Pennsylvania had a nursing home policy similar to New York early on in the pandemic. She moved her mom out of a nursing home the day before the policy was announced lol. Lotta rightoid seethe for her before this was even announced.
Yeah I mean, not to downplay the deathtoll, but I think there's something fundamentally wrong with how nursing homes are run.
Also homies in states like PA are trying their best to beat those nursing home deaths. PA has something like a 40% positivity rate on tests. You have to practically be deliberately r-slurred to achieve that. I'm impressed.
It might not have been as black and white as that. Something about they had to take patients who had been hospitalized, but they weren't allowed to test them for covid, or ask about any covid testing they had had. It was fucking ridiculous though, and caused a TON of deaths in the nursing homes.
Of course they did, because they're just idiots and have no comprehension of what was actually going on.
The nursing home policies were primarily born out of the fact multiple states were terrified they didn't have enough hospital beds to treat covid patients.
Sending old people to nursing homes isn't actually as bad as it sounds. Nursing homes are supposed to have infection containment plans in place because when you're old you can easily die from even a cold.
Even then nursing homes were only supposed to accept patients they could care for, safely, without endangering others.
Seemingly the vast majority of nursing homes are stupid and took the law as literally forcing them to just take old people with covid no matter what.
And even then, seemingly most of the covid spread in nursing homes didn't come from old people being sent back, but staff spreading the virus around for weeks before anyone even knew the virus was in America:
Sending old people to nursing homes isn't actually as bad as it sounds. Nursing homes are supposed to have infection containment plans in place because when you're old you can easily die from even a cold.
Do you remember the mentally ill black guy who had a youtube channel of himself beating up old people in a nursing home? It turned out that he was sent there because he had covid (despite not being old), and yet "containment plans" did not prevent him from going around beating up old folks.
If a certain approach consistently results in a total disaster you don't get the excuse that it was just not very well implemented, it was some stupid people on the ground. You must be held accountable for failing to account for the fact that the plan must work in the real world.
Even then nursing homes were only supposed to accept patients they could care for, safely, without endangering others.
Seemingly the vast majority of nursing homes are stupid and took the law as literally forcing them to just take old people with covid no matter what.
You're just making shit up in your head like a rightoid, imagining how things should have been done properly and then assuming that they were done this way. Here's the actual directive, I don't see any hedging there and a lot of literally forcing no matter what. edit: including this gem that inadvertently(?) made any attempts at containment much harder:
NHs are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.
Lester, before we continue this argument and I easily dunk you as is the norm here, you should actually go read the report on this topic, which soundly debunked the claim nursing home deaths to covid came from sending old people back.
You're just making shit up in your head like a rightoid, imagining how things should have been done properly and then assuming that they were done this way. Here's the actual directive, I don't see any hedging there and a lot of literally forcing no matter what.
Again, no, you're incorrect. The entire basis of that order was:
What happened here is nursing homes were under the impression they had to take them, but they weren't actually required to take them no matter what:
Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long-Term Care Community Coalition, an advocacy group for elderly and disabled people. âThere was little reason for nursing homes to think they should only take in patients if they have the ability to do so safely because those rules are not generally enforced on a regular basis.â
Bottom line: State and federal rules didnât force nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, but many of them believed they had no other choice
What happened here is nursing homes were under the impression they had to take them, but they weren't actually required to take them no matter what
Who are you going to believe, your own lying eyes or an article pushing an agenda? Btw, congratulations on failing a reading comprehension check on that Richard Mollot's quote.
Again, here's the Cuomo's directive, it's one page, read it. It speaks in no uncertain terms, doesn't mention any exceptions, and presumably overrides standing state and federal guidelines.
It also has this gem that inadvertently(?) made any attempts at containment much harder:
NHs are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.
State regulations still required nursing homes to only take people that could safely care for. The covid directive was in that context.
Then why doesn't the directive mention that context? Why did the guy you quoted say that there was little reason for nursing homes to think that the directive doesn't override state guidelines?
Look, it's very simple actually: if one nursing home misunderstood the directive then it would be their fault, if all of them "misunderstood" it then it was Cuomo's fault.
I don't know, maybe if nursing homes weren't primarily staffed by HS dropouts they'd know any directive has to be read in the context of state law/regulation.
I wonder if Cuomo himself knew that NHs could actually tell him to go fuck himself? As in, it's not just a store robbery situation, but I too don't know that my gun is secretly not loaded. "But that's not what's being disputed, what is being disputed is if I forced the clerk to give me the money."
Lester you can't reasonably believe that a nursing home should not be aware of state regulations.
At some point these people need to be held accountable for their own incompetence.
Yes, the directive was poorly written. But that is no excuse for that many nursing homes to literally not understand state law in relation to who they should and shouldn't take.
Even more stupid here is the CDC has a bunch of guidelines for this very thing too.
How did not a single person involved here go check those guidelines, state law, and realize what was meant by the directive?
It could have been written better, but trying to spin the entire thing on Cuomo here and not everyone else that failed is stupid.
I wonder how a directive that does override state guidelines looks like. Does it specifically state that due to the state of emergency provision 768 paragraphs 2-4 no longer apply? Or does it look exactly like this one looked and any smart aleck NH administrator that refuses to accept covid patients gets fired, and tarred and feathered by the press for literally murdering people in overcrowded hospitals?
Yeah, but how does a directive that does override existing regulations look like, in case hospitals do run out of capacity and forcing nursing homes to take some patients is a good idea?
What does a NH administrator do when a patient arrives from the hospital and he says that he doesn't feel like he can provide adequate quarantine and sends him back, and the hospital is like, WTF the directive clearly says you "must" and he's, like, not so fast, here's this obscure regulation, and the hospital is like WTF man if Cuomo wanted you to be able to ignore his direct orders he'd have mentioned that?
