05-14-2020, 08:35 PM
I don't have a WSJ sub so I can't read the article, but do want to provide some perspective.
I'm certain that hospitals probably had a very real problem of nursing homes refusing to take back prior patients who had a covid diagnosis but were recovered. Nursing homes will refuse to take back their prior patients for a hundred reasons, but especially something like this. Now, ideally they are no longer infectious when they go back, but we still dont really know how long people are on average infectious for or what a positive PCR result 3 weeks out means in terms of still being infectious.
I have a friend in Washington who has had plenty of fully recovered nursing home patients sitting for days in the hospital, sometimes throwing a positive PCR a month out. Others even with negative PCR results will be rejected.
It's not an easy issue. Perhaps if there were dedicated nursing homes only for recovered covid patients, but that's not really how our system is set up obviously.
I'm certain that hospitals probably had a very real problem of nursing homes refusing to take back prior patients who had a covid diagnosis but were recovered. Nursing homes will refuse to take back their prior patients for a hundred reasons, but especially something like this. Now, ideally they are no longer infectious when they go back, but we still dont really know how long people are on average infectious for or what a positive PCR result 3 weeks out means in terms of still being infectious.
I have a friend in Washington who has had plenty of fully recovered nursing home patients sitting for days in the hospital, sometimes throwing a positive PCR a month out. Others even with negative PCR results will be rejected.
It's not an easy issue. Perhaps if there were dedicated nursing homes only for recovered covid patients, but that's not really how our system is set up obviously.