. "Normalizing" obesity is like normalizing alcoholism. It doesn't help the person, and it hurts them by encouraging them to stay stuck, encouraging the lie that they don't deserve better.

You “empower” people by telling them the truth.

-- The Stoic Emperor

"Fat Studies" is a real - in the sense it exists, not the sense that it's intellectually or academically legitimate - field in the same hypothetical Humanities that houses the other bogus grievance-based "Studies" fields. As with Queer Theory, it spun off directly from Feminist Theory, and closely parallels Disability Studies in asking why we think it's a good idea for bodies to work and people to live long healthy lives without the deleterious effects of excess weight on the body.

It has decided that the only reason people are concerned about obesity is a hatred of fat people, and a worship of an "ideology" it dubs "healthism." Apparently, not being chronically unwell is an ideology.

Health-ism is a belief system that sees health as the property and responsibility of an individual and ranks the personal pursuit of health above everything else, like world peace or being kind. [..] Health-ism judges people’s human worth according to their health. -- Lucy Aphramor, "What is Health-ism"

One supposes that Ms. Aphramor is projecting her guilt in the creation of such hyperbole.

youtube

Let's take a look at excerpts from "The Fat Studies Reader," by Esther RothBlum and Sondra Solovay (TOR).

"As a new, interdisciplinary field of intellectual inquiry, fat studies is defined in part by what it is not.

For example, if you believe that fat people could (and should) lose weight, then you are not doing fat studies—you are part of the $58.6 billion-per-year weight-loss industry or its vast customer base (Marketdata Enterprises, 2007).

If you believe that being fat is a disease and that fat people cannot possibly enjoy good health or long life, then you are not doing fat studies. Instead, your approach is aligned with “obesity” researchers, bariatric surgeons, public health officials who declare “war on obesity” (Koop, 1997), and the medico-pharmaceutical industrial complex that profits from dangerous attempts to “cure” people of bodily difference (more on “obesity” later).

If you believe that thin is inherently beautiful and fat is obviously ugly, then you are not doing fat studies work either. You are instead in the realm of advertising, popular media, or the more derivative types of visual art—in other words, propaganda."

"If you live in, and believe in, an objective reality, you're not doing Fat Studies."

"American culture is engaged in a pervasive witch hunt targeting fatness and fat people (a project that is rapidly being exported worldwide). Although this urge to eradicate fat people continues, it is not only challenging to be fat, but also especially challenging to question any aspect of the witch hunt on fat people (not that it is so very comfortable to be thin during a weight-based witch hunt)."

A "witch hunt," and yet shaming Rebel Wilson, Adele, Jennifer Hudson and Melissa McCarthy for their "betrayal" - their word, confirming an ideological motive - for losing weight is what's socially acceptable. As is usually the case with Critical Social Justice ideologies, this victimhood posture comes from those who hold systemic influence.

"I can definitely relate to feeling betrayed when celebrities do that," [...] "My initial gut reaction is that it almost feels like a hero is no longer a hero," [..] "I was like, 'I love her. She looks like me,'" Baker recalls. Now, she says, "It hurts."

Imagine someone saying this about Adele gaining weight, and then consider who is really conducting the "witch hunt".

The language being deployed here is deliberate: "this urge to eradicate fat people" makes people think of Auschwitz or firing squads or the like, when it means no such thing. It's a postmodernist strategy to adopt attributes as "identity" and then cry "eradication" or "genocide" when they're not needed any more. People leaving Islam is framed as "cultural genocide," although people leaving Xianity is not framed the same way. Helping babies to hear is "cultural genocide" or some kind of bigotry.

We're seeing the same thing at the moment with Queer Theory. Those who subscribe to Gender Ideology oppose exploratory therapy, and demand unquestioned affirmation of a child's internet self-diagnosis. To ask a child why they think they might be "trans" and to figure out what might be the cause(s) - typically, homosexuality, autism, social issues, depression, or regular everyday gender non-conformance - is framed as "Conversion Therapy." Because it means the child might find a more useful, accurate diagnosis and abandon "trans" as a self-diagnosis (identity). As if it's comparable to attaching gay men and women to electrodes and electrocuting them if they don't respond to the opposite sex, dunking them in ice water, or cloistering them away and bombarding them with religious dogma until they conform.

