It’s what Dear Leader is spouting, so they must parrot his idiocy as good cultist do.
Wanna prolong COVID? Vote Trump
- Thread starter BartenderElite
- Start date
In Trump world knowledge is bad. What better example of this is there?
He seemingly doesn't want to know how many cases there are, which sick people have it and not something else, where they are located, tracing it from whom, what arrests its progress,
what complications it has. The only good thing he has done is support vax research and development. Also by punting we probably had better decisions at the local level than his
ignore everything and it will magically go away pronouncements.
Surprisingly, once again, you are wrong about that. Deaths are rising again. The difference now is 1. Patients are younger and younger, and thus more likely to survive. 2. We have learned better treatments. However, deaths worldwide are on the rise.
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Yeah..........what about the chart that shows the NUMBER OF DEATHS when Fla. is compared to New York? The reason the number of cases is going up is because.......everything from a cold to every type of virus is being counted as positive. Over 30K dead in NY STATE............Fla, THE FREAK'n supposed epi center of dempanic part 2.....less than 6K with almost 10 times the number of seniors living in fla. Texas? 5K The more cases that are reported with more people not dying..........IS A GOOD THING, it means the population is developing a natural immunity through personal anti-body defense.
https://www.prb.org/which-us-states-are-the-oldest/
God help us.....over 4 million confirmed C19 cases with a mortality rate of less than 1%.........just 56 million cases to go to equal the number of infected during Obama's pandemic of swine flu in 2009.....over 60 million infected, no masks, no shut down, open schools.........The swine flu killed over 500,000 people world wide....even with the number of FALSE REPORTS that determine the number of dead.....some areas counting all deaths as C19 deaths........with the cooked books.......600,000 world wide is all they can muster.
I call BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA.
Last edited:
And the countries that have implemented successful testing, why do they not suffer the same problems?
Still don't get it, eh?
The more you test (at least the way the U.S. left-wing CDC chose to do it) the more Covid tests are coded & counted as U07.1 – COVID-19, virus identified (lab confirmed).
If one only shows symptoms (a cough, sneezing, fever, etc. which might be a cold, sinus infection, chills, flu, something else) it is still coded as U07.1.
The left-owned CDC refused to do what other countries do (AGAIN!) and use the "symptom" code U07.2 – COVID-19, virus not identified (clinically diagnosed).
So we're straight back to what I've been saying since March...EVERYTHING IS BEING CODED AS A CONFIRMED COVID-19 CASE.
*****
Sunday Jul 05, 2020
COVID-19 diagnosis coding explained in a flowchart
Diagnosis coding for COVID-19 is complicated, in part because the World Health Organization (WHO) created two diagnosis codes for COVID-19, but so far the United States has adopted only one. The WHO’s codes are as follows:
U07.1 – COVID-19, virus identified (lab confirmed),
U07.2 – COVID-19, virus not identified (clinically diagnosed).
The WHO’s intent was for U07.1 to be assigned to cases with a lab-confirmed diagnosis and for U07.2 to be used for cases with a clinical diagnosis. The United States adopted U07.1 as an immediate, off-cycle update to the ICD-10 code set but did not adopt U07.2 because it was released later. Therefore, in the United States, the words “virus identified” are left out of the description for U07.1, which leaves room for interpretation about when to use the code.
The predicament
Without having a diagnosis code specifically for clinically diagnosed (rather than lab-confirmed) COVID-19, U.S. physicians are left without clear guidance.
How do we properly document and code for a patient who is clinically diagnosed? If we only use symptom codes, patients will most likely not be covered by their payers for COVID-19 care and they also will not be included in a disease registry. This is important because many payers are waiving any cost-share responsibility for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. However, in order for the claim to be accepted as a COVID-19 related service, it must have a COVID-19 related diagnosis code. Also, if the patient is in a disease registry, it allows for adequate follow-up, especially if we start to use serologic testing for patients. Sensitivity to the COVID-19 reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR), or diagnostic, tests has been reported to be 70% with a single respiratory swab. Consequently, in some instances, patients clinically appear to have COVID-19, but their RT-PCR is not positive until subsequent tests. These patients should be diagnosed with COVID-19, even though the initial labs were negative.
Then there is the question of using serologic (antibody) testing for diagnosing COVID-19. At the time the ICD-10 code was introduced, only RT-PCR testing was available. Now, physicians have more access to serologic tests; however, there is the issue of how to interpret these tests and their use in diagnosing patients with COVID-19. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), serologic testing can be offered to support a diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients who present late. Patients presenting 9 to 14 days after illness onset can be tested with the antibody test, in addition to the RT-PCR test to maximize sensitivity. A positive serologic test result indicates past or present COVID-19 infection. But it could be a false positive; therefore, serologic testing should not be the only factor in diagnosing COVID-19.
