Jump to content

So let's get right to the raw heart of the Covid-19 issue facing us


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Desert Racer said:

If that happens, there's likely no amount of things we can do to stop that from ravaging the human population.  

Along that line of thought, what if Aliens invaded the earth to take advantage of the current crisis.  What then?

????? I thought the lizard people landed a while back & took over the USA Govt.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Morals in have no widely accepted meaning because they vary so significantly from group to group.   That's why society is governed by laws.  They tried to do it with morals for a few thousand years bu

Nothing directly.  But I think this may be a 'generational shift' moment. One of the big arguments against universal health care is how much it will COST.  What the current bill being rushed thro

Correct.  The fairest, most well-written law in the world doesn't do much when some fat corrupt treasonous cunt won't enforce it.

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Test everyone? With what?

Don't worry. In a couple of months, the FDA may approve tests that other countries are already using.

Good thing they're suspending some rules to make it happen that fast, huh? Not much can really happen in a couple of months.
 

Quote

 

...

It's time for a widespread rollout of serologic testing to get a better handle on the actual extent of the epidemic. People's immune systems produce antibodies to attack and eliminate pathogens like bacteria and viruses. Each antibody recognizes one antigen, which is basically a target molecule that identifies a specific pathogen. In this case, serologic tests would be designed to detect in patients' blood samples the distinctive antibodies produced in response to exposure to the novel coronavirus. General population screening using serologic tests would yield vital information enabling more judicious forecasts of the epidemic's likely course as well as improved understanding of its virulence.

Importantly, such testing would also enable researchers to better estimate the COVID-19 case-fatality rate or the percentage of infected people who die of the disease. As it is, case-fatality rate estimates range from something not much worse than seasonal flu to catastrophically high rates worse than the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic. Pinning that rate down would help us more intelligently evaluate the usefulness (or lack thereof) of lockdowns like that in California.

Additionally, the development of such serologic tests is necessary in order to check if potential coronavirus vaccines can stimulate people's immune systems to produce protective antibodies.

It's good news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this week loosened its stifling regulations on developing and deploying both diagnostic and serologic coronavirus tests. The FDA notes that around 80 companies have approached the agency about devising and distributing such tests. For example, the Los Angeles-based diagnostics startup Scanwell has devised an at-home 15-minute antibody test for the coronavirus. Despite looser FDA regulations, the company expects that the agency will approve its test in six to eight weeks. The North Carolina-based point-of-care diagnostics company BioMedomics is also waiting for FDA approval for its 15-minute serologic test for use in hospitals and clinics. It's worth noting that its Chinese sister company has already sold 500,000 of the rapid tests in China and the test is widely available in Europe.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Don't worry. In a couple of months, the FDA may approve tests that other countries are already using.

Good thing they're suspending some rules to make it happen that fast, huh? Not much can really happen in a couple of months.
 

Yea, those rules are going away pretty quick.  Pandemics will tend to do that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/21/fda-authorizes-first-rapid-point-of-care-test-coronavirus/

"It's good news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this week loosened its stifling regulations on developing and deploying both diagnostic and serologic coronavirus tests. The FDA notes that around 80 companies have approached the agency about devising and distributing such tests. For example, the Los Angeles-based diagnostics startup Scanwell has devised an at-home 15-minute antibody test for the coronavirus. Despite looser FDA regulations, the company expects that the agency will approve its test in six to eight weeks. The North Carolina-based point-of-care diagnostics company BioMedomics is also waiting for FDA approval for its 15-minute serologic test for use in hospitals and clinics. It's worth noting that its Chinese sister company has already sold 500,000 of the rapid tests in China and the test is widely available in Europe.

Since most experts believe that reinfection is unlikely, serologic testing would identify people who had recovered from the disease and could now go safely back to work and life beyond quarantine."

---------------------------

I'm betting looser gets a lot looser as the trillion dollar losses mount.  Although BioMedomics did submit for approval only 10 days ago.. right?  https://www.ncbiotech.org/news/biomedomics-seeks-fda-ok-covid-19-rapid-diagnostic

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Desert Racer said:

I already told you my plan.  Quarantine the most vulnerable - the old and the sick, absolutely and completely, for a few months.  Test everyone else, and quarantine those who test positive.   But let the rest of the non- at risk population get back to work.  The cost of completely isolating the at risk population and testing everyone would be well well short of the proposed $$ we are spending and the losses we're incurring by the day.  

I'm not mocking shelter in place or the other measures.  But I think maybe it's too extreme and we're potentially going to crush our nation to save a few thousand people.  I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.  I'm not advocating putting Granny on the ice floe.  I'm saying to quarantine granny rather than quarantine the entire US population and let the ones who will likely not be as affected get on with life so that we don't end up in the garbage can of history as a nation that shot themselves in the foot.  

Ok, what are you doing in the short term, while tests are not available?

Where are you putting all the patients?

Who is caring for all the patients?

Who is caring for the usual sick patients and those who need routine and somewhat urgent patients?

What are your triage parameters?

What will you do for those patients selected for demise therapy?

Hoe will you reimburse doctors, nurses, hospitals and those practices unable to meet payroll because of disruption in usual service business lines?

Finally, please address the glaring hypocrisy of persons on the right being staunchly opposed to “death panels” and abortions now being in favor of death and disease so that companies can continue to profit during a pandemic.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

...   ...

Finally, please address the glaring hypocrisy of persons on the right being staunchly opposed to “death panels” and abortions now being in favor of death and disease so that companies can continue to profit during a pandemic.