"[The Fat Underground] viewed the effort to eradicate fat people via weight loss as a form of genocide perpetrated by the medical profession. The Fat Underground was influenced both by feminism and by radical therapy, a type of treatment that put the focus of change on society, not on individuals. In the words of Gudrun Fonfa, “By refuting the dogma of the diet industry and rejecting the aesthetics of the patriarchal culture, [we made] activists out of each individual fat woman who liberated herself from a lifetime of humiliation” (Fishman, 2008)."

"The problem is not that I'm overweight, it's that you're not celebrating me." They're totally serious in calling it "genocide" when obese people lose weight and reduce the likelihood of obesity-related health issues. Such as death.

"But to uphold the rigor of the scientific convention limits engagement with meaning making: language is not a neutral tool but rather a powerfully charged political vector. The words that we use here influence our ability to generate possibilities (Lorde, 1984). Rather than locate our writing in the culture of positivism by choosing a relatively static scientific discourse, we have instead chosen to engage poetry as a way of “crafting a praxis-oriented culture” and troubling the status quo (Dorazio- Migliore, Migliore, & Anderson, 2005). In welcoming subordinated poetic voices, around which we have arranged our chapter, we deliberately reject the certainty of positivism (as well as the privilege that it affords us) and plump for a more unruly interface with our readers. We hope that this style presents dominant theories as indefinite, negotiable, situated, and open to query."

"Being limited to reality is confining when you want to invent and promote ideological nonsense, so we're here to convince you that it would be close minded not to consider poetry to be just as legitimate as science."

"In valuing feminist epistemologies the authors acknowledge, as Leahy writes, “that women’s experiences and knowledge have often been marginalized or ignored, often at great cost” (Leahy, 2001, p. 39). Of course, in foregrounding gender we do not wish to obscure axes of ideological bias related to class, race, sexuality identity, age, or disability. Our hope is that this chapter encourages more dietetic theorists and practitioners to take up the notion of a socially integrated feminist science for dietitians, one that refuses to disappear feminist discourses on fat."

That is, science doesn't echo feminist dogma sufficiently. The document actually describes science as: "a masculinist science that purports to be impartial and, denying the interweaving of science with society, sustains dietetics as socially disintegrated and nonfeminist." And therefore proposes an ideologically motivated parallel domain - "feminist science" - that does.

"If Fat Studies scholarship is in its infancy within the United States, it is practically fetal in the United Kingdom, but this may be changing. September 2007 heralds “Bodies of Evidence: Fat Across Disciplines,” an interdisciplinary and international conference at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities (CRASSH). This conference seeks to “examine the obese body as a case study of both the contested nature of evidence and as a site for the construction of interdisciplinary evidence and problem-solving” (2007)."

Zero medical, biological or health scientists. English majors writing pretentious screeds about obesity.

Finnish researcher Harjunen clarifies the need for increased cross-cultural understanding: I do realise that we non-American activists need to bring this issue up. For example the case of health care is very different in the Nordic countries and UK (I mean that it is universal, you are not denied access to medical care because of the weight as in the insurance-based systems), weight loss surgeries are almost non-existent here, but so are services for fat people, as well as the discussion about the politics of fat unfortunately. People believe in medicine, so-called health experts and public health campaigns almost blindly. My doctoral dissertation on fatness will be the first one in this country that comes from the field of social sciences not medicine or health sciences. (e-mail correspondence, 3 May 2006)

"Listen to politically-motivated ideologues with unfalsifiable postmodern hypotheses, instead of those whose work is open to scientific scrutiny."

"If we follow the normal procedures of science, we need to show that there is evidence for our hypothesis before assuming it is true. But in real life, scientific consensus also occurs because a priori assumptions are so seamless that they are not questioned.

One of the a priori assumptions that does not seem to require evidence is the idea that being fat is unhealthy.

[..]

Because people in our culture, including physicians, subscribe so religiously to these assumptions, they have not been subjected to adequate scientific testing."

"Having already rejected science as being legitimate, we'll now pretend to 'correctly' apply science, despite not having any science background, after first baselessly asserting that all science is just 'religiously' supported by 'assumptions,' and claiming no evidence or testing whatsoever exists for the decades of research into obesity."