If a patient has clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and/or has had exposure, and the patient has a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test, how should the serologic test be interpreted? If the serologic test reveals IgM (-) and IgG (+), should the patient be diagnosed with COVID-19? If the patient has no symptoms or no known exposure, a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test, and the serologic test reveals IgM (-) and IgG (+), should this patient be diagnosed with COVID-19? Or is there the need for a new ICD-10 code indicating previous infection or previous exposure identified by serology?
The recommendation
Without having a diagnosis code for both lab-confirmed COVID-19 and clinically diagnosed COVID-19, we only have one option: U07.1 – COVID-19. For purposes of vital statistics reporting, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has confirmed that U07.1 can be used for both lab-confirmed and clinically diagnosed patients who have died. But the CDC’s broader guidance on coding for living patients again leaves room for interpretation. CDC has stated(www.cdc.gov), “Code only a confirmed diagnosis of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as documented by the provider, documentation of a positive COVID-19 test result, or a presumptive positive COVID-19 test result. In this context, ‘confirmation’ does not require documentation of the type of test performed; the provider’s documentation that the individual has COVID-19 is sufficient.” The phrase “as documented by the provider” can be interpreted to mean as clinically diagnosed by the provider.
Different diagnosis algorithms can be used for diagnosing patients with COVID-19. Physicians should take prevalence and incidence in their own community into consideration when assigning a clinical diagnosis, especially in the absence of a positive test.
A flowchart
Here is a four-part flowchart that our organization developed to help physicians navigate these waters and properly assign diagnosis codes related to COVID-19 encounters. No one algorithm will fit every health care system. It may need to be tailored to your geographic location since prevalence and incidence vary greatly not only throughout the United States but even throughout states, where pockets of COVID-19 surges are emerging.
Click on each image below to enlarge, print, or download. Or download the pdf version(623 KB PDF).
https://www.aafp.org/journals/fpm/blogs/inpractice/entry/covid_diagnosis_flowcharts.html
Horseshit
“Only 61 deaths”
If there is anyone who needs a sock it's breitbart omar
Actually, it would help—just not for the reason the OP thinks.
Should Biden win, watch how the reporting changes on COVID.
Over night.
No, you will see facts lead and the journalists who matter be critical of the government, including Biden, where warranted, hold them accountable, while Fix news bleats lies constantly
and you lap it up like the West Virginia conservative that you are.
Should Biden win, watch how the reporting changes on COVID.
Over night.
No, you will see facts lead and the journalists who matter be critical of the government, including Biden, where warranted, hold them accountable, while Fix news bleats lies constantly
and you lap it up like the West Virginia conservative that you are.
Because they willingly fund such things. The #COVID45 administration has done just the opposite. Because if you don't fund test kits there are no tests done. If there are no tests, there's no virus. See how that works?
We need more tests with inflated false results.
**********
The more you test (at least the way the U.S. left-wing CDC chose to do it) the more Covid tests are coded & counted as U07.1 – COVID-19, virus identified (lab confirmed).
If one only shows symptoms (a cough, sneezing, fever, etc. which might be a cold, sinus infection, chills, flu, something else) it is still coded as U07.1.
The left-owned CDC refused to do what other countries do (AGAIN!) and use the "symptom" code U07.2 – COVID-19, virus not identified (clinically diagnosed).
So we're straight back to what I've been saying since March...EVERYTHING IS BEING CODED AS A CONFIRMED COVID-19 CASE.
*****
Sunday Jul 05, 2020
COVID-19 diagnosis coding explained in a flowchart
Diagnosis coding for COVID-19 is complicated, in part because the World Health Organization (WHO) created two diagnosis codes for COVID-19, but so far the United States has adopted only one. The WHO’s codes are as follows:
U07.1 – COVID-19, virus identified (lab confirmed),
U07.2 – COVID-19, virus not identified (clinically diagnosed).
The WHO’s intent was for U07.1 to be assigned to cases with a lab-confirmed diagnosis and for U07.2 to be used for cases with a clinical diagnosis. The United States adopted U07.1 as an immediate, off-cycle update to the ICD-10 code set but did not adopt U07.2 because it was released later. Therefore, in the United States, the words “virus identified” are left out of the description for U07.1, which leaves room for interpretation about when to use the code.
The predicament
Without having a diagnosis code specifically for clinically diagnosed (rather than lab-confirmed) COVID-19, U.S. physicians are left without clear guidance.
