Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cherrypoptart

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
101
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 01, 2020, 12:08:52 AM »

"Bill Cosby might disagree about late complaints going nowhere."

And Weinstein. Both in prison for allegations that came decades after the alleged incidents. I didn't keep up with the whole stories but I think in both cases too women who said they raped him ended up being together with them again voluntarily later, in Weinstein's case voluntarily having sex with him and I think in Cosby's case at least being on friendly terms with him. I could be mistaken about that but the point is that even if women don't say anything at the time, even if they seem to be okay with it for years afterward, that doesn't mean that the man can't be convicted of rape and sent to prison decades later anyway. That plays into Reade's situation the same way it did for the Weinstein and Cosby cases, in her favor by the precedents set.

102
"Better if he had said he was indulging in persiflage."

Good word. Perhaps another concern is that he apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word sarcasm.

103
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: April 28, 2020, 03:35:57 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/tara-reade-neighbor-joe-biden-sexual-assault-201409554.html

What was interesting to me was that the witness to hearing her story at the time both believes her friend and yet still supports Joe Biden. I reckon there will be a lot more of that than Democrats want to admit. People who believe he is guilty and will support and vote for him anyway. That's gotta hurt.

"LaCasse told Insider she’s a Democrat and plans to vote for Biden despite Reade’s allegation. Still, she felt compelled to stick up for her friend, who has faced a wave of criticism and death threats since accusing Biden of assault.

“I have to support her just because that’s what happened,” LaCasse said. “We need to stand up and tell the truth.”

104
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: April 27, 2020, 12:25:51 PM »
Well as far as I remember nobody even testified that they ever saw the two of them together in the same room. Maybe that was just a talking point though.

105
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 27, 2020, 12:22:35 PM »
If everyone is wearing a mask then there won't be much virus floating around on the flying spit so there is very little chance of it floating onto someone else's mask. But yeah if people aren't wearing masks and then their virus gets on yours and you touch it and rub your nose or something then you could be doomed. That's why some people are getting so upset at others not wearing masks. And the people not wearing them don't seem to care about it so it's possible they aren't taking the usual precautions and could be asymptomatic carriers.

I liked this line from a story about the Spanish Flu in San Francisco.

"The man or woman or child who will not wear a mask now is a dangerous slacker," a public service announcement from the American Red Cross said at the time, according to Navarro’s research."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/san-francisco-had-1918-flu-under-control-then-it-lifted-n1191141

But I do take your admonishment to be careful to heart. I carry my Clorox wipes with me and just wipe my hands with one when I'm done shopping and use it to take off the mask. Then I wipe off the mask and put it in a container I have with $25 worth of pennies and completely surround it with the copper.  Then I wipe off my hands again and wash them when I get home. By the time I need to go shopping again in a couple of weeks (made it 17 days just now) it should be fine.

However, I don't see how not having a mask would be any better. Then the virus instead of landing on your mask will either land on your face or just get inhaled directly. They say perhaps if the virus is on the smaller particles of spit that travel farther and get suspended longer that can be worse because those can travel more deeply into the lungs.

But like I said, I'm not using my mask to protect myself. I'm using it to help protect others just in case I'm a carrier and I don't know it. Did I mention I think I had it back in mid-January? Well I don't want to go all Munchausen up in here without an antibody test but in any case it's still best to play it safe since we know so little about it. But I do feel pretty bad thinking that maybe I was spreading it around without even knowing I had anything contagious.

106
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: April 27, 2020, 12:07:12 PM »
Blasey Ford couldn't even prove she was ever in the same room or the same house as Kavanaugh. Reade at least has that much.  I'm not sure what to believe. If it did happen it seems like Biden thought it was consensual, kind of like in 13 Reasons Why. But women lie a lot and often aren't prosecuted or even held accountable when they do. The person who sent Brian Banks to prison for 5 years for a rape he didn't commit was never charged with a crime even when it was proven that she lied. There is no deterrent to making up stories and if someone is looking for attention it's a sure fire way to get it. On the other hand he is a creeper. No way to tell.

107
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 26, 2020, 07:54:47 PM »
A person doesn't wear a mask because they are afraid of getting the virus. They wear a mask because they are afraid they are an asymptomatic carrier and they don't want to spread it to other people. These homemade masks don't keep the virus out. They keep the tiny bits of spit the virus rides on in. That's why touching the masks doesn't matter so much. Wearing a mask you assume you already have it.

It's a completely different situation from medical personnel, basically totally the opposite.