Obesity is just assumed to be unhealthy. For no reason other than bigotry and oppression.

Xianity does the same thing when they ramble about the laws of thermodynamics and that no evidence exists to support evolution. Or when they call atheism a "religion" or that it requires more "faith."

"If fatness causes health problems, why does it not show up in all fat people? Why do those same health problems show up in thin people? Why do the diseases attributed to higher BMI seem to also be characterizable as diseases of aging or chronic stress?"

"What are statistics and how do they work? I wouldn't know, because my field doesn't use data."

"Like other forms of mother blame, mother blaming in the context of the “obesity epidemic” is as much or more about social anxieties regarding the changing role of women, as well as the changing racial and ethnic composition of the nation, than it is about any real public health “crisis.” Like the social construction of the “obesity epidemic” in general, the blaming of mothers for their kids’ “excess” weight draws attention away from very real structural inequalities in health care, education, and employment that are often felt hardest by women and minorities. [..]

Given the function of the “obesity epidemic” to draw attention away from structural inequality, as well as the ways in which mother blame for childhood “obesity” ties in with other forms of mother blame, one would think that feminists would have taken up the issue of fat rights in the same way they have championed reproductive rights, the rights of working women, and the rights of children. I argue, however, that a general cultural acceptance of the “fat = unhealthy” equation, along with a larger societal fat phobia, in part explains why the “obesity epidemic” is only now beginning to be critically deconstructed by mainstream feminism and social science. This situation strongly makes the case for an interdisciplinary field of fat studies in which scholars and activists can consider the increasing intertwining of sexism, homophobia, racism, classism, and fat phobia, among other issues."

"Pointing out that your kids are overweight is really about hiding racism, sexism and homophobia... somehow."

"That fat and queer people would heartily embrace science and medicine as a solution to their socially constructed problems is redolent of Stockholm syndrome—after all, science and medicine have long been instrumental in oppressing fat and queer people, providing argument after argument that pathologize the homosexual or “obese” individual (whether the mind or the body). Michel Foucault’s work (1980) has shown us that placing bodies under the microscope of science, in the name of liberal projects of self-improvement, in fact reinscribes their deviance and increases their oppression."

The paper simply continues to assert that obesity is a "socially-constructed problem" invented by science and indirectly - through the use of the Stockholm syndrome comparison - invokes False Consciousness, a Marxian concept whereby "oppressed" groups internalize and reproduce the same assertions their "oppressors" use to "oppress" them. The inclusion of language about homosexuality is no accident - Fat Studies regards obese people as being comparable to homosexuals, and insists that messaging relating to obesity and health problems is based entirely on bigotry, and that encouragement to lose weight and get healthy is comparable to insisting gay people should just try to have heterosexual sex (making gay people straight is, by the way, now a crusade of Queer Theorists).

"If you believe that being fat is a disease and that fat people cannot possibly enjoy good health or long life, then you are not doing fat studies. Instead, your approach is aligned with “obesity” researchers, bariatric surgeons, public health officials who de- clare “war on obesity” (Koop, 1997), and the medico-pharmaceutical industrial com- plex that profits from dangerous attempts to “cure” people of bodily difference (more on “obesity” later)."

"We're going to deliberately ignore that weight loss can be achieved inexpensively by making lifestyle changes, such as increasing exercise, reducing caloric intake, reducing portion size and making substitutions, and instead paint concern over obesity as a giant corporate conspiracy and grab for money, blamed on 'Obesity, Inc.,' a parallel to the 'Big Pharma' railed against by anti-vaxers. And just as anti-vaxers ignore 'Big Placebo,' the multi-billion dollar 'alternative medicine' industry, we're going to conveniently ignore the multi-billion dollar industries that promote fast foods, comfort foods and sedentary lifestyles."

"In 2016, the aggregate medical cost due to obesity among adults in the United States was $260.6 billion."

At least "2.8 million people [die] each year as a result of being overweight or obese." In the last three years of the COVID pandemic, there have been 6.6 million deaths attributed to/caused by the virus. This means that as an average over the three years of COVID, obesity is still outpacing COVID deaths.

One of the strongest contributing factors to death resulting from COVID from those under 65 was obesity, but hardly anyone talked about it, at the risk of being scolded about "fat-shaming." The typical activist tactic was, "well this fit, 30 year old runner died of COVID, so I don't have to know what 'contributing factors' means". But ignoring it didn't change that it was there.