 

You can't seriously expect Jeffie to acknowledge and try to cope with actual reality. That would involve his leaving Fantasy Island.

Also, what have you got against rank hypocrisy? It's who The Right is.

That, plus the whole point of The Right nowadays is that corporations are superior in every way to citizens. Their votes count for more, they've got superior rights, prior claim on resources, the gov't should serve corporations before citizens. Because FREEDOM!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had always visualized Jeff as a sort of Mad Max character - the desert setting helped - but his latest thread goes in the direction of what I’m musing. Vide this post on another thread

17 hours ago, Xlot said:

Again in Italy, corona deaths below 50 are “just” 17, and all had significant pre-existing conditions - I believe the youngest was 33. More importantly, I haven’t heard of irreversible lung damage in discharged patients

That’s why I would agree - very, very hesitatingly - with Four: when the lockdown has succeeded in flattening the curve, max. two months,  resume a more normal - working - life, limiting the quarantine to the elderly (disclosure: I fall flat in that category)

As I read in another blog, do we (Italians) want to pay 0,1 months of life expectancy with 20% unemployment?

PS: with luck, a drug or a vaccine will be developed in the not-too-distant future

Which would be irrelevant, were not for the far more weighty piece by Tom Friedman in today’s NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/coronavirus-economy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Ok, what are you doing in the short term, while tests are not available?

Where are you putting all the patients?

Who is caring for all the patients?

Who is caring for the usual sick patients and those who need routine and somewhat urgent patients?

What are your triage parameters?

What will you do for those patients selected for demise therapy?

Hoe will you reimburse doctors, nurses, hospitals and those practices unable to meet payroll because of disruption in usual service business lines?

Finally, please address the glaring hypocrisy of persons on the right being staunchly opposed to “death panels” and abortions now being in favor of death and disease so that companies can continue to profit during a pandemic.

Thanks Philly, but don’t kid yourself this is hypocrisy on the right- it’s intentional.  They took a big risk to get out in front of it, for a bunch of condescending elitist greeedy reasons, & being fearless Rushies at the bleeding edge of societal evolution, they screwed the pooch, now its unwinding, the riot begins as it dawns on them that they fucked up and they panic .  Real hypocrisy is very rare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 7:09 AM, phillysailor said:

Ok, what are you doing in the short term, while tests are not available?

Where are you putting all the patients?

Who is caring for all the patients?

Who is caring for the usual sick patients and those who need routine and somewhat urgent patients?

What are your triage parameters?

What will you do for those patients selected for demise therapy?

Hoe will you reimburse doctors, nurses, hospitals and those practices unable to meet payroll because of disruption in usual service business lines?

Finally, please address the glaring hypocrisy of persons on the right being staunchly opposed to “death panels” and abortions now being in favor of death and disease so that companies can continue to profit during a pandemic.

My plan is about as workable and expensive as the one we're currently following.  The answer to most of your questions above is"  the same procedures, people and places where we're currently using now.  Where:  Confiscated hotels, empty college dorms, shelter in place at home, etc.  The who is the same health workers currently being used to treat the cases now.  The how is the same as it is now, but hopefully with a smaller population. 

Your "demise" therapy is something only in your imagination as I've never proposed it.  And I can't speak to righty hypocrisy since I have never had a problem with death panels and I strongly support pro-choice.  You will have to ask an actual "righty" those questions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Xlot said:

I had always visualized Jeff as a sort of Mad Max character - the desert setting helped - but his latest thread goes in the direction of what I’m musing. Vide this post on another thread

Which would be irrelevant, were not for the far more weighty piece by Tom Friedman in today’s NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/coronavirus-economy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Thank you.  It's good to see that my thinking wasn't off the scale of reasonableness and that others are thinking the same.  To those of you you hated on me for daring to post this train of thought, what do you think about Friedman's article and what other experts he quotes in there who are saying the same exact thing I postulated in the OP and in later posts??  For those that can't access the "free" NYT site, here is Friedman's Op/ed......

Quote

 

“Income is one of the stronger predictors of health outcomes — and of how long we live,’’ Woolf said. “Lost wages and job layoffs are leaving many workers without health insurance and forcing many families to forego health care and medications to pay for food, housing, and other basic needs. People of color and the poor, who have suffered for generations with higher death rates, will be hurt the most and probably helped the least. They are the housekeepers in the closed hotels and the families without options when public transit closes. Low-income workers who manage to save the money for groceries and reach the store may find empty shelves, left behind by panic shoppers with the resources for hoarding.’’

 

Is there another way?

One of the best ideas I have come across was offered by Dr. David L. Katz, the founding director of Yale University’s C.D.C.-funded Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center and an expert in public health and preventive medicine.

Katz wrote an Op-Ed in The Times on Friday that caught my eye. He argued that we have three goals right now: saving as many lives as we can, making sure that our medical system does not get overwhelmed — but also making sure that in the process of achieving the first two goals we don’t destroy our economy, and as a result of that, even more lives.

For all these reasons, he argued, we need to pivot from the “horizontal interdiction” strategy we’re now deploying — restricting the movement and commerce of the entire population, without consideration of varying risks for severe infection — to a more “surgical’’ or “vertical interdiction’’ strategy.