The other side is obvious though. You don't wear a mask to protect yourself. But you do hope other people wear theirs just in case you are not the one infected so that they will be protecting you if they are. It's almost the ultimate in courtesy and good citizenship.


108
There are some really dumb people out there. Maybe the tide pod eaters were ahead of their time.

109
The key words in the Trump quote are "something like that".

I didn't get the sense that he was suggesting injecting bleach into someone. He's talking about something new that hasn't been invented yet. I hope anyway...

"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."

It's like someone suggesting you could maybe stop tornadoes by electrically powering the wind turbines so they spin fast enough to counteract the wind of a tornado, just of course being careful that you direct them properly so the winds cancel out instead of multiplying each other and making the tornado even stronger. And then you could use the same principle with the offshore wind farms to stop hurricanes. I mean yeah it's pretty stupid but whatever; just brainstorming. If someone said something like that should they have to worry about a person taking a Chinese silk folding fan with a dragon design on it and running at a tornado or into the middle of a hurricane like a jousting Don Quixote trying to wave the fan furiously enough to create enough wind to stop the storms? It's all just absurd but not anything to get terribly worked up about.

110
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 25, 2020, 11:35:56 AM »
"... but are uncertain if they should consider themselves "safe" if the tests come back positive."

I don't know anything more than what I see in the news but it looks like it's too early to know. I'm glad the WHO is erring on the side of caution now. Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it's not so and hopefully most people will have some immunity but that's not something anyone should count on or take for granted. Another issue is even if there is some immunity how would that apply, if it applies at all, to mutations and new strains of the virus? How dangerous are the other strains compared to this one or more that is causing most of the problems now? Another unknown quantity there.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200425-no-evidence-that-recovering-from-covid-19-gives-people-immunity-who-says

"The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently "no evidence" that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection."


111
I'm not sure how it's nonsense. Everyone in charge underestimated how deadly and contagious the virus is. They kept travel going long after it should have been halted. The quarantines were insufficient. The CDC testing criteria was absurd. If some of the people who had no travel links to China had been tested earlier we would have known a lot more than we did. It's almost as if they didn't want to know.  By only testing people with China travel contacts it ensured we would remain in the dark as to how widespread it was. And we're still in the dark on that even now because of that. You test someone who had travel contacts to China and they have it and what have you learned? Nothing. Best just to assume they have it if they have symptoms and quarantine them and give them treatment as needed. But you test someone in some other city with no contacts and if they have it that tells you something you didn't know before. We could have caught the community spread much earlier. Then we have the whole mask issue and all the health care professionals catching it and dying. That is not just on the WHO. That's on us too. That's not being prepared. That's a direct result of wearing rose colored glasses and assuming the most optimistic possibilities instead of playing it safe and preparing for the worst.

But as to your point about the WHO being incompetent or worse in bed with China, on that we agree. The mistake we made was to rely on them for anything. The mistake the states made was to rely on the federal government and the CDC. What we learned is that people who are supposed to protect us either can't or just for whatever reasons didn't.

112
I should qualify what I mean when I say the Trump response to the coronavirus was not competent. Okay now to me I saw this coming but I could have been wrong. It turns out I wasn't. Just looking at what happened in China made it obvious that this was something unlike anything we had ever seen before and the usual measures would be insufficient. And now for the disclaimer. It wasn't just Trump or the CDC or the NIH who dropped the ball. It wasn't just yes men because the same thing happened at the World Health Organization. And they are hardly Trump supporters. Just about everyone in charge of everything got it wrong on this one. The only ones who were right were the chicken littles who screamed that the sky was falling and it's hard to take them seriously when nothing like this has ever happened before. Maybe the closest thing is the Spanish Flu pandemic and this is even different from that. The measures taken by Trump and the WHO and the advice given may have been adequate for the Spanish Flu but this thing is completely new and totally different.

113
Yes he said now it was sarcasm and I'm going to say he's not being accurate on the sarcasm bit. Maybe he was searching for the right word to indicate he wasn't being totally serious but instead extemporaneous and it didn't come out sounding very intelligent as can happen when you are just freewheeling your thoughts into words. But does his idea have any merit at all?

A lot of us are getting our internet right now via fiberoptic cable. So those are light pulses going through a cable. And a cable is like a tube. When they intubate to let patients breathe they are sticking a tube down into your body. So instead of an air tube maybe make it a light tube with the virus killing light and you shine that down into the body obviously starting with the throat. See if maybe that kills the virus without killing you first. Like chemo. Then you use nanotubes that are only microns in diameter and you thread those down into the lungs and shine it there. See if that helps. Always check with your doctor first. Maybe for something like this also talk to your astrologist. You want to check your stars because they have a lot of exactly the same kind of light we are talking about here, the kind that can kill viruses.