How do we properly document and code for a patient who is clinically diagnosed? If we only use symptom codes, patients will most likely not be covered by their payers for COVID-19 care and they also will not be included in a disease registry. This is important because many payers are waiving any cost-share responsibility for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. However, in order for the claim to be accepted as a COVID-19 related service, it must have a COVID-19 related diagnosis code. Also, if the patient is in a disease registry, it allows for adequate follow-up, especially if we start to use serologic testing for patients. Sensitivity to the COVID-19 reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR), or diagnostic, tests has been reported to be 70% with a single respiratory swab. Consequently, in some instances, patients clinically appear to have COVID-19, but their RT-PCR is not positive until subsequent tests. These patients should be diagnosed with COVID-19, even though the initial labs were negative.
Then there is the question of using serologic (antibody) testing for diagnosing COVID-19. At the time the ICD-10 code was introduced, only RT-PCR testing was available. Now, physicians have more access to serologic tests; however, there is the issue of how to interpret these tests and their use in diagnosing patients with COVID-19. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), serologic testing can be offered to support a diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients who present late. Patients presenting 9 to 14 days after illness onset can be tested with the antibody test, in addition to the RT-PCR test to maximize sensitivity. A positive serologic test result indicates past or present COVID-19 infection. But it could be a false positive; therefore, serologic testing should not be the only factor in diagnosing COVID-19.
If a patient has clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and/or has had exposure, and the patient has a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test, how should the serologic test be interpreted? If the serologic test reveals IgM (-) and IgG (+), should the patient be diagnosed with COVID-19? If the patient has no symptoms or no known exposure, a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test, and the serologic test reveals IgM (-) and IgG (+), should this patient be diagnosed with COVID-19? Or is there the need for a new ICD-10 code indicating previous infection or previous exposure identified by serology?
The recommendation
Without having a diagnosis code for both lab-confirmed COVID-19 and clinically diagnosed COVID-19, we only have one option: U07.1 – COVID-19. For purposes of vital statistics reporting, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has confirmed that U07.1 can be used for both lab-confirmed and clinically diagnosed patients who have died. But the CDC’s broader guidance on coding for living patients again leaves room for interpretation. CDC has stated(www.cdc.gov), “Code only a confirmed diagnosis of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as documented by the provider, documentation of a positive COVID-19 test result, or a presumptive positive COVID-19 test result. In this context, ‘confirmation’ does not require documentation of the type of test performed; the provider’s documentation that the individual has COVID-19 is sufficient.” The phrase “as documented by the provider” can be interpreted to mean as clinically diagnosed by the provider.
Different diagnosis algorithms can be used for diagnosing patients with COVID-19. Physicians should take prevalence and incidence in their own community into consideration when assigning a clinical diagnosis, especially in the absence of a positive test.
A flowchart
Here is a four-part flowchart that our organization developed to help physicians navigate these waters and properly assign diagnosis codes related to COVID-19 encounters. No one algorithm will fit every health care system. It may need to be tailored to your geographic location since prevalence and incidence vary greatly not only throughout the United States but even throughout states, where pockets of COVID-19 surges are emerging.
Click on each image below to enlarge, print, or download. Or download the pdf version(623 KB PDF).
https://www.aafp.org/journals/fpm/blogs/inpractice/entry/covid_diagnosis_flowcharts.html
**********
The more you test (at least the way the U.S. left-wing CDC chose to do it) the more Covid tests are coded & counted as U07.1 – COVID-19, virus identified (lab confirmed).
If one only shows symptoms (a cough, sneezing, fever, etc. which might be a cold, sinus infection, chills, flu, something else) it is still coded as U07.1.
The left-owned CDC refused to do what other countries do (AGAIN!) and use the "symptom" code U07.2 – COVID-19, virus not identified (clinically diagnosed).
So we're straight back to what I've been saying since March...EVERYTHING IS BEING CODED AS A CONFIRMED COVID-19 CASE.
*****
Sunday Jul 05, 2020
COVID-19 diagnosis coding explained in a flowchart
Diagnosis coding for COVID-19 is complicated, in part because the World Health Organization (WHO) created two diagnosis codes for COVID-19, but so far the United States has adopted only one. The WHO’s codes are as follows:
U07.1 – COVID-19, virus identified (lab confirmed),
U07.2 – COVID-19, virus not identified (clinically diagnosed).
The WHO’s intent was for U07.1 to be assigned to cases with a lab-confirmed diagnosis and for U07.2 to be used for cases with a clinical diagnosis. The United States adopted U07.1 as an immediate, off-cycle update to the ICD-10 code set but did not adopt U07.2 because it was released later. Therefore, in the United States, the words “virus identified” are left out of the description for U07.1, which leaves room for interpretation about when to use the code.