Doctors are even being told not to weigh patients, in case they find it "shaming." Which is nothing but denial. Whether you're weighed by the doctor or not doesn't change your weight - you're just refusing to know or acknowledge it.

This, then...

... functions the same as this.

The final word I'll leave to the Fat Studies scholars. This vacuous word salad, again from the Fat Studies Reader, merges crazy from across the social justice spectrum into one rambling, incoherent paragraph of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. We shouldn't be using these people's ideas to guide society.

Imagination nurtures dietetic theory and practice (Berenbaum, 2005), whereas an impoverished imagination glorifies the status quo by silencing and repressing vulnerable, feminist texts (Gingras, 2005b). Poetry is born of the imagination, instigates rather than routinizes, and illuminates alternative ways of telling, knowing, and being a dietitian. Poetics enlivens the emotional capacity of dietetic practice, which buttresses a feminist dietetic ethics because our work is at its core a fundamentally human endeavor. Our intention with this chapter is to bring forward contemporary examples within dietetics where anti-fat, healthist discourse enacts a type of violence; to integrate social feminist theories on the body and gender performativity with dietetic theory, practice, and agency; and finally to offer mindfulness and poetics as reconciliatory discourses whereby difference is not viewed as deviance, and complicity is rarely tolerated.

31 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year ago

Text

* * * * *

The climate crisis requires a wartime footing

Camilla Cavendish: “I wish,” a longstanding US Democrat and environmentalist said to me recently, “that we’d never politicised global warming.” Even as extreme heat is demonstrating that no country will be immune from climate change, the politics are becoming more treacherous. Parts of the right are mobilising to slow down the path to net zero, as inflation bites and the fossil fuel industry comes under pressure. In the US, Ron DeSantis has rejected “the politicisation of the weather” — despite having had to grapple with the effects of its extremes in Florida — and House Republicans are lobbying to overturn a tax on methane pollution within the Inflation Reduction Act. In Britain, Conservatives who fear annihilation at the next election have decided to use green policies as a wedge against Labour. Even Canada’s premier, Justin Trudeau, is struggling to deliver what was a radical plan on decarbonisation.

I have the eerie sense that some of the old tunes of the 1990s are being replayed. Although outright climate denial is now patently delusional, rightist politicians are quick to claim that the west has already done enough, or that new technology will save us. There have also been some bizarre attempts to distract from the main issue. When the skies in New York State turned orange in June, Rudy Giuliani tweeted “Is it due to wildfires, climate change or something more sinister?”. In Britain, the former Tory minister Lord David Frost recently declared that we shouldn’t worry because more people die of cold than heat. Meanwhile the hard end of the oil industry continues to lobby for projects that would be stranded assets under net zero.

The dilemma is how to balance climate action with the preservation of livelihoods. This can feel frustrating to those of us who fear we may soon reach planet tipping points which will wreak their own economic havoc. Extreme weather has already made some US homes uninsurable. Canada has lost more land to wildfires this year than any other on record, and its Climate Institute estimates that extreme heat will threaten half a million jobs by 2050. Meanwhile Greece, Italy and Spain, which are sweltering in 40C heat, must fear for the future of their tourist industries. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask which solutions will be most cost-effective, and where the costs should fall. The path to net zero demands that governments pull off the equivalent of a new Industrial Revolution in only three decades. Politicians are reluctant to move ahead of where they think public opinion is — and the public dislike blank cheques. The answer is surely to invoke a wartime spirit, and make the fight against climate change a joint endeavour against a common enemy. If the public and political will is there, human ingenuity can prevail, with remarkable speed. In the second world war, America transformed its manufacturing base to produce tanks and ammunition. The Covid pandemic resulted in the discovery and development of vaccines at scale, saving millions of lives. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has finally prompted Germany to free itself from its dependence on Russian gas.