Okay now see that is sarcasm. It'd be funny though if that could actually work.


114
But I thought intentions were what counted...

Trump's intentions here are good. They aren't even racist. Black people are suffering the most. If there was some way to get a treatment that people could just inhale that would be perfect. He's not talking about people actually using bleach. Just something like it. Sure it may come to nothing and may not be possible with today's technology but there is nothing wrong with brainstorming. He's just saying what he's thinking. Wishful thinking here to be sure but that's not a crime. It doesn't mean he's incompetent. It's just more like science fiction at this point, where like in The Last Ship they invented a cure that could be spread person to person like the virus itself.

Bringing Obama into it, it wasn't that we didn't think he was competent. It wasn't that he didn't know exactly what he was doing. It was that he was and he did. He was competent and he knew exactly what he was doing. It was just the wrong thing. Obamacare. DACA. NASA. Churches not being able to select their own clergy. The NLRB recess appointment the Supreme Court overruled him on 9-0. I mean you look at how many unanimous Supreme Court rulings you had against Obama and compare that to Trump's record in the Supreme Court where not only is he not getting overruled unanimously but as far as I can see in the headlines most rulings are going in his favor.

Now that's not to say that I find Trump's coronavirus response competent. I don't. He and the CDC really dropped the ball on this at just about every turn. There are valid criticisms there. But this extemporaneous talking that he has a habit of doing isn't a problem. If it reveals that he doesn't understand things then maybe that's a good thing. If he just kept quiet and nodded and no one ever knew wouldn't that be worse?

Just looked up the tidbit about unanimous Supreme Court decisions against Obama to make sure I was right and  found that sure enough I was with even Justice Elena Kagan decrying Obama's chutzpah.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/supreme_court_slaps_down_the_obama_administration

115
I had thought something along the lines of Trump, some kind of way to get cleansing agents into the body to kill the virus. I don't know if it would work or not but we have the ancient example of workers at copper smelters being mostly immune from passing plagues. Was it because they were touching the copper all the time and that was like constantly washing their hands? Or was it because copper atoms were in the air being breathed in and got in their food as well?

Now as with most things beneficial there is certainly harm that could come from copper in this way too. But I wonder what would happen if you took some dire case coronavirus sufferers to a copper smelter. Would it help them any? Would the workers get infected or would the copper kill the virus before it could get to them? If it did work would there be a way to aerosolize atoms of copper? Are there safe levels for it?

Maybe it would do nothing at all. Maybe they'd get copper poisoning. I have no idea but I can appreciate the lines along which Trump was thinking. It's good to think out of the box sometimes like wmLambert is saying. Most of the time it's rubbish but sometimes even the rubbish can lead to a spark of inspiration that results in progress.

116
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 22, 2020, 03:16:50 PM »
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/A-mysterious-blood-clotting-complication-is-15218500.php

"One doctor replied that there was a strange blood problem in one of his patients. Despite getting anticoagulants, the patient was still developing clots in various parts of his body. A second said she'd seen something similar. And a third. Then Coopersmith's phone blew up as every person on the text chat reported the same thing.

"That's when we knew we had a huge problem," said Coopersmith, a critical care surgeon. As he checked with his counterparts at other medical centers, he became increasingly alarmed: "It was in as many as 20, 30, or 40% of their patients."

Just some general info.


117
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 20, 2020, 03:42:45 PM »
That's certainly in my price range. I may have to mosey over there, pick up a couple of barrels, and put seventy bucks in my pocket.

118
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 20, 2020, 03:36:52 PM »
If that holds then the Spanish air decontamination policy may be more helpful than it might first appear if the airflow is different from most places and is effectively trapping and concentrating the virus even outside.

Apparently, this virus needs much higher temperatures than normal to kill too.

Somewhat mixed messages in this article:

https://nypost.com/2020/04/19/coronavirus-can-survive-exposure-to-high-temperatures-study-shows/

"To kill the virus, it took 15 minutes of exposure to 197.6-degree temperatures, the report said.

Researchers, however, noted that most patients have lower viral loads than were tested in the vials, suggesting that lower heat levels could potentially be effective after all to kill the virus.

And preliminary results from a government lab experiment support the theory that warmer weather could slow the spread of the virus, according to a report.