A surgical-vertical approach would focus on protecting and sequestering those among us most likely to be killed or suffer long-term damage by exposure to coronavirus infection — that is, the elderly, people with chronic diseases and the immunologically compromised — while basically treating the rest of society the way we have always dealt with familiar threats like the flu. That means we would tell them to be respectful of others when coughing or sneezing, wash their hands regularly and if they feel sick to stay home and get over it — or to seek medical attention if they are not recuperating as expected.

Because, as with the flu, the vast majority will get over it in days, a small number will require hospitalization and a very small percentage of the most vulnerable will, tragically, die. (That said, coronavirus is more dangerous than the typical flu we are familiar with.) As Katz argued, governors and mayors, by choosing the horizontal approach of basically sending everyone home for an unspecified period, might have actually increased the dangers of infection for those most vulnerable.

“As we lay off workers, and colleges close their dorms and send all their students home,’’ Katz noted, “young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents.’’

“O.K.,’’ I said, calling Katz by phone at his home in Connecticut after reading his article, “but we are where we are now. Most states and cities have basically committed to some period of horizontal social distancing and sheltering in place. So, can we make lemonade out of this lemon — and not destroy our economy?’’

I don’t see why not, he answered. “Now that we have shut down almost everything, we still have the option of pivoting to a more targeted approach. We may even be able to leverage the current effort at horizontal, population-wide, interdiction to our advantage as we pivot to vertical, risk-based, interdiction.’’

How? “Use a two-week isolation strategy,’’ Katz answered. Tell everyone to basically stay home for two weeks, rather than indefinitely. (This includes all the reckless college students packing the beaches of Florida.) If you are infected with the coronavirus it will usually present within a two-week incubation period.

“Those who have symptomatic infection should then self-isolate — with or without testing, which is exactly what we do with the flu,’’ Katz said. “Those who don’t, if in the low-risk population, should be allowed to return to work or school, after the two weeks end.”

Effectively, we’d ‘reboot’ our society in two or perhaps more weeks from now. “The rejuvenating effect on spirits, and the economy, of knowing where there’s light at the end of this tunnel would be hard to overstate. Risk will not be zero, but the risk of some bad outcome for any of us on any given day is never zero.’’

Meanwhile, we should do our best to sequester from any contact with potential carriers the elderly, people with chronic diseases and the immunologically compromised for whom coronavirus is most dangerous. And “we could potentially establish subgroups of health professionals, tested to be negative for coronavirus, to tend preferentially to those at highest risk,” Katz added.

This way, Katz said, “the most vulnerable are carefully shielded until the infection has run its course through the rest of us — and the tiny fraction of those of us at low risk who do develop severe infection nonetheless get expert medical care from a system not overwhelmed. … We are not counting on zero spread after the two weeks; we cannot achieve zero spread under any scenario. We are counting on minimization of severe cases by sheltering the most vulnerable from spread whether by those with, or those without, symptoms.’’

 

As I said, I think the cure is going to be far worse than the disease.  We are crushing our economy in order to save a few.  And we may be putting those few in even higher danger by sending everyone home and exposing the sick and elderly.  As I said, if this continues much longer, we are causing irreparable harm to our economy which will destroy people's lives.  Its not just about $$, it's people's entire livelihood at risk that many will never recover from.  

If I were an asshole, I would say "fuck you" to the flamers.  But since I'm in a kindler, gentler mood - I won't.  Just saying.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 7:09 AM, phillysailor said:

Ok, what are you doing in the short term, while tests are not available?

Where are you putting all the patients?

Who is caring for all the patients?

Who is caring for the usual sick patients and those who need routine and somewhat urgent patients?

What are your triage parameters?

What will you do for those patients selected for demise therapy?

Hoe will you reimburse doctors, nurses, hospitals and those practices unable to meet payroll because of disruption in usual service business lines?

Finally, please address the glaring hypocrisy of persons on the right being staunchly opposed to “death panels” and abortions now being in favor of death and disease so that companies can continue to profit during a pandemic.

Friedman's NYT Op/Ed essentially just answered all your questions.  Have you read it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Desert Racer said:

Thank you.  It's good to see that my thinking wasn't off the scale of reasonableness and that others are thinking the same.  To those of you you hated on me for daring to post this train of thought, what do you think about Friedman's article and what other experts he quotes in there who are saying the same exact thing I postulated in the OP and in later posts??  For those that can't access the "free" NYT site, here is Friedman's Op/ed......

As I said, I think the cure is going to be far worse than the disease.  We are crushing our economy in order to save a few.  And we may be putting those few in even higher danger by sending everyone home and exposing the sick and elderly.  As I said, if this continues much longer, we are causing irreparable harm to our economy which will destroy people's lives.  Its not just about $$, it's people's entire livelihood at risk that many will never recover from.  

If I were an asshole, I would say "fuck you" to the flamers.  But since I'm in a kindler, gentler mood - I won't.  Just saying.  :lol:

I'm ok with a 2-week national quarantine. Glad to see you get onboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I'm ok with a 2-week national quarantine. Glad to see you get onboard.

I've been onboard with that from the beginning.  And he's only suggesting it now because we've already started down the "shutdown everything" path.  What is your opinion of the rest of what Dr Katz said that mirrored almost exactly what I earlier suggested?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Desert Racer said:

My plan is about as workable and expensive as the one we're currently following.  The answer to most of your questions above is"  the same procedures, people and places where we're currently using now.  Where:  Confiscated hotels, empty college dorms, shelter in place at home, etc.  The who is the same health workers currently being used to treat the cases now.  The how is the same as it is now, but hopefully with a smaller population. 