Should every NH administrator visit some hospitals and call the shots on whether the situation there is serious enough to override existing regulations? Shouldn't that be exactly Cuomo's role? How would Cuomo himself react to such administrators, you didn't say, how do you think his directive was intended to be understood, not as calling the shots?
Nah, this is pure CYA post-hock rationalization. In a counterfactual world where hospitals did in fact overflow the directive would have looked exactly the same and anyone refusing to obey it would have been lynched. You'd be here saying that obviously a directive is not supposed to name every piece of state or federal guidelines it might contradict and confirm that it does in fact override it. So you don't get to claim that the fault also lies with NH administrators for not clairvoyantly predicting that the hospitals won't overflow.
I laid out exactly what the wording meant in another comment.
I also don't know why you keep trying to make this about defending Cuomo, the guy is an idiot, but it's pretty obvious what the calculation was and how the wording read in reality.
The point was to stop NHs from declining people using a covid diagnosis as the sole basis, so you didn't end up with clogged hospitals full of old people that need 24/7 care from the staff.
The average old person being discharged was being discharged 9+ days after being admitted, meaning they wouldn't be contagious.
While the order says they couldn't decline people on the sole basis of a covid diagnosis within the last month or whatever, there's nothing in there that says they can't decline people for other reasons - like for example, not being able to correctly care for them.
You don't understand the question? I'm asking how the wording would look like if the situation in the hospitals was dire enough that even the NHs that didn't feel that they "could implement the recommended infection-control procedures to safely care for a patient recovering from the virus" must be required to take them in anyway.
You're already debating hypotheticals. You said that if, hypothetically, NH administrators weren't high school dropouts then they'd realize that they don't have to follow Cuomo's orders unless they could provide top notch care to infectious patients (note btw that the order explicitly forbade requiring testing if the patient is still infectious).
I'm saying, all right, put yourself into the shoes of one of such hypothetical NH administrator with at least a college degree and consider a further hypothetical, what if the shots that Cuomo's directive seemed to call turn out to be correct? What if the hospitals are nearly overflowing and so you must accept anyone they send your way even if you're not perfectly ready? Do you have a better big picture than Cuomo?
In my humble opinion a competent, college-educated NH administrator was morally obligated to follow Cuomo's directive as written and on the contrary only a very stupid NH administrator that barely finished middle-school would assume that Cuomo assumed that everyone would assume that it's not supposed to override standing state/federal directives.
So I think that your hypothetical is wrong, the nursing homes did what they should and the excuse that they maybe had a way to disobey Cuomo is retarded because given their knowledge at the moment that would be a wrong thing to do.
M8 Idk what the fuck you're even on about at this point.
You've gone from claiming the state legally required them to take these people to something else.
This isn't hello kitty Island adventure, hard choices had to be made based on incomplete information about the scale of the virus.
There's no "perfect solution" to this. We saw in Italy what happens when plans aren't in place, you had doctors deciding to save 25 year olds over 60 year olds on the basis they were younger and in better shape.
You had people dying in the hallways due to there being no available beds or treatment options.
If my options are "send some old people back to NHs, most of which won't be contagious" and "overflowing hospitals and dead people all over the place" I'm gonna pick the NH option.
No, the entire fucking argument over who's to blame, and your argument was that NHs should've realized that they are not legally obligated to accept everyone, so it's not Cuomo's fault alone. Yes, that's a very retarded argument!
Lester, now you're just lying. I outright said they were all to blame, you repeatedly kept claiming the government had mandated them to take covid patients, that's what the entire argument was over.
The NHs should have realized state law still applied.
Lester, now you're just lying. I outright said they were all to blame, you repeatedly kept claiming the government had mandated them to take covid patients, that's what the entire argument was over.
Quote me where I was claiming the latter.
My point was that even if there maybe was a legal loophole, they weren't supposed to use it and so aren't at fault. Your entire argument is based on a retarded ass-covering framing where that's seen as a valid excuse.
I'm saying, all right, put yourself into the shoes of one of such hypothetical NH administrator with at least a college degree and consider a further hypothetical, what if the shots that Cuomo's directive seemed to call turn out to be correct? What if the hospitals are nearly overflowing and so you must accept anyone they send your way even if you're not perfectly ready? Do you have a better big picture than Cuomo?
In my humble opinion a competent, college-educated NH administrator was morally obligated to follow Cuomo's directive as written and on the contrary only a very stupid NH administrator that barely finished middle-school would assume that Cuomo assumed that everyone would assume that it's not supposed to override standing state/federal directives.
and morally obligated is different than legally obligated, which is what this argument was over.
No, the argument was over who is to blame. The only person who thinks that from "no legal obligation" follows "is to blame" and therefore the discussion was about the former is you. It doesn't follow, therefore they weren't to blame.
No, I'm not. I'm refuting the dumb point that it was the primary cause of nursing home mortality or that the state legally mandated them to take covid patients.
Yes, and you're making that claim based on data that the NY government provided, not considering that it might be fudged in order to absolve state officials of any consequences that might arise from their incompetent choices. This individual was a bad pick for this position, but that doesn't matter because the reason they're being nominated is because of identity politics. This is just checking off the t-slur box on the checklist.
This is like talking to my brother when he's drinking. Every conversation is the same. You claim everyone's wrong, even when they show they're not. Then you write a novella full of semantic gimmicks as if everyone is at least as dumb as you are and will fall for your shenanigans.
Everyone isn't wrong though Jubber. I know that not everyone is wrong.
In fact, I'm very open to changing my mind when someone presents a coherent argument for why something I believe is wrong.
