I can answer this from experience, but as I don't wish to dox myself, you'll just have to take it as purely anecdotal and not proof of anything.
Someone previously mentioned about beds being set aside for COVID. That is true. Once that reaches capacity (it's usually a very small amount) then it's a "crisis" situation.
It may be 2 beds. It may be 7 beds. It may be 1 bed. It doesn't matter because it's measured in terms of capacity % within a parameter and not true capacity.
This has happened the world over. Make no mistake - they put people in those beds who are sick, who may ALSO test positive for CV19. It's an alongside their original problem issue.
If a person is admitted for a "certain" condition, like say vascular or pneumonia, there is a certain gleam that comes in the eyes of staff, they're very eager to test that patient for Coronavirus all of a sudden. If they test positive, they admit them to the CV ward. It doesn't matter what you came IN for, you're in there for CV now.
Given that the PCR tests are running hot and incorrect with wild false positives, this is how you get over capacity.
It's a medical GME situation in many ways.
As we've seen with masks, you don't need to have people in on some big conspiracy. Heck, as we see on this board, you don't need to have people IN on a conspiracy. You just have to tell them what the parameters are for acceptable behavior in a certain situation and you let nature - social pressure, conditioning etc - take its course.
In short, there is no definitive measure for what is or isn't Coronavirus-needing-hospitalization cases. There is always underlying or comorbid issue concurrent to "coronavirus" that requires parallel treatment.
Put simply, if you have a heart attack and test positive for CV, you'll be classed henceforth as CV, the heart attack being the "symptom" of the CV and not an "and also," situation.
This is in contrast to the approach towards CV Vac symptoms, which are "absolutely not the fault of the vaccine", even if they're the sole obvious presenting factor.
I can answer this from experience, but as I don't wish to dox myself, you'll just have to take it as purely anecdotal and not proof of anything.
Someone previously mentioned about beds being set aside for COVID. That is true. Once that reaches capacity (it's usually a very small amount) then it's a "crisis" situation.
It may be 2 beds. It may be 7 beds. It may be 1 bed. It doesn't matter because it's measured in terms of capacity % within a parameter and not true capacity.
This has happened the world over. Make no mistake - they put people in those beds who are sick, who may ALSO test positive for CV19. It's an alongside their original problem issue.
If a person is admitted for a "certain" condition, like say vascular or pneumonia, there is a certain gleam that comes in the eyes of staff, they're very eager to test that patient for Coronavirus all of a sudden. If they test positive, they admit them to the CV ward. It doesn't matter what you came IN for, you're in there for CV now.
Given that the PCR tests are running hot and incorrect with wild false positives, this is how you get over capacity.
It's a medical GME situation in many ways.
As we've seen with masks, you don't need to have people in on some big conspiracy. Heck, as we see on this board, you don't need to have people IN on a conspiracy. You just have to tell them what the parameters are for acceptable behavior in a certain situation and you let nature - social pressure, conditioning etc - take its course.
In short, there is no definitive measure for what is or isn't Coronavirus-needing-hospitalization cases. There is always underlying or comorbid issue concurrent to "coronavirus" that requires parallel treatment.
Put simply, if you have a heart attack and test positive for CV, you'll be classed henceforth as CV, the heart attack being the "symptom" of the CV and not an "and also," situation.
This is in contrast to the approach towards CV Vac symptoms, which are "absolutely not the fault of the vaccine", even if they're the sole obvious presenting factor.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.