What do all these cases have in common? A determined focus on a single objective, a sense of national unity and leadership by the private sector. For this to happen with climate, the political conversation has to mature. The left is correct in believing that getting to net zero will require a bigger state to mobilise resources and frame objectives. But the right is also correct that only markets are nimble and innovative enough to deliver. In Britain, some Tories are disingenuously trying to elide an unpopular tax on polluting vehicles in London with entirely separate climate policy. But many Green parties have committed similar sins, merging ‘green’ policies with ‘red’ ones — like wealth taxes, shrinking the military or, disastrously for Germany’s carbon footprint, opposing nuclear power. The story that voters need to hear from political leaders cannot be ideological. Long before Al Gore spoke so eloquently about the Inconvenient Truth, Margaret Thatcher warned of the growing peril of carbon emissions, and called for a framework convention on climate change in her speech to the 1989 UN General Assembly. Some modern Conservatives who consider themselves Thatcher’s disciples hate being reminded of her words that “we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort” — but she was right.

In two decades of writing about climate change I have learnt that it provokes deeply emotional reactions. People are quick to dispute any suggestion that they should change their lifestyle, or that the world they inhabit might change. They are understandably concerned about who is going to bear the costs of decarbonisation, and whether it is fair. Many would rather not think about it too much. Individual political leaders are navigating a very complex situation, a global tragedy of the commons in which no one population wants to lose out to any other. My American Democrat friend was right: the issue is too important to be held hostage by any one group. If we are to tackle the warming climate, we must take the heat out of the politics.

[thanks Robert Scott Horton]

#climate emergency #Robert Scott Horton #Financial Times #Camilla Cavandish #articles #history #climate change #global emergency #wartime footing

5 notes · View notes

medical-billingandcoding · 4 months ago

Text

Elevate Your Ambulance Billing to New Heights with Medi Claim Management's Specialized Services

In the fast-paced world of emergency medical services, efficient ambulance billing is crucial for the financial health of your organization. From remote medical billing and coding to entry-level medical billing support, Medi Claim Management offers a comprehensive suite of specialized ambulance billing services to optimize your revenue cycle and maximize reimbursements.

Remote Medical Billing and Coding: Elevating Ambulance Billing Efficiency

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the demand for remote medical billing and coding solutions, and Medi Claim Management has risen to the challenge. Their team of certified coders and billing experts leverage cutting-edge technology to provide secure, off-site ambulance billing services, allowing your in-house staff to focus on delivering critical emergency care.

By outsourcing your remote medical billing and coding to Medi Claim Management, you can:

● Ensure accurate and timely claims submission

● Streamline your revenue cycle with efficient, centralized billing processes

● Reduce overhead costs associated with maintaining an in-house billing department

● Benefit from the expertise of seasoned professionals who stay up-to-date with the latest regulations and best practices

Entry-Level Medical Billing: Building a Solid Foundation for Ambulance Providers

For small or newly established ambulance service providers, the prospect of building an in-house medical billing department can be overwhelming. Medi Claim Management's entry-level medical billing services offer a cost-effective solution, providing comprehensive support from the ground up.

Their experts handle the entire billing process, from patient registration and claim submission to denial management and collections. By outsourcing your entry-level medical billing, you can:

● Free up your staff to focus on patient care and operations

● Leverage the expertise of certified billing specialists who ensure compliance with industry standards

● Benefit from reduced overhead costs associated with hiring and training in-house billing personnel

● Enjoy peace of mind knowing your revenue cycle is in the hands of trusted professionals

Medical Billing Support: Elevating Your Ambulance Billing Capabilities Even well-established ambulance service providers can benefit from the expertise of Medi Claim Management's medical billing support services. Their team of seasoned professionals can integrate with your existing billing processes, providing tailored solutions to address pain points, optimize workflows, and enhance overall financial performance.

With Medi Claim Management's medical billing support, you can:

● Improve claim accuracy and reduce denials

● Streamline billing and collections processes

● Implement best-in-class revenue cycle management practices

● Gain valuable insights through advanced data analytics and reporting

Medical Billing Solutions for Clinics: Empowering Ambulance Providers

Medi Claim Management's comprehensive medical billing solutions for clinics are designed to address the unique challenges faced by ambulance service providers. From specialty-specific coding and compliance to advanced analytics and reporting, their services are customized to meet the needs of your organization, ensuring a seamless and efficient revenue cycle.