Obviously saying you're wrong about everything is hyperbolic. But insofar as I've seen you post about politics you just seem to be recycling standard twitter conservative talking points and reasoning.
No, just everyone who disagrees with you. Case in point is the thread where you're arguing that a government order didn't mean exactly what it said and that people were wrong not to follow the order according to the way it written. You whine about other people parroting talking points but you've never had an original thought in your life and believe everything the media tells you -- which you then regurgitate on cue -- even when it should be apparent that what you're being told couldn't possibly be true.
No, tons of people disagree with me and probably aren't wrong.
I know what the government order says, and I've already said it was poorly written.
But state law and existing regulations still apply. What the order actually meant was they couldn't just decline old people coming back from the hospital on the basis they had a covid diagnosis alone.
Also your argument here doesn't even make any sense, because nothing I've said here came from the media.
This is that conservative victimhood mentality showing up again.
Because the Republican establishment has created a siege mentality in your mind, you just blindly assume anyone that says you're wrong is only doing so because of "the media."
Serious question Jubber, and I want you to think about this very hard before you respond.
Why is the first thing every aspiring authoritarian does is go after the media?
If that's what it "actually meant" then that's what it should have "actually said." The reason it didn't say what you're suggesting is because that's not what was "actually meant," and continuing to argue otherwise just proves how big an r-slur you really are.
Legally mandating that nursing homes take in COVID patients is exactly what the order did. The language of the order is not in any way ambiguous. This is peak "words now mean what I say they mean" idiocy.
Also Jubber, I'm just going to throw this out, but where in the fuck do you think a nursing home bound old person contracted covid in the first place?
Like not letting old people back into their homes after recovering from covid is peak stupidity, especially considering they contracted covid there in the first place so it's not like they're bringing new cases in.
They'd just go right back into the isolation they were under before needing medical care.
Peak stupidity is putting infected people in with people who are vulnerable to the infection. You can try to justify it any way you want. It was clearly a bad decision, and it's clear that the t-slur in question knew it was a bad decision because they pulled their own mother out of their nursing home to protect them. Trying to justify it after the fact just makes you as much of a moron as the morons responsible for such a terrible decision.
On one hand we have multiple experts that work in nursing homes and for nursing homes outright stating that yes, the diretive was misleading but not forcing them to take these people.
On the other hand we have lester, on the losing end of yet another argument trying to dig in.
That quote is in bold and underlined in the directive. Itâs the entire point of it. Those âexpertsâ are also either not experts, stupid, or lying to you. Stop believing all the leftoid bullshit you read on twitter.
Are you actually illiterate? Serious question, because that is the only way you can read what was linked and think it was twitter, or those people were "fake experts."
I know you're a dumb person, but I didn't think you were that dumb. I rated you somewhere around Circo level, but after this comment you might get knocked down to eva status.
Imagine being so dumb you don't understand how state law/regulation applies to directives like this and trying to double down after being repeatedly shown you are incorrect.
If you want to argue the directive was poorly written - sure, but the state did not legally require them to take anyone.
No, I am not. This has been talked about for months now, the state did not legally require them to take anyone.
I can just keep copy pasting this:
"On its face it looked like a requirement," said Christopher Laxton, executive director of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, which represents medical professionals in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. "The nursing homes we spoke to felt it was a mandate, and a number of them felt they had no choice but to take COVID patients."
While the overarching guidance not to take patients in unless they could be safely cared for may have been clear, nursing homesâ experience was often different, said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long-Term Care Community Coalition, an advocacy group for elderly and disabled people. "There was little reason for nursing homes to think they should only take in patients if they have the ability to do so safely because those rules are not generally enforced on a regular basis."
Bottom line: State and federal rules didnât force nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, but many of them believed they had no other choice.
Like I said, poorly written directive, but the nursing homes not understanding already existing regulations is a problem too.
Because being diagnosed with covid doesn't mean you're contagious.
The average person in that age group discharged after being treated for covid had been in for 9+ days.
The order was in fact to prevent nursing homes from declining medically stable people that likely weren't contagious, thus clogging up hospitals for no reason.
Even your own source says that all the nursing homes thought they had to take people with covid and had little reason to believe otherwise. But theyâre all wrong but thatâs totally not what it meant.
They thought they had to, for sure, the order was poorly written.
But you need to read it like: a NH can not decline someone on the sole basis they were diagnosed with covid.
They could still decline to take someone if they couldn't correctly care for them.
The order was clearly quickly written in response to a national health crisis.
The calculation being - most old people with covid symptoms bad enough to be in the hospital are being discharged after 9 days.
Most people discharged after 9 days are not contagious.
The alternative here is you give the nursing homes free will to just not accept anyone back on the basis they were diagnosed with covid in the last month, overflowing hospitals, and then even more deaths because people that aren't medically stable can't get care.
Jubber, you seem like an ok guy, but you also seem like someone that got caught up in the conservative victimhood cult. You now think basic facts about reality are "r-slurred" and are just repeating shit you read on twitter.
I know the facts are subjective for people like yourself so I'm not going to insist you join the rest of us here on the other side of the looking glass, because then we'd miss out on you simping for an ugly t-slur, even though that ugly t-slur was in up to their balls on doing something incredibly stupid.
Any way you slice it, this person is very qualified.
This is why "experts" can come up with wrong answers (or outright lies) that do serious long-term damage and not only keep their jobs but fail up to better positions. Their track record demonstrates questionable judgment and an abominable lack of ethics. That disqualifies them. If the t-slur box must be checked, find a t-slur who hasn't taken actions that make them partially responsible for creating conditions that anyone who was actually qualified should have known were dangerous.
I'm honestly baffled as to how you people just don't understand the point of these health directives.