The predicament
Without having a diagnosis code specifically for clinically diagnosed (rather than lab-confirmed) COVID-19, U.S. physicians are left without clear guidance.
How do we properly document and code for a patient who is clinically diagnosed? If we only use symptom codes, patients will most likely not be covered by their payers for COVID-19 care and they also will not be included in a disease registry. This is important because many payers are waiving any cost-share responsibility for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. However, in order for the claim to be accepted as a COVID-19 related service, it must have a COVID-19 related diagnosis code. Also, if the patient is in a disease registry, it allows for adequate follow-up, especially if we start to use serologic testing for patients. Sensitivity to the COVID-19 reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR), or diagnostic, tests has been reported to be 70% with a single respiratory swab. Consequently, in some instances, patients clinically appear to have COVID-19, but their RT-PCR is not positive until subsequent tests. These patients should be diagnosed with COVID-19, even though the initial labs were negative.
Then there is the question of using serologic (antibody) testing for diagnosing COVID-19. At the time the ICD-10 code was introduced, only RT-PCR testing was available. Now, physicians have more access to serologic tests; however, there is the issue of how to interpret these tests and their use in diagnosing patients with COVID-19. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), serologic testing can be offered to support a diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients who present late. Patients presenting 9 to 14 days after illness onset can be tested with the antibody test, in addition to the RT-PCR test to maximize sensitivity. A positive serologic test result indicates past or present COVID-19 infection. But it could be a false positive; therefore, serologic testing should not be the only factor in diagnosing COVID-19.
If a patient has clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and/or has had exposure, and the patient has a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test, how should the serologic test be interpreted? If the serologic test reveals IgM (-) and IgG (+), should the patient be diagnosed with COVID-19? If the patient has no symptoms or no known exposure, a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test, and the serologic test reveals IgM (-) and IgG (+), should this patient be diagnosed with COVID-19? Or is there the need for a new ICD-10 code indicating previous infection or previous exposure identified by serology?
The recommendation
Without having a diagnosis code for both lab-confirmed COVID-19 and clinically diagnosed COVID-19, we only have one option: U07.1 – COVID-19. For purposes of vital statistics reporting, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has confirmed that U07.1 can be used for both lab-confirmed and clinically diagnosed patients who have died. But the CDC’s broader guidance on coding for living patients again leaves room for interpretation. CDC has stated(www.cdc.gov), “Code only a confirmed diagnosis of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as documented by the provider, documentation of a positive COVID-19 test result, or a presumptive positive COVID-19 test result. In this context, ‘confirmation’ does not require documentation of the type of test performed; the provider’s documentation that the individual has COVID-19 is sufficient.” The phrase “as documented by the provider” can be interpreted to mean as clinically diagnosed by the provider.
Different diagnosis algorithms can be used for diagnosing patients with COVID-19. Physicians should take prevalence and incidence in their own community into consideration when assigning a clinical diagnosis, especially in the absence of a positive test.
A flowchart
Here is a four-part flowchart that our organization developed to help physicians navigate these waters and properly assign diagnosis codes related to COVID-19 encounters. No one algorithm will fit every health care system. It may need to be tailored to your geographic location since prevalence and incidence vary greatly not only throughout the United States but even throughout states, where pockets of COVID-19 surges are emerging.
Click on each image below to enlarge, print, or download. Or download the pdf version(623 KB PDF).
https://www.aafp.org/journals/fpm/blogs/inpractice/entry/covid_diagnosis_flowcharts.html
Last edited:
You really struggle with English. Homeschooled?
Sorry you're unable to read medical information in English.
Let's see YOU explain that in English. Hahahahaha! It doesn't mean what you think it does.
It's self-explanatory in English words and sentences to sober people.
You say it does not mean what I think. Evidently you DO understand though. So, where are your refutations to the obvious?
Nothing funnier than Domer playing an educated person. Even as an actor he sucks.
According to World0Meters our tests per capita is more than almost all other countries so when Trump says that we are doing a lot of testing he is correct. The problem is that so many of these tests are the same people getting tested over and over again, for instance health workers and major league sports, people who have priority in the system. Regular people have much less access to testing, the tests are often hard to get and the time to get a result is ridiculously long....a test that takes a week or 9 days to get a result to the individual is nearly useless.
We are failing at testing in spite of doing a lot of tests, because they are being done wrong, and because we dont have the fast cheep correct test that we need, because our experts suck.
I read it perfectly, moron. But I’m not the one claiming that almost every ailment under the sun is coded as COVID. You are, stupid fuck. And your reference is validation that you’re an illiterate dumbfuck.