Your "demise" therapy is something only in your imagination as I've never proposed it.  And I can't speak to righty hypocrisy since I have never had a problem with death panels and I strongly support pro-choice.  You will have to ask an actual "righty" those questions.  

I was talking to my son in San Diego last night and one of his friends now has it, fever of 103 with extreme shortness of breath. She is in her twenties and they sent her home because she they don't have capacity. We don't know who all is at risk, we have some bits of information, and have a good idea that those over 60 are more at risk and the older you get above 60 the more risk it adds. But, and this is a big but, the information is substantially incomplete. This is going to kill a lot of people and that is with us shutting everything down. We can also save the economy if we had a competent govt which did the right thing in a moment of crisis, and we could do that without sacrificing the lives a few million people. We could implement UBI for the duration of this crisis along with some version of medicare for all. We could create a 6 month long debt repayment holiday, which would prevent the health crisis from becoming a banking crisis. There are lots of things we can do, but even the most basic are still being argued about by our incompetent govt. I don't see the answer to that being that we let millions die in the hope that the survivors get to keep their shitty job which paid so little they were living paycheck to paycheck. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Desert Racer said:

Thank you.  It's good to see that my thinking wasn't off the scale of reasonableness and that others are thinking the same.  To those of you you hated on me for daring to post this train of thought, what do you think about Friedman's article and what other experts he quotes in there who are saying the same exact thing I postulated in the OP and in later posts??  For those that can't access the "free" NYT site, here is Friedman's Op/ed......

As I said, I think the cure is going to be far worse than the disease.  We are crushing our economy in order to save a few.  And we may be putting those few in even higher danger by sending everyone home and exposing the sick and elderly.  As I said, if this continues much longer, we are causing irreparable harm to our economy which will destroy people's lives.  Its not just about $$, it's people's entire livelihood at risk that many will never recover from.  

If I were an asshole, I would say "fuck you" to the flamers.  But since I'm in a kindler, gentler mood - I won't.  Just saying.  :lol:

I respect your points. And Friedman's. I agree it could be a way to address the issues. However I suspect there are some fatal flaws that prevent successful execution. Especially concerning testing procedures to separate the infected from the uninfected. I lack even a hint of expertise, so I need to wait until respected experts make some independent effort to analyze the idea. (Probably not the experts on PA)

Now this: I cannot parse your statement: "If I were an asshole, I would say "fuck you" to the flamers.  But since I'm in a kindler, gentler mood - I won't." Are you an asshole but holding back only because your mood?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LenP said:

I was talking to my son in San Diego last night and one of his friends now has it, fever of 103 with extreme shortness of breath. She is in her twenties and they sent her home because she they don't have capacity. We don't know who all is at risk, we have some bits of information, and have a good idea that those over 60 are more at risk and the older you get above 60 the more risk it adds. But, and this is a big but, the information is substantially incomplete. This is going to kill a lot of people and that is with us shutting everything down. We can also save the economy if we had a competent govt which did the right thing in a moment of crisis, and we could do that without sacrificing the lives a few million people. We could implement UBI for the duration of this crisis along with some version of medicare for all. We could create a 6 month long debt repayment holiday, which would prevent the health crisis from becoming a banking crisis. There are lots of things we can do, but even the most basic are still being argued about by our incompetent govt. I don't see the answer to that being that we let millions die in the hope that the survivors get to keep their shitty job which paid so little they were living paycheck to paycheck. 

Our system is inefficient by design. People with divergent perspectives get to argue about stuff before it's implemented.

As someone who does a bit of private financing, six months without being paid sounds like a crisis to me. One that would make me less willing to turn people with bad credit into property owners in the future.

If a crisis is the magic key to implement policy goals like UBI and govt health care, that's an incentive to prolong it, or at least never admit it has gone away. This is why we have dozens of "national emergencies" and some date to the 1970's. Yet most can't name even a few of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Our system is inefficient by design. People with divergent perspectives get to argue about stuff before it's implemented.

As someone who does a bit of private financing, six months without being paid sounds like a crisis to me. One that would make me less willing to turn people with bad credit into property owners in the future.

If a crisis is the magic key to implement policy goals like UBI and govt health care, that's an incentive to prolong it, or at least never admit it has gone away. This is why we have dozens of "national emergencies" and some date to the 1970's. Yet most can't name even a few of them.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Now this: I cannot parse your statement: "If I were an asshole, I would say "fuck you" to the flamers.  But since I'm in a kindler, gentler mood - I won't." Are you an asshole but holding back only because your mood?

Mood was probably the incorrect word as it implies a temp condition.  More like a kindler/gentler state of mind.  I'm trying to make an effort to not be so crabby toward my fellow man.  Hell, I might even let a kid walk across my lawn on occasion.  :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 1:12 PM, Desert Racer said:

Friedman's NYT Op/Ed essentially just answered all your questions.  Have you read it?

The answers are not at all specific, and they do not account for collapse of the healthcare system and the impact that will have on death rates of all causes. It answers none of my questions about the moral and financial costs of excessive and unnecessary deaths, and it includes no mention of how society will provide legal and financial aid to those selected to die.