The PA directive literally lays out a screening process for people entering:
Has this individual washed their hands or used alcohol-based hand rub on entry?
YES / NO â If no, please have them to do so
2. Ask the individual if they have any of the following respiratory symptoms?
Fever
Sore throat
Cough
Shortness of breath
If YES to any of the above, restrict the individual from entering the nursing home.
If NO to all of the above, proceed to question #3 for employees and step #4 for all others.
I'm dumbfounded that you think the "point of these health directives" matters when the end result is putting COVID infected people in with the elderly and infirm. These were objectively foolish orders made either in ignorance of defiance of the knowledge of the disease at the time. Trying to justify something this stupid just shows what kind of r-slur you are.
"Don't downvote the lolcows" is a good rule of thumb, but it's not a blanket policy. Every cow is different, and if you learn their specific quirks, you'll get significantly more milk in the long-run.
For instance, downvoting Pizzashill makes him spДrg out harder, and no matter how much he's downvoted or insulted, he'll never leave, not permanently. So if you want maximum milk, it's best to downvote every single one of his comments and posts, even on the rare occasion that he actually says something sensible. Especially on the rare occasion that he actually says something sensible.
Incidentally, this is not one of those rare occasions.
Seemingly the vast majority of nursing homes are stupid and took the law as literally forcing them to just take old people with covid no matter what.
Any directive related to nursing homes needs to account for the fact that nursing homes are understaffed old people corrals run by bottom-feeders trying to turn an easy profit or else it would fail. Expecting nursing homes to do anything right when they can't even prevent staff from neglecting residents is unreasonable.
Multiple states -- coincidentally all with democrat governments -- were terrified they didn't have enough hospital beds to treat covid patients...so they stuffed their COVID cases in with the people who even in those early days of the pandemic were known to be the most vulnerable. Having you explain it has allowed me to make sense of why they did it. They did it because they're the same sort of stupid you are.
Seemingly the vast majority of nursing homes are stupid and took the law as literally forcing them to just take old people with covid no matter what.
Yes, how stupid of them to believe that what these orders said to do was what they were supposed to do.
The issue here is everyone just lets dumb-ass rightoids spread their ignorance unchecked
He says while simping for an ugly t-slur who did something monumentally r-slurred without a trace of irony. Mainly because irony and humor are concepts beyond his comprehension.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
I read the total as New Zealand picks gender woman and started laughing at the kiwis until I read Biden in the article. It's not as funny when it's happening to me.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was tranny. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
133 comments
242 wellletsee 2021-01-19
I feel like this may be a poor choice of words.
92 -M-o-X- 2021-01-19
đ
84 Lysis10 2021-01-19
Everyone wants to tap a little girlcock.
78 AwanBros 2021-01-19
But this girl is not 11. Why would Biden wanna hit that
41 Lysis10 2021-01-19
oh he just wants to sniff their hair.
6 AwanBros 2021-01-19
Joe doesn't like that kind of hair if you know what he means
6 Lysis10 2021-01-19
Joe just knows that a northern persuasion leads to a southern invasion. The delicate touch of a sniff can lead to great things, like the presidency.
197 CosmoSucks 2021-01-19
Pennsylvania had a nursing home policy similar to New York early on in the pandemic. She moved her mom out of a nursing home the day before the policy was announced lol. Lotta rightoid seethe for her before this was even announced.
51 sup3r_hero 2021-01-19
What was that policy about?
130 TheseusPhilliams 2021-01-19
Everyone still in nursing homes at that point was turned into glue
38 WistopherWalken 2021-01-19
Yeah, something like 40% of all covid-19 deaths are solely from nursing homes
10 noPENGSinALASKA 2021-01-19
I mean, dead people are still dead people and itâs not good for the families.
I had 2 clients die in nursing homes in 2020
But god damn Iâm interested in the numbers without nursing home deaths. Especially in states that fucked it up
10 WistopherWalken 2021-01-19
Yeah I mean, not to downplay the deathtoll, but I think there's something fundamentally wrong with how nursing homes are run.
Also homies in states like PA are trying their best to beat those nursing home deaths. PA has something like a 40% positivity rate on tests. You have to practically be deliberately r-slurred to achieve that. I'm impressed.
38 nybbas 2021-01-19
They forced nursing homes to take in Covid patients.
19 sup3r_hero 2021-01-19
Ooof
34 nybbas 2021-01-19
It might not have been as black and white as that. Something about they had to take patients who had been hospitalized, but they weren't allowed to test them for covid, or ask about any covid testing they had had. It was fucking ridiculous though, and caused a TON of deaths in the nursing homes.
1 [deleted] 2021-01-19
[deleted]
31 Pepperglue 2021-01-19
Sounds like the right (wo)man for the job.
1 [deleted] 2021-01-19
[deleted]
-72 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Of course they did, because they're just idiots and have no comprehension of what was actually going on.
The nursing home policies were primarily born out of the fact multiple states were terrified they didn't have enough hospital beds to treat covid patients.
Sending old people to nursing homes isn't actually as bad as it sounds. Nursing homes are supposed to have infection containment plans in place because when you're old you can easily die from even a cold.
Even then nursing homes were only supposed to accept patients they could care for, safely, without endangering others.
Seemingly the vast majority of nursing homes are stupid and took the law as literally forcing them to just take old people with covid no matter what.
And even then, seemingly most of the covid spread in nursing homes didn't come from old people being sent back, but staff spreading the virus around for weeks before anyone even knew the virus was in America:
The issue here is everyone just lets dumb-ass rightoids spread their ignorance unchecked almost and the media is incompetent and never follows up.
Peak nursing home mortality was actually before they even started sending old people back.