Key features of Medi Claim Management's medical billing solutions for clinics include:

● Dedicated coding and billing experts with deep expertise in emergency medical services

● Comprehensive claim management, from submission to follow-up

● Denial management and appeals support

● Compliance monitoring and auditing to mitigate regulatory risks

● Customized reporting and analytics to drive informed decision-making

The Medi Claim Management Advantage: Expertise, Technology, and Exceptional Service

What sets Medi Claim Management apart in the world of ambulance billing services? It's their unwavering commitment to excellence, innovative approach, and focus on delivering tangible results for their clients.

Expertise and Experience With over two decades of industry experience, Medi Claim Management has honed its expertise in the complex world of ambulance billing and coding. Their team of certified coders, billing specialists, and compliance experts are well-versed in the latest regulations, guidelines, and best practices, ensuring your organization remains compliant and maximizes reimbursements.

Cutting-Edge Technology Medi Claim Management embraces the power of technology to streamline and enhance their ambulance billing services. From cloud-based platforms to advanced data analytics, their solutions are designed to improve efficiency, increase transparency, and provide real-time insights into your revenue cycle.

Exceptional Customer Service At the heart of Medi Claim Management's success is their unwavering commitment to customer service. Their dedicated account managers and support staff work tirelessly to ensure a seamless experience, providing responsive communication and personalized attention to every client.

The Impact of Specialized Ambulance Billing Services

By partnering with Medi Claim Management, ambulance service providers can unlock a host of benefits that positively impact their financial well-being and operational efficiency.

Improved Revenue Capture Medi Claim Management's specialized billing services help ambulance providers maximize their reimbursements by reducing denials, optimizing coding, and ensuring timely claim submission. Their clients have reported an average 30% increase in collections.

Enhanced Compliance Staying up-to-date with the ever-changing healthcare regulations can be a daunting task. Medi Claim Management's compliance monitoring and auditing services ensure your organization remains compliant, safeguarding you from costly penalties and fines.

Streamlined Workflows By outsourcing your medical billing and coding to Medi Claim Management, your in-house staff can focus on providing exceptional emergency care, rather than getting bogged down by administrative tasks. This increased efficiency translates to improved patient satisfaction and reduced staff burnout.

Data-Driven Insights Medi Claim Management's advanced analytics and reporting capabilities provide your organization with valuable insights into your revenue cycle performance. This data-driven approach enables you to identify areas for improvement, make informed decisions, and drive sustained financial growth.

Unlock the Future of Ambulance Billing with Medi Claim Management

In the ever-evolving landscape of emergency medical services, ambulance providers that partner with Medi Claim Management gain a competitive edge. By leveraging their specialized billing services, you can streamline your revenue cycle, enhance compliance, and drive sustainable financial growth – all while allowing your in-house team to focus on delivering critical care to the community. Ready to take the next step? Contact Medi Claim Management today and discover how their tailored solutions can transform your ambulance billing operations.

#remote medical billing and coding #entry level medical billing #medical billing services #medical billing and coding #medical billing support #medical billing solutions for clinics

0 notes

velanhcs · 4 months ago

Text

Outsourcing Healthcare Billing for Telehealth: A Game-Changer for US Providers

The healthcare landscape has been dramatically reshaped by the rapid adoption of telehealth services, particularly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As telehealth becomes integral to patient care, providers face different challenges, with healthcare billing being one of the most critical. Given the complex nature of telehealth billing, many healthcare organizations are turning to outsourcing as a strategic move to enhance their revenue cycles and optimize operations.

Understanding Telehealth Billing Challenges

Before discussing the advantages of outsourcing healthcare billing, it's crucial to understand the specific challenges associated with billing for telehealth services:

Varied Coding Requirements: Telehealth services often require different modifiers and codes compared to in-person visits. Providers must navigate an extensive array of CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes specific to telemedicine, which can differ between payers.

Regulatory Compliance: The rules governing telehealth reimbursement can frequently change, making it difficult for providers to keep up. Compliance with Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance regulations, along with state-specific laws, is essential to avoid costly mistakes.

Reimbursement Discrepancies: Different insurers have varying policies on telehealth reimbursement. Some may offer equal reimbursement for telehealth visits, while others may not, leading to potential revenue loss if not managed correctly.

Claim Denials and Appeals: The rate of claim denials tends to be higher for telehealth services, often due to coding errors or misinterpretations of coverage policies. This increases the need for effective follow-up and appeals processes, placing further strain on healthcare providers.