Other than that, Friedman answered my questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 1:38 PM, LenP said:

I was talking to my son in San Diego last night and one of his friends now has it, fever of 103 with extreme shortness of breath. She is in her twenties and they sent her home because she they don't have capacity. We don't know who all is at risk, we have some bits of information, and have a good idea that those over 60 are more at risk and the older you get above 60 the more risk it adds. But, and this is a big but, the information is substantially incomplete. This is going to kill a lot of people and that is with us shutting everything down. We can also save the economy if we had a competent govt which did the right thing in a moment of crisis, and we could do that without sacrificing the lives a few million people. We could implement UBI for the duration of this crisis along with some version of medicare for all. We could create a 6 month long debt repayment holiday, which would prevent the health crisis from becoming a banking crisis. There are lots of things we can do, but even the most basic are still being argued about by our incompetent govt. I don't see the answer to that being that we let millions die in the hope that the survivors get to keep their shitty job which paid so little they were living paycheck to paycheck. 

 

Well, you forgot the part about a trillion dollar bailout to the big corporations, you know the one that Sen. Susan Collins is in such a flaming hurry to pass... oh wait, it adds more restrictions on abortions too, win-win.

There's no good answer at this point. The good answer train left the station two weeks ago. The USA is now going to have a major epidemic, a plague. So just let business run as usual until either all their customers flee in panic or die, and we'll see how that works for the economy.

I expect in the next week and a half, we'll have the answer as to how many young people either die or get horribly sick and start telling the public "You really don't want any part of this!" or perhaps we'll be lucky this once, and it will be no big deal.

The stakes are very high to just plunge blindly ahead and hope for dumb luck. And it's not like that strategy has worked for Trump either, look how many times he's gone bankrupt

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 6:38 PM, LenP said:

I was talking to my son in San Diego last night and one of his friends now has it, fever of 103 with extreme shortness of breath. She is in her twenties and they sent her home because she they don't have capacity.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that.  

A patient with a fever of 103 and 'extreme' shortness of breath isn't going to get sent home untreated.

If they don't have a bed, then they will keep her in the ER until a bed is available.  Or arrange admission at another hospital.

There is more to the story or it's being exaggerated.

I haven't read anywhere that San Diego is in a terrible crisis with the COVID 19 virus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ed Lada said:

I'm sorry but I don't believe that.  

A patient with a fever of 103 and 'extreme' shortness of breath isn't going to get sent home untreated.

If they don't have a bed, then they will keep her in the ER until a bed is available.  Or arrange admission at another hospital.

There is more to the story or it's being exaggerated.

I haven't read anywhere that San Diego is in a terrible crisis with the COVID 19 virus.

You know what is happening on the ground in a country thousands of miles away from you during a fast moving crisis? I would bet you have not heard about the problems in northeast PA either, but we have quite the outbreak ramping up here and they are turning people away from hospitals unless they absolutely need to be admitted because they can no longer breathe on their own or likely will be unable to shortly. Anyone who knows my son, knows that he is the last person who would exaggerate a health issue. You don't know him, so feel free to discount that, but relying on the lack of media attention is just silly. NYC is ground zero now, and that is where the media is focusing their attention. That does not mean that things are not getting real ugly elsewhere. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, you forgot the part about a trillion dollar bailout to the big corporations, you know the one that Sen. Susan Collins is in such a flaming hurry to pass... oh wait, it adds more restrictions on abortions too, win-win.

Every "must pass" bill is loaded up with stuff that won't pass any other way. I predicted last Friday that the panicdemic would require abortion restrictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Every "must pass" bill is loaded up with stuff that won't pass any other way. 

They all know it's the only legislation that has a chance passing this year

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

They all know it's the only legislation that has a chance passing this year

Oh no...the Best Americans are entitled to So Much More.  There will be another bailout bill in a remarkably short time. Borrow in everyone's name, and redistribute it to the true entitlement class: new Capitalism makes the Best Americans... Rand-y. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new bill has a small ray of light for anti-corruption: no bailout money to Trump properties or any other businesses owned by legislators or pres/vp. 

I do not believe it sends insider trading critters to prison though

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I do not believe it sends insider trading critters to prison though

Why would you need a new provision in a bill for that??  Isn't insider trading already illegal?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Desert Racer said:

Why would you need a new provision in a bill for that??  Isn't insider trading already illegal?  

I remember when Selective Enforcement was a bad thing...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The new bill has a small ray of light for anti-corruption: no bailout money to Trump properties or any other businesses owned by legislators or pres/vp. 

I do not believe it sends insider trading critters to prison though

I'm not convinced either the bill or current law prevents sending these Critters to jail. In fact the STOCK Act removed their exception. I think it is the DOJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I'm not convinced either the bill or current law prevents sending these Critters to jail. In fact the STOCK Act removed their exception. I think it is the DOJ.

Correct.  The fairest, most well-written law in the world doesn't do much when some fat corrupt treasonous cunt won't enforce it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Correct.  The fairest, most well-written law in the world doesn't do much when some fat corrupt treasonous cunt won't enforce it.

I wasn't aware William Holder was fat.  But he sure didn't do much enforce-ifying on all those wall st CEO's who crashed the global economy a few years back.  How many of them went to jail?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Desert Racer said:

I wasn't aware William Holder was fat.  But he sure didn't do much enforce-ifying on all those wall st CEO's who crashed the global economy a few years back.  How many of them went to jail?  

What are you talking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The get it over with, let's have a giant coronavirus party on Easter Sunday crowd fails to see that the epidemiology is incomplete. Controlled chaos through shutdowns may be a lot cheaper than unmitigated bring out yer dead, NHL hockey rink morgues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Desert Racer said:

I wasn't aware William Holder was fat.  But he sure didn't do much enforce-ifying on all those wall st CEO's who crashed the global economy a few years back.  How many of them went to jail?  