81 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
Do you remember the mentally ill black guy who had a youtube channel of himself beating up old people in a nursing home? It turned out that he was sent there because he had covid (despite not being old), and yet "containment plans" did not prevent him from going around beating up old folks.
If a certain approach consistently results in a total disaster you don't get the excuse that it was just not very well implemented, it was some stupid people on the ground. You must be held accountable for failing to account for the fact that the plan must work in the real world.
You're just making shit up in your head like a rightoid, imagining how things should have been done properly and then assuming that they were done this way. Here's the actual directive, I don't see any hedging there and a lot of literally forcing no matter what. edit: including this gem that inadvertently(?) made any attempts at containment much harder:
-49 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Lester, before we continue this argument and I easily dunk you as is the norm here, you should actually go read the report on this topic, which soundly debunked the claim nursing home deaths to covid came from sending old people back.
https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2020/2020-07-06_covid19_nursing_home_report.htm
Again, no, you're incorrect. The entire basis of that order was:
What happened here is nursing homes were under the impression they had to take them, but they weren't actually required to take them no matter what:
54 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
Who are you going to believe, your own lying eyes or an article pushing an agenda? Btw, congratulations on failing a reading comprehension check on that Richard Mollot's quote.
Again, here's the Cuomo's directive, it's one page, read it. It speaks in no uncertain terms, doesn't mention any exceptions, and presumably overrides standing state and federal guidelines.
It also has this gem that inadvertently(?) made any attempts at containment much harder:
-17 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Lester, trying to read that directive without first understanding state regulations or even what they mean is just you being clueless.
State regulations still required nursing homes to only take people that could safely care for. The covid directive was in that context.
You can accept this reality, or you can keep trying to double down on the rightoid bullshit you read on twitter.
30 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
Then why doesn't the directive mention that context? Why did the guy you quoted say that there was little reason for nursing homes to think that the directive doesn't override state guidelines?
Look, it's very simple actually: if one nursing home misunderstood the directive then it would be their fault, if all of them "misunderstood" it then it was Cuomo's fault.
-2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Who fucking knows, it was a bad directive and poorly written. Yes, Cuomo is in fact to blame for that.
That isn't being disputed, what is being disputed is the state forced them to take them.
27 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
If I rob a store with an unloaded gun, is it really a robbery or just the clerk giving me a present đ€đ€đ€
0 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I don't know, maybe if nursing homes weren't primarily staffed by HS dropouts they'd know any directive has to be read in the context of state law/regulation.
11 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
I wonder if Cuomo himself knew that NHs could actually tell him to go fuck himself? As in, it's not just a store robbery situation, but I too don't know that my gun is secretly not loaded. "But that's not what's being disputed, what is being disputed is if I forced the clerk to give me the money."
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Lester you can't reasonably believe that a nursing home should not be aware of state regulations.
At some point these people need to be held accountable for their own incompetence.
Yes, the directive was poorly written. But that is no excuse for that many nursing homes to literally not understand state law in relation to who they should and shouldn't take.
Even more stupid here is the CDC has a bunch of guidelines for this very thing too.
How did not a single person involved here go check those guidelines, state law, and realize what was meant by the directive?
It could have been written better, but trying to spin the entire thing on Cuomo here and not everyone else that failed is stupid.
8 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
I wonder how a directive that does override state guidelines looks like. Does it specifically state that due to the state of emergency provision 768 paragraphs 2-4 no longer apply? Or does it look exactly like this one looked and any smart aleck NH administrator that refuses to accept covid patients gets fired, and tarred and feathered by the press for literally murdering people in overcrowded hospitals?
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
It doesn't over-ride already existing regulations/laws for nursing homes. We've been over this now, multiple times.
You're making that up.
6 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
Yeah, but how does a directive that does override existing regulations look like, in case hospitals do run out of capacity and forcing nursing homes to take some patients is a good idea?
What does a NH administrator do when a patient arrives from the hospital and he says that he doesn't feel like he can provide adequate quarantine and sends him back, and the hospital is like, WTF the directive clearly says you "must" and he's, like, not so fast, here's this obscure regulation, and the hospital is like WTF man if Cuomo wanted you to be able to ignore his direct orders he'd have mentioned that?
Should every NH administrator visit some hospitals and call the shots on whether the situation there is serious enough to override existing regulations? Shouldn't that be exactly Cuomo's role? How would Cuomo himself react to such administrators, you didn't say, how do you think his directive was intended to be understood, not as calling the shots?
Nah, this is pure CYA post-hock rationalization. In a counterfactual world where hospitals did in fact overflow the directive would have looked exactly the same and anyone refusing to obey it would have been lynched. You'd be here saying that obviously a directive is not supposed to name every piece of state or federal guidelines it might contradict and confirm that it does in fact override it. So you don't get to claim that the fault also lies with NH administrators for not clairvoyantly predicting that the hospitals won't overflow.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I laid out exactly what the wording meant in another comment.
I also don't know why you keep trying to make this about defending Cuomo, the guy is an idiot, but it's pretty obvious what the calculation was and how the wording read in reality.
The point was to stop NHs from declining people using a covid diagnosis as the sole basis, so you didn't end up with clogged hospitals full of old people that need 24/7 care from the staff.
The average old person being discharged was being discharged 9+ days after being admitted, meaning they wouldn't be contagious.
While the order says they couldn't decline people on the sole basis of a covid diagnosis within the last month or whatever, there's nothing in there that says they can't decline people for other reasons - like for example, not being able to correctly care for them.
6 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
You don't understand the question? I'm asking how the wording would look like if the situation in the hospitals was dire enough that even the NHs that didn't feel that they "could implement the recommended infection-control procedures to safely care for a patient recovering from the virus" must be required to take them in anyway.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I'm not here to debate hypotheticals, I know how the wording looks, I've already said it was poorly written.