Patient Communication: Ensuring patients understand their billing and coverage for telehealth services can be challenging. A lack of clarity can lead to confusion, dissatisfaction, or delayed payments.

Why Outsourcing Healthcare Billing is Transformative

Outsourcing healthcare billing, particularly for telehealth services, has several transformative advantages:

Expert Knowledge and Compliance: Outsourcing billing allows providers to partner with firms that specialize specifically in telehealth billing. These professionals stay updated on the newest regulations, payer requirements, and coding changes, significantly reducing the risk of compliance issues and ensuring accurate claims submission.

Efficient Revenue Cycle Management: Specialized billing companies employ advanced technology and skilled staff trained in medical billing best practices. This expertise can lead to quicker claim submissions, reduced denial rates, and streamlined appeals processes. By improving the efficiency of their revenue cycle management, providers can ensure a steady cash flow.

Cost Savings and Financial Flexibility: For many healthcare organizations, especially smaller practices, maintaining an in-house billing department can incur considerable costs. By outsourcing, providers can convert fixed labor costs into variable costs, paying only for services rendered. This approach often results in significant savings on salaries, benefits, technology investments, and ongoing training.

Increased Focus on Patient Care: Healthcare professionals are primarily dedicated to providing patient care. Outsourcing billing and administrative tasks allows them to concentrate on what they do best—serving their patients effectively. This focus can enhance patient satisfaction and ensure that telehealth services are delivered more efficiently.

Scalability and Adaptability: The nature of telehealth can lead to fluctuations in patient volume. Outsourcing provides the scalability needed to handle these variations effectively without the complications of hiring or laying off staff. Providers can adjust their billing operations in response to demand easily.

Choosing the Right Partner for Outsourcing

When considering outsourcing healthcare billing for telehealth, it’s vital to choose a partner that aligns with your organization’s needs. Here are key features to look for in a billing service provider:

Industry Specialization: Ensure the billing company has a strong track record in telehealth billing specifically. Their understanding of the nuances in coding, compliance, and reimbursement policies will be invaluable.

Technological Capabilities: A good billing service should utilize modern technology for billing processes. This includes automated claims submission, comprehensive tracking, and reporting capabilities that provide valuable insights into your revenue cycle.

Transparent Communication: Look for a billing partner that emphasizes clear communication. Regular updates, detailed reporting on billing performance, and direct lines of communication can significantly enhance your understanding of the financial health of your practice.

Customizable Solutions: Each healthcare provider has unique needs. A billing partner should offer customizable solutions that adapt to your specific operational model and service offerings in telehealth.

Proven Track Record: Seek testimonials or case studies that demonstrate the billing company’s effectiveness in improving revenue cycles for telehealth providers. Reliable partners will have a history of success and satisfied clients.

Why Velan is the Ideal Partner for Telehealth Billing

Velan stands out as a premier choice for healthcare providers looking to outsource telehealth billing for several reasons:

Expertise in Telehealth Billing: Velan’s team specializes in the intricacies of telehealth billing, ensuring that all processes align with the latest regulations and payer policies. They provide guidance on proper coding and documentation, reducing the likelihood of denials.

Advanced Technology Integration: Utilizing cutting-edge billing software allows Velan to automate routine functions, track claims, and report performance metrics effectively. This technological advantage ensures that claims are processed promptly and accurately.

Custom Solutions Tailored to Providers: Velan takes a consultative approach, working closely with healthcare organizations to understand their specific needs and tailoring billing solutions accordingly. This customization guarantees that the adopted processes align with the provider’s operational workflow.

Commitment to Client Success: Velan prioritizes the long-term success of its clients, providing ongoing support and consulting services to help healthcare providers maximize their billing efficiencies.

Transparent Pricing Structures: Velan offers clear and flexible pricing models that provide excellent value without hidden costs, allowing healthcare providers to plan their budgets effectively.

Conclusion

The shift toward telehealth has necessitated a rethinking of many administrative processes, particularly billing. Outsourcing healthcare billing presents a significant opportunity for providers to enhance their efficiency, compliance, and revenue cycle management. By partnering with a specialized billing service like Velan, healthcare organizations can not only improve their bottom line but also focus on delivering high-quality patient care in the era of telehealth.