Martha Stewart

FWIW I agree with you, a lot of CEOs should have gotten a stripey sun tan curtesy of the state.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Martha Stewart

FWIW I agree with you, a lot of CEOs should have gotten a stripey sun tan curtesy of the state.

- DSK

Martha Stewart went to prison in 2004.  How is that relevant to my point that no CEOs went to prison for crashing the economy in 2008/09 that started the Great Recession?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
On 3/18/2020 at 11:28 AM, El Boracho said:

Some of those 6000 people you propose to kill might make real contributions to the world in the remaining few years of their life. I am quite sure my 92 year old mother might contribute more to the well being of humanity than any youth I have encountered here in PA, for just one example. Other old thinkers could well make breakthroughs in physics or medicine or whatever. Or inspire the young thru their inspired writings or lectures.

Plus, it is morally abhorrent to place relative values on lives. No?

Plus plus, I travel extensively. I can say with certainty that society is better and happier in countries with mediocre economies. So whatever the elites in the USA can do to destroy their economy will have worldwide benefits.

6000.  Those were the days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2020 at 2:52 PM, Burning Man said:

Why are those people of less importance that we're not shutting our economy down to address?  Are the 800,000 people who die each year from Cardio disease somehow less important than the 6000 people who will die from C19?  Why aren't we stopping everything to save the 600,000 people who die from Cancer each year in the US alone?  

Looks like we could reach this goal of yours in a year. Does COVID matter, now?

On 3/18/2020 at 11:13 PM, Burning Man said:

If this stoppage goes on much more than a month or two, I fear it will be worse than the 2008 collapse.  

I think it already is worse, and that's because we fucked up our follow through. If we have to shut down again, THAT will be the reason, not "shutting down again." 

This pandemic is, literally, killing us. That seems hard for you to comprehend. The response to it hurts, but does not kill Americans at anything near the same rate. Your efforts to supersize the impact of the response seek to minimize the disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
7 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Tom, Mifipristone should not be prescribed over the phone or sent out by mail.

It's a wonderful drug but it's not a morning after pill.!!

If you take it and have an ectopic pregnancy, you can die from sepsis

https://pregnancyhelpaustralia.org.au/be-informed/abortion/abortion-pill

Abortion Pill (RU486) 

The abortion pill (Mifepristone or RU486) is an alternative to surgical abortion during the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. It requires a visit to an accredited clinic or hospital where an ultrasound is performed to determine if the woman is less than 9 weeks and it is not an ectopic pregnancy (tubal pregnancy). 

Certain medical conditions preclude the use of the abortion pill so a blood test and ultrasound would be performed and then a medical history taken (by a psychologist in some states). The woman would agree to have a blood test one week after taking the abortion pill to check if it had been effective. 

If a woman decided to proceed, she would be given a pill (Mifepristone) to take then and another pill (Misoprostol) to take approximately 24 hours later. This usually brings on heavy cramping and bleeding which terminates the pregnancy. Sometimes, this takes longer but if it exceeds 2 days a doctor should be consulted. Some clinics require women to have a reliable phone and transport and to stay within a half hour journey of a medical clinic in case of excessive bleeding or other complications. 

After taking Mifepristone, the patient might have:

  • Nausea or dizziness
  • Bleeding and cramps that feel like a painful period (sometimes severe cramping)
  • Headache, chills and diarrhoea. 

A doctor should give advice on managing these symptoms. It is inadvisable to drink alcohol, smoke or take illicit drugs for at least 2 days after taking the abortion pill. 

During the week following the abortion it is advisable to refrain from vaginal sex, using tampons, swimming or bathing or performing any strenuous activity. This lessens the chance of infection. 

You should see your doctor if the vaginal bleeding doesn’t stop within a few days of having the abortion pill. 

Mifepristone is not suitable for all women, especially those who are taking blood-thinning medication; have an allergic reaction to medication containing Mifepristone; have high blood pressure; have an IUD fitted (unless removed) or some other conditions. This is why an extensive medical history should be taken before it is prescribed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Tom, Mifipristone should not be prescribed over the phone or sent out by mail.

So this excerpt from the dissenters is just BS?
 

Quote

 

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer dissented.

"We are disappointed and dismayed by the Supreme Court decision upholding the Trump Administration's arbitrary and non-scientific decision to continue to force patients to travel during a dangerous pandemic in order to obtain the medication they need," said Hugh Taylor, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, in a statement. "To be clear, requiring patients to obtain their medications in person serves no clinical purpose and is not based on any rational scientific evidence or clinical judgement. It serves one purpose, to place an obstacle between a woman and the medication her physician has prescribed for her. We call on the incoming Biden administration to end this policy immediately upon taking office next week."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

So this excerpt from the dissenters is just BS?
 

 

We are disappointed and dismayed by the Supreme Court decision upholding the Trump Administration's arbitrary and non-scientific decision to continue to force patients to travel during a dangerous pandemic in order to obtain the medication they need," said Hugh Taylor, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, in a statement. "To be clear, requiring patients to obtain their medications in person serves no clinical purpose and is not based on any rational scientific evidence or clinical judgement. It serves one purpose, to place an obstacle between a woman and the medication her physician has prescribed for her. We call on the incoming Biden administration to end this policy immediately upon taking office next week."

 

Medically speaking, I'm afraid it is.

I have no idea why he'd say such a thing.

Think about it. 

How does one assess the following risk factors over the phone?