But given what we know about the situation, the calculations being made seem obvious.
5 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
You're already debating hypotheticals. You said that if, hypothetically, NH administrators weren't high school dropouts then they'd realize that they don't have to follow Cuomo's orders unless they could provide top notch care to infectious patients (note btw that the order explicitly forbade requiring testing if the patient is still infectious).
I'm saying, all right, put yourself into the shoes of one of such hypothetical NH administrator with at least a college degree and consider a further hypothetical, what if the shots that Cuomo's directive seemed to call turn out to be correct? What if the hospitals are nearly overflowing and so you must accept anyone they send your way even if you're not perfectly ready? Do you have a better big picture than Cuomo?
In my humble opinion a competent, college-educated NH administrator was morally obligated to follow Cuomo's directive as written and on the contrary only a very stupid NH administrator that barely finished middle-school would assume that Cuomo assumed that everyone would assume that it's not supposed to override standing state/federal directives.
So I think that your hypothetical is wrong, the nursing homes did what they should and the excuse that they maybe had a way to disobey Cuomo is retarded because given their knowledge at the moment that would be a wrong thing to do.
-1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
M8 Idk what the fuck you're even on about at this point.
You've gone from claiming the state legally required them to take these people to something else.
This isn't hello kitty Island adventure, hard choices had to be made based on incomplete information about the scale of the virus.
There's no "perfect solution" to this. We saw in Italy what happens when plans aren't in place, you had doctors deciding to save 25 year olds over 60 year olds on the basis they were younger and in better shape.
You had people dying in the hallways due to there being no available beds or treatment options.
If my options are "send some old people back to NHs, most of which won't be contagious" and "overflowing hospitals and dead people all over the place" I'm gonna pick the NH option.
6 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
Quote me doing that.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
The entire fucking argument was over this.
6 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
No, the entire fucking argument over who's to blame, and your argument was that NHs should've realized that they are not legally obligated to accept everyone, so it's not Cuomo's fault alone. Yes, that's a very retarded argument!
-1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Lester, now you're just lying. I outright said they were all to blame, you repeatedly kept claiming the government had mandated them to take covid patients, that's what the entire argument was over.
The NHs should have realized state law still applied.
The government should have been clear in this.
I don't even know how you can contest this.
3 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
Quote me where I was claiming the latter.
My point was that even if there maybe was a legal loophole, they weren't supposed to use it and so aren't at fault. Your entire argument is based on a retarded ass-covering framing where that's seen as a valid excuse.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Lester come on, you spam linked the directive and tried to claim it was a mandate.
That's not even "ass covering framing" they're still to blame, they should have been better.
3 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
I'm saying, all right, put yourself into the shoes of one of such hypothetical NH administrator with at least a college degree and consider a further hypothetical, what if the shots that Cuomo's directive seemed to call turn out to be correct? What if the hospitals are nearly overflowing and so you must accept anyone they send your way even if you're not perfectly ready? Do you have a better big picture than Cuomo?
In my humble opinion a competent, college-educated NH administrator was morally obligated to follow Cuomo's directive as written and on the contrary only a very stupid NH administrator that barely finished middle-school would assume that Cuomo assumed that everyone would assume that it's not supposed to override standing state/federal directives.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Everyone has an opinion Lester, and morally obligated is different than legally obligated, which is what this argument was over.
2 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
No, the argument was over who is to blame. The only person who thinks that from "no legal obligation" follows "is to blame" and therefore the discussion was about the former is you. It doesn't follow, therefore they weren't to blame.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Lester, even for you this is dumb. This argument straight started over the question "did the state legally mandate them to take covid patients."
You copy pasted the directive in response to my comment when I said nursing homes thought they were legally mandated to claim that they were.
Dumb ass NHs have been a problem in this country for years. Trying to clear them of blame is crazy.
2 zergling_Lester 2021-01-19
Who cares what the argument started over, we both agree that it's about whether they are to blame. You are not even trying to address it any more.
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
Yet you're going out of your way trying to excuse it.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
No, I'm not. I'm refuting the dumb point that it was the primary cause of nursing home mortality or that the state legally mandated them to take covid patients.
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
Yes, and you're making that claim based on data that the NY government provided, not considering that it might be fudged in order to absolve state officials of any consequences that might arise from their incompetent choices. This individual was a bad pick for this position, but that doesn't matter because the reason they're being nominated is because of identity politics. This is just checking off the t-slur box on the checklist.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
do you have any evidence the data was fudged?
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
I have plenty of evidence you're a belligerent idiot, which in this case is just as good.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
But you don't, you are basically perpetually wrong about almost everything you believe.
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
This is like talking to my brother when he's drinking. Every conversation is the same. You claim everyone's wrong, even when they show they're not. Then you write a novella full of semantic gimmicks as if everyone is at least as dumb as you are and will fall for your shenanigans.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Everyone isn't wrong though Jubber. I know that not everyone is wrong.
In fact, I'm very open to changing my mind when someone presents a coherent argument for why something I believe is wrong.
Obviously saying you're wrong about everything is hyperbolic. But insofar as I've seen you post about politics you just seem to be recycling standard twitter conservative talking points and reasoning.
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
No, just everyone who disagrees with you. Case in point is the thread where you're arguing that a government order didn't mean exactly what it said and that people were wrong not to follow the order according to the way it written. You whine about other people parroting talking points but you've never had an original thought in your life and believe everything the media tells you -- which you then regurgitate on cue -- even when it should be apparent that what you're being told couldn't possibly be true.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
No, tons of people disagree with me and probably aren't wrong.
I know what the government order says, and I've already said it was poorly written.