As the landscape continues to evolve, outsourcing healthcare billing may prove to be the key to thriving in this new frontier of healthcare.

Additional Resources

American Telemedicine Association (ATA) - ATA Website - Comprehensive resources for telehealth practices and guidelines.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Telehealth Services - CMS Telehealth - Key regulations, reimbursement policies, and coding guidelines for telehealth services.

Telehealth.HHS.gov - Telehealth Resources - Important information for patients and providers regarding telehealth services and access.

#Tele Health BIlling #Medical Billing

0 notes

tieflingkisser · 5 months ago

Text

We’ve Hit Peak Denial. Here’s Why We Can’t Turn Away From Reality

We are living through a terrible time in humanity. Here’s why we tend to stick our heads in the sand and why we need to pull them out, fast

In the short term, living in a state of peak denial helps us cope. In the long run, it will be our undoing. Because the danger here is desensitization: that we meet this unprecedented litany of “wicked problems,” from climate change to the rise of fascism, with passive acceptance rather than urgent collective action. How does this happen? How do we overlook and become hardened to bad things, especially in this scientific and technological age, when we’ve never been more capable of understanding and addressing them? To resist complacency, we must first understand how it operates. Social scientists have long investigated the social organization of denial or how we collectively achieve reality-adjacent lives in which we do not recognize serious problems or they are made to seem normal. What research has found is that a key way we come to “not see” social problems that should beg for our attention is that disturbing or threatening information is neutralized or evaded. COVID is a good case study for illustrating the “Collective Denial Playbook” that underpins our new normal reality. A common strategy to neutralize a social problem is to make knowing about it hard, often by restricting efforts to look into it, like scaling back COVID tracking. In April the CDC ended the requirement that hospitals report COVID admissions and occupancy data, removing one of the last tools we could use to monitor what’s happening. “We now enter the blackout phase of epidemiology” wrote science journalist Laurie Garrett on X, adding: “There will be patients, but their numbers and whereabouts will be unknown….” Disappearing is also accomplished by not alerting the public. For example, during the winter surge, we heard “crickets from the White House.” In fact, as COVID positivity and death rates rose, tweets from CDC director Mandy Cohen decreased. If the COVID situation is tracked and the public warned, things don’t feel normal. But if we don’t monitor or mention it, then things can feel “back to normal”—fine, even.

[...]

This minimization keeps the quiet part quiet: that “the world is still in a pandemic” per the WHO; that more than 73,000 Americans died of COVID in 2023, a higher number than from car accidents or influenza; among those infected, 9 percent and counting have long COVID, a serious and often disabling condition with a disease burden comparable to cancer or heart disease, and an economic cost rivaling the Great Recession, and for which there are no approved treatments. What’s more, each infection is associated with a substantially increased risk of health issues like cognitive dysfunction, autoimmune disease and cardiovascular problems, even for mild infections. Pre-pandemic, these statistics would have been eye-popping. Now they constitute “back to normal.” We think we no longer have a problem, when actually we’ve just changed the standard by which we deem something concerning. Yet, to shore up collective denial, we often do more than revise the present; we also rewrite the past. So not only do we reiterate that we are better off now, we claim things were never that bad. This sort of “forgetting work,” or contesting the past to remove unwanted memories, produces a cultural amnesia about the pandemic. And in burying the past, we sidestep accountability for what went wrong and preserve the status quo by failing to implement lessons learned from our own history.

[...]

Time and again, society pressures people not to see, hear or speak about the elephant in the room. To maintain our own “cognitive tranquility,” we tune out, malign and shoot the messenger because they remind us of what we would rather disregard. Just look at physician Ignaz Semmelweis, environmentalist Rachel Carson* and NFL player and social justice advocate Colin Kaepernick. Indeed, people are regularly punished for being accurate.

[...]

We need to work harder to catch ourselves in the act of staying silent or avoiding uncomfortable information and do more real-time course correcting. We need to guard against lowering our standards for normalcy. When we mentally and emotionally recalibrate to the new normal, we also disassociate from our own humanity. We need to demand that our leaders give the full truth and hold them to account. We must stand up for the silenced and stand with the silence-breakers. To counter the new normal’s assault on normalcy, we must double down on our duty to know, to speak up, and to remember.

1 note · View note