How does a doctor know that the medication is being prescribed for the person ON the phone?

How does someone dispensing the medication by mail, know to whom they are sending the medication.

How does one determine how many weeks pregnant you are over the phone? (this medical abortion method is not suitable after 9-10 weeks only 60% effective and more likely to result in incomplete abortion) DANGEROUS.

I don't have a lot of confidence that all women making such a request are actually competent to follow advise on a leaflet in the USA, given that they can't seemingly even understand the basics of viral infection spread. Or that they even understand the basics of reproductive process after the initial step.:rolleyes:

From Family Planning Victoria.

https://www.fpv.org.au/for-you/abortion/medication-abortion-abortion-pill

Some women should not take mifepristone

Mifepristone is not recommended for all women and may not be suitable for you if you:

  • have certain medical conditions such as bleeding problems, adrenal failure or high blood pressure
  • are taking long-term steroid or blood-thinning medication
  • have an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy
  • are more than nine weeks pregnant
  • have had allergic reactions to medication containing mifepristone
  • are fitted with an intrauterine device (the device needs to be removed before taking mifepristone).
  • Disadvantages of medication abortion

    Disadvantages of taking mifepristone include that:

  • You may have a lot of bleeding, which could mean you need to have a surgical abortion or, in rare cases, a blood transfusion.
  • You may get an infection, but this is uncommon and can usually be treated with antibiotics.
  • The procedure fails in around two per cent of women, who may then need a follow-up surgical abortion.
  • Though rare, mifepristone can take days to work, whereas a surgical abortion only takes about 15 minutes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

We are disappointed and dismayed by the Supreme Court decision upholding the Trump Administration's arbitrary and non-scientific decision to continue to force patients to travel during a dangerous pandemic in order to obtain the medication they need," said Hugh Taylor, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, in a statement. "To be clear, requiring patients to obtain their medications in person serves no clinical purpose and is not based on any rational scientific evidence or clinical judgement. It serves one purpose, to place an obstacle between a woman and the medication her physician has prescribed for her. We call on the incoming Biden administration to end this policy immediately upon taking office next week."

 

Medically speaking, I'm afraid it is.

I have no idea why he'd say such a thing.

Think about it. 

How does one assess the following risk factors over the phone?

How does a doctor know that the medication is being prescribed for the person ON the phone?

How does someone dispensing the medication by mail, know to whom they are sending the medication.

How does one determine how many weeks pregnant you are over the phone? (this medical abortion method is not suitable after 9-10 weeks only 60% effective and more likely to result in incomplete abortion) DANGEROUS.

I don't have a lot of confidence that all women making such a request are actually competent to follow advise on a leaflet in the USA, given that they can't seemingly even understand the basics of viral infection spread. Or that they even understand the basics of reproductive process after the initial step.:rolleyes:

From Family Planning Victoria.

https://www.fpv.org.au/for-you/abortion/medication-abortion-abortion-pill

Some women should not take mifepristone

Mifepristone is not recommended for all women and may not be suitable for you if you:

  • have certain medical conditions such as bleeding problems, adrenal failure or high blood pressure
  • are taking long-term steroid or blood-thinning medication
  • have an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy
  • are more than nine weeks pregnant
  • have had allergic reactions to medication containing mifepristone
  • are fitted with an intrauterine device (the device needs to be removed before taking mifepristone).
  • Disadvantages of medication abortion

    Disadvantages of taking mifepristone include that:

  • You may have a lot of bleeding, which could mean you need to have a surgical abortion or, in rare cases, a blood transfusion.
  • You may get an infection, but this is uncommon and can usually be treated with antibiotics.
  • The procedure fails in around two per cent of women, who may then need a follow-up surgical abortion.
  • Though rare, mifepristone can take days to work, whereas a surgical abortion only takes about 15 minutes.

 

So, by that logic NO medications should be fulfilled via mail

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So, by that logic NO medications should be fulfilled via mail

Not at all and it's not a matter of just filling a script via mail. Toms article states

whether abortion drugs may be prescribed remotely and shipped via mail.

If someone had been taking a GP prescribed medication for some time and simply want a repeat script? usually no problem.

An abortion pill is a one off . It's simply not enough to take a pee test, ring your doc and ask for an abortion pill and get it mailed.

I have no idea what the earlier courts were thinking? maybe they didn't understand the dangers or are so wrapped up in the hidious abortion debate environment that they failed to take them into consideration.

Frankly, I'd rather take advice from a country where abortion isn't an issue than one so highly politisised. Your courts have been putting womens health at risk for decades over the abortion wrangling, I see no reason to trust this one OR the earlier courts ruling.

ALSO, I've never yet read one of Tom's offerings from REASON that wasn't distorted, so there is that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Not at all and it's not a matter of just filling a script via mail. Toms article states

whether abortion drugs may be prescribed remotely and shipped via mail.

If someone had been taking a GP prescribed medication for some time and simply want a repeat script? usually no problem.

An abortion pill is a one off . It's simply not enough to take a pee test, ring your doc and ask for an abortion pill and get it mailed.

I have no idea what the earlier courts were thinking? maybe they didn't understand the dangers or are so wrapped up in the hidious abortion debate environment that they failed to take them into consideration.

Frankly, I'd rather take advice from a country where abortion isn't an issue than one so highly politisised. Your courts have been putting womens health at risk for decades over the abortion wrangling, I see no reason to trust this one OR the earlier courts ruling.