But state law and existing regulations still apply. What the order actually meant was they couldn't just decline old people coming back from the hospital on the basis they had a covid diagnosis alone.
Also your argument here doesn't even make any sense, because nothing I've said here came from the media.
This is that conservative victimhood mentality showing up again.
Because the Republican establishment has created a siege mentality in your mind, you just blindly assume anyone that says you're wrong is only doing so because of "the media."
Serious question Jubber, and I want you to think about this very hard before you respond.
Why is the first thing every aspiring authoritarian does is go after the media?
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
If that's what it "actually meant" then that's what it should have "actually said." The reason it didn't say what you're suggesting is because that's not what was "actually meant," and continuing to argue otherwise just proves how big an r-slur you really are.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
No shit they should have made it clear, nursing homes are dumb. But they did not legally mandate anyone take them.
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
Legally mandating that nursing homes take in COVID patients is exactly what the order did. The language of the order is not in any way ambiguous. This is peak "words now mean what I say they mean" idiocy.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Also Jubber, I'm just going to throw this out, but where in the fuck do you think a nursing home bound old person contracted covid in the first place?
Like not letting old people back into their homes after recovering from covid is peak stupidity, especially considering they contracted covid there in the first place so it's not like they're bringing new cases in.
They'd just go right back into the isolation they were under before needing medical care.
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
Peak stupidity is putting infected people in with people who are vulnerable to the infection. You can try to justify it any way you want. It was clearly a bad decision, and it's clear that the t-slur in question knew it was a bad decision because they pulled their own mother out of their nursing home to protect them. Trying to justify it after the fact just makes you as much of a moron as the morons responsible for such a terrible decision.
46 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
This is pathetic, even for you pizza. The directive is in the comment you replied to and youâre still claiming it doesnât say what it says.
They had to accept residents with covid.
-5 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
On one hand we have multiple experts that work in nursing homes and for nursing homes outright stating that yes, the diretive was misleading but not forcing them to take these people.
On the other hand we have lester, on the losing end of yet another argument trying to dig in.
Wow, who should I go with here.
33 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
That quote is in bold and underlined in the directive. Itâs the entire point of it. Those âexpertsâ are also either not experts, stupid, or lying to you. Stop believing all the leftoid bullshit you read on twitter.
-1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Are you actually illiterate? Serious question, because that is the only way you can read what was linked and think it was twitter, or those people were "fake experts."
I know you're a dumb person, but I didn't think you were that dumb. I rated you somewhere around Circo level, but after this comment you might get knocked down to eva status.
23 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
Itâs pretty rich to ask me if I can read and call me stupid when you say
0 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Maybe your reading comprehension is just very poor.
11 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
If you had a brain cell it would be very lonely.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Imagine being so dumb you don't understand how state law/regulation applies to directives like this and trying to double down after being repeatedly shown you are incorrect.
If you want to argue the directive was poorly written - sure, but the state did not legally require them to take anyone.
14 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
Again with the
Youâre just gaslighting people.
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
No, I am not. This has been talked about for months now, the state did not legally require them to take anyone.
I can just keep copy pasting this:
Like I said, poorly written directive, but the nursing homes not understanding already existing regulations is a problem too.
8 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
Your âexpertâ is doing the same thing as you. Trying to claim it didnât mean what it said after the fact.
But also says:
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I love how literal experts directly involved in running nursing homes are not real experts here and wrong, but you and Lester are somehow right.
10 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
Tell me again how this doesnât mean they have to admit people with covid. Your âexpertâ is lying.
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Because being diagnosed with covid doesn't mean you're contagious.
The average person in that age group discharged after being treated for covid had been in for 9+ days.
The order was in fact to prevent nursing homes from declining medically stable people that likely weren't contagious, thus clogging up hospitals for no reason.
13 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
Even your own source says that all the nursing homes thought they had to take people with covid and had little reason to believe otherwise. But theyâre all wrong but thatâs totally not what it meant.
3 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
They thought they had to, for sure, the order was poorly written.
But you need to read it like: a NH can not decline someone on the sole basis they were diagnosed with covid.
They could still decline to take someone if they couldn't correctly care for them.
The order was clearly quickly written in response to a national health crisis.
The calculation being - most old people with covid symptoms bad enough to be in the hospital are being discharged after 9 days.
Most people discharged after 9 days are not contagious.
The alternative here is you give the nursing homes free will to just not accept anyone back on the basis they were diagnosed with covid in the last month, overflowing hospitals, and then even more deaths because people that aren't medically stable can't get care.
8 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2021-01-19
No. It wasnât poorly written. Thatâs just the justification you people are using now.
2 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I mean what I just laid out is the exact calculation used and exactly what the wording meant.
I'm not sure who "you people" are though.
2 jubbergun 2021-01-19
I would assume he means r-slurs.
2 jubbergun 2021-01-19
Of course they are. People like P-Shilly think the meanings of words are fluid and can mean whatever they want.
3 jubbergun 2021-01-19
The NY government has investigated the NY government and found that the NY government did nothing wrong. You really closed this case, Sherlock.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I mean the data is literally public, you can go look at it yourself.
5 jubbergun 2021-01-19
Or I could just point out that you're extremely r-slurred, which is not just easier, but far more satisfying.
0 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Jubber, you seem like an ok guy, but you also seem like someone that got caught up in the conservative victimhood cult. You now think basic facts about reality are "r-slurred" and are just repeating shit you read on twitter.
3 jubbergun 2021-01-19
I know the facts are subjective for people like yourself so I'm not going to insist you join the rest of us here on the other side of the looking glass, because then we'd miss out on you simping for an ugly t-slur, even though that ugly t-slur was in up to their balls on doing something incredibly stupid.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
The data is public yes? The data being public is a fact?
If you agree with this, how on earth is it subjective.
I'm also confused as to why I'd care what a public official looked like or their gender identity. Any way you slice it, this person is very qualified.
I don't even have any personal feelings about this pick.
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
This is why "experts" can come up with wrong answers (or outright lies) that do serious long-term damage and not only keep their jobs but fail up to better positions. Their track record demonstrates questionable judgment and an abominable lack of ethics. That disqualifies them. If the t-slur box must be checked, find a t-slur who hasn't taken actions that make them partially responsible for creating conditions that anyone who was actually qualified should have known were dangerous.
1 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I'm honestly baffled as to how you people just don't understand the point of these health directives.
The PA directive literally lays out a screening process for people entering:
1 jubbergun 2021-01-19
I'm dumbfounded that you think the "point of these health directives" matters when the end result is putting COVID infected people in with the elderly and infirm. These were objectively foolish orders made either in ignorance of defiance of the knowledge of the disease at the time. Trying to justify something this stupid just shows what kind of r-slur you are.
71 CosmoSucks 2021-01-19
.
-43 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
Reality isn't subjective.
37 Iowa_Hawkeye 2021-01-19
đ”đ”đ”Pizzas back and you're gonna be in trouble!
Heyyyaaaa heyyaa pizzas back! đ”đ”đ”
22 a_few 2021-01-19
Have the rules concerning the feeding of this subs farm population gone out the window? Do we stand for nothing anymore
18 CeetheAndSope 2021-01-19
"Don't downvote the lolcows" is a good rule of thumb, but it's not a blanket policy. Every cow is different, and if you learn their specific quirks, you'll get significantly more milk in the long-run.
For instance, downvoting Pizzashill makes him spДrg out harder, and no matter how much he's downvoted or insulted, he'll never leave, not permanently. So if you want maximum milk, it's best to downvote every single one of his comments and posts, even on the rare occasion that he actually says something sensible. Especially on the rare occasion that he actually says something sensible.
Incidentally, this is not one of those rare occasions.
8 a_few 2021-01-19
âIf we stand for nothing, we fall for anythingâ-hitler, or maybe it was Abraham Lincoln, Iâm not too sure.
9 snallygaster 2021-01-19
Any directive related to nursing homes needs to account for the fact that nursing homes are understaffed old people corrals run by bottom-feeders trying to turn an easy profit or else it would fail. Expecting nursing homes to do anything right when they can't even prevent staff from neglecting residents is unreasonable.
6 adminsare55IQ 2021-01-19
I fully agree. I grew up around the nursing home scene they're complete shitshows and the government was incompetent for not being very clear.
8 kermit_was_wrong 2021-01-19
Lmao look at the fugees downvoting.
3 jubbergun 2021-01-19
Multiple states -- coincidentally all with democrat governments -- were terrified they didn't have enough hospital beds to treat covid patients...so they stuffed their COVID cases in with the people who even in those early days of the pandemic were known to be the most vulnerable. Having you explain it has allowed me to make sense of why they did it. They did it because they're the same sort of stupid you are.
Yes, how stupid of them to believe that what these orders said to do was what they were supposed to do.
He says while simping for an ugly t-slur who did something monumentally r-slurred without a trace of irony. Mainly because irony and humor are concepts beyond his comprehension.
141 Iowa_Hawkeye 2021-01-19
Gives a new meaning to transition team.
124 Zero5urvivers 2021-01-19
Now the mass forced-feminization of rightoids can begin.
53 aqouta 2021-01-19
Inshallah
46 pepperouchau 2021-01-19
Skipping over homocracy and going straight to the mandatory HRT đđđ
20 johannesalthusius 2021-01-19
I have been in the market for a repressed tradwife đ€
16 imnothingtoo 2021-01-19
RIP u slash transgirltradwife :(
11 ironicshitpostr 2021-01-19
This, but for "men" 5'12" and below.
10 RedPillDessert 2021-01-19
It's okay, all the estrogen and plastics in the water supply caused that to happen a long time ago.
1 [deleted] 2021-01-19
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-01-19
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
87 Lysis10 2021-01-19
oh dear. He picked a fat hun.
78 Corporal-Hicks 2021-01-19
just doing the jobs women wont do
63 elephantofdoom 2021-01-19
I'm much more concerned about her bmi tbh
16 ironicshitpostr 2021-01-19
she's no Belgian health minister tho
11 elephantofdoom 2021-01-19
She doesn't even have a bmi, she is too powerful for such mortal toys.
55 HodorTheDoorHolder__ 2021-01-19
Sometimes you gotta grind the sausage in order to make an omelette
53 strallweat 2021-01-19
Physical and mental health?
48 Neon_needles 2021-01-19
Imagine being promoted after killing a bunch of old people lol
11 ironicshitpostr 2021-01-19
Smoking wasn't cutting it anymore, gotta make social security solvent somehow
38 pepperouchau 2021-01-19
I know I've always had strong opinions on the office of US assistant health secretary
21 AwanBros 2021-01-19
Woof
18 tHeSiD 2021-01-19
Yay free and forced transitions for everyone!
10 AwanBros 2021-01-19
đ¶Man I Feel Like A Womanđ
2 wellletsee 2021-01-19
https://youtu.be/dLnIjtp7zFU?t=47
3 alphetaboss 2021-01-19
I read the total as New Zealand picks gender woman and started laughing at the kiwis until I read Biden in the article. It's not as funny when it's happening to me.
3 Spysix 2021-01-19
It's Dr. Oaken from Independence Day.
2 Sleepywalker69 2021-01-19
It
1 [deleted] 2021-01-19
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2021-01-19
[removed]
4 AutoModerator 2021-01-19
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
tranny. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.