ALSO, I've never yet read one of Tom's offerings from REASON that wasn't distorted, so there is that. 

 

Gessus loves us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 1/14/2021 at 7:53 AM, Shortforbob said:
On 1/14/2021 at 7:37 AM, Polytelum Tom said:

So this excerpt from the dissenters is just BS?
 

 

We are disappointed and dismayed by the Supreme Court decision upholding the Trump Administration's arbitrary and non-scientific decision to continue to force patients to travel during a dangerous pandemic in order to obtain the medication they need," said Hugh Taylor, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, in a statement. "To be clear, requiring patients to obtain their medications in person serves no clinical purpose and is not based on any rational scientific evidence or clinical judgement. It serves one purpose, to place an obstacle between a woman and the medication her physician has prescribed for her. We call on the incoming Biden administration to end this policy immediately upon taking office next week."

 

Medically speaking, I'm afraid it is.

I have no idea why he'd say such a thing.

Uh oh.

Democratic lawmakers push FDA to lift restrictions on abortion pill

 

Quote

 

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are asking the Food and Drug Administration to lift rules requiring people seeking medication abortion to obtain pills in-person, citing pandemic-related health risks.

Democratic women on the watchdog panel, in a letter to acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock that was first shared with POLITICO, said the agency must "immediately eliminate the medically unnecessary in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone," referring to one of two drugs used in medication abortions.

The group notes that the FDA suspended in-person requirements for many other drugs during the pandemic, including opioids, but kept them in place for mifepristone, which was approved in 2000.

“Imposing this requirement in the midst of a deadly pandemic—one that has disproportionately impacted communities of color across the United States—needlessly places patients and providers in harm’s way, and further entrenches longstanding health inequities,” the group wrote.
...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 1:07 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Just thought I'd leave this here, because I am too impatient to wait for the next thread that goes to recipes

image.thumb.png.441d5119412fc7a5600f41097678a7a5.png

You can officially hate me now

- DSK

Waiting for a Pav recipe?

New Zealand Pavlova

Pavlova is a meringue-based dessert named after the Russian ballerina Anna Pavlova.[1] It has a crisp crust and soft, light inside, usually topped with fruit and whipped cream.[2] The name is pronounced /pævˈlvə/, or like the name of the dancer, which was /ˈpɑːvləvə/.[3][4][5]

The dessert is believed to have been created in honour of the dancer either during or after one of her tours to Australia and New Zealand in the 1920s.[2] The nationality of its creator has been a source of argument between the two nations for many years.[6]

'The pav' is a popular dish and an important part of the national cuisine of both Australia and New Zealand, and with its simple recipe, is frequently served during celebratory and holiday meals. It is a dessert most identified with the summer time, and popularly eaten during that period, including at Christmas time; however, it is also eaten all year round in many Australian and New Zealand homes.[2]

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Waiting for a Pav recipe?

New Zealand Pavlova

Pavlova is a meringue-based dessert named after the Russian ballerina Anna Pavlova.[1] It has a crisp crust and soft, light inside, usually topped with fruit and whipped cream.[2] The name is pronounced /pævˈlvə/, or like the name of the dancer, which was /ˈpɑːvləvə/.[3][4][5]

The dessert is believed to have been created in honour of the dancer either during or after one of her tours to Australia and New Zealand in the 1920s.[2] The nationality of its creator has been a source of argument between the two nations for many years.[6]

'The pav' is a popular dish and an important part of the national cuisine of both Australia and New Zealand, and with its simple recipe, is frequently served during celebratory and holiday meals. It is a dessert most identified with the summer time, and popularly eaten during that period, including at Christmas time; however, it is also eaten all year round in many Australian and New Zealand homes.[2]

A traditional accompaniment to a Pavlova is a Pavlov, usually a small bowl full of dog spit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

I'm a bit slow this morning.

Boo meringue. Very good :D 

Like that one? A neighbor sent it to me. I got a million more. Try the veal and don't forget to tip your waitperson!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Like that one? A neighbor sent it to me. I got a million more. Try the veal and don't forget to tip your waitperson waittranny!

- DSK

FIFY

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 2/12/2021 at 7:19 AM, Excoded Tom said:

I guess push came to shove.

FDA Reverses Course on Abortion Drugs by Mail
 

Quote

 

Last summer, a federal court temporarily suspended the in-person prescription requirement. The in-person prescription requirement during pandemic times presents a "substantial obstacle" (of the sort barred by Roe v. Wade) to women seeking abortions, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in July 2020, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the FDA's in-person rules until at least 30 days after an end to the public health emergency was declared.

The Trump administration challenged this ruling, and the Supreme Court asked in October that the court reconsider, given that "relevant circumstances" may have changed. Then, in January, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to ignore the district court's ruling while a federal appeals court was hearing the matter. That meant that being prescribed abortion drugs once again required an in-person visit.

Now, the FDA says the requirement is again suspended.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

I guess push came to shove.

FDA Reverses Course on Abortion Drugs by Mail
 

 

To be realistic, the requirement for a prescription should be removed for any medication that doesn't risk the creation of a dependency.

I should not need a prescription to be renewed to get my cholesterol medication.

I can go out and drink myself to death legally if I'm over 21, but the government is afraid I might take too much Atorvastatin.  It props up a huge bullshit industry of doctor->prescription->insurance->pharmacist->end user.

Idiotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2021 at 11:11 PM, Burning Man said:

FIFY

You can't forget that night on the 4th Floor of Orchard Towers, can ya?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...