Department of Homeland Security briefing notes that were leaked to Yahoo News, suggested that the virus doesn’t survive long in sunlight, humidity and warmer temperatures.

“Sunlight destroys the virus quickly,” the document said, according to Yahoo News."

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

If sunlight really does destroy the virus quickly how would that square with the NO2 levels being so important?




119
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 19, 2020, 05:50:06 PM »
And the point is that this isn't a hindsight is 20/20 issue. All of this was obvious pretty early on. I don't know what the deal is with these people but they are beyond incompetent.

120
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 19, 2020, 05:35:29 PM »
Aris Katsaris

"Why are certain people keep finding "new revelations" in things I personally knew about for months?"

Exactly. We are in absolute agreement about this.

You look at their quotes about this and how they treated it. They were so dead wrong and outrageously Pollyannaish about it that it's ridiculous. Nobody with half a brain is surprised about how contagious and dangerous this virus is. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could have predicted it. China told us if not in so many words then definitely their actions talked for them. Their doctors told us at the risk of being arrested. And when their doctors started dying off that told us all we needed to know.

People who make the kinds of mistakes our CDC made are dangerous to leave in charge of our safety. Instead of ever erring on the side of caution, at every turn they chose with wild ignorant abandon to err on the side of reckless indifference to deadly danger. From an early travel ban on Europe to the mask issue to the testing criteria to test people we were pretty sure already had it instead of putting at least a few tests out early to suspected cases that if confirmed would have proven how widespread it was, at every decision point these people made exactly the worst possible choice. And there is absolutely no accountability. They just act like nobody could have known any better, nobody could have done any better, and that they did as well as any reasonable person could expect; maybe better even. It's like all those studies that show when people take a test and are asked to rate how well they did they consistently rate their own knowledge and competence as much better than the actuality. That's these guys. So bad and what's worse they don't even know it.

121
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 18, 2020, 10:49:47 PM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/spain-authorizes-military-planes-spray-disinfectants-over-cities

"The Spanish government has just "authorized" the military to prepare planes for aerial spraying of disinfectants across major metro areas as confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to rise..."

I had never really considered this an option.

Color me skeptical though on its effectiveness.

I haven't touched anything outside my home without wiping it down first and that includes parts of my car too. Are people really picking it up this way? Particularly outside. If you're going to touch anything that's infected it seems like it would happen indoors where this spray won't reach.

Although... if the virus is just circulating around in the air, in nature, and we can pick it up that way then that's a whole other story and I've wondered about that. Of course if that's the case the spray will still have limited effect because more virus will constantly be produced by people as well as drifting in from outside the spray area.

One also have to wonder if the disinfectant itself is dangerous at all. I doubt it but I guess it depends on what it is. It didn't mention it as far as I could tell in the article. Depending on what it is, if it is a little bit dangerous, that might be another way to encourage people to stay inside for a while. I suppose it's nice that they are pulling out all the stops though to fight back.

122
General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: April 18, 2020, 08:38:51 PM »

wmLambert


"Donald Trump is the first racist in history to have"

This next one is not a first so doesn't make the list but it's also worth pointing out that he is married to an immigrant.

123
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 18, 2020, 03:23:44 PM »
Trump is in a no-win situation here. The best he can do, as he's obviously already been advised, is to lower expectations as much as possible.

This is the Kobayashi Maru scenario. No way out.

If people go back to work, they die. If they don't go back to work, the economy dies.

I don't think the Democrats want to keep the economy shut down just to hurt Trump. Their real motivation is to save lives. They have a valid point that the sooner people get back to work, the sooner they will die because of the virus, at least thousands of them. Having said that, it's not beneath many of the Democrats in power to use the situation to their political advantage. The most obvious way, and it has some validity, is to blame Trump for not being better prepared. Maybe if we'd had better tests and more of them we could have done a better job of isolating infected people. I think we'll find that the virus has been here for a lot longer than the official timeline though so we weren't going to keep it out but that doesn't make the testing situation any better. If we had more tests we might find that the mortality and complication rate is "only" double to ten times higher than normal instead of a hundred times higher. Still a big problem but the more information we have the better. Also if immunity holds for those with antibodies then a lot of people could get back to work now.

But back to the main point, that the Democrats would never stoop to using the virus for their political benefit. I don't even see them trying to hide it. But then again neither are the Republicans. There are valid points on both sides to be made because of weaknesses in our systems that the virus has exposed.

124
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 18, 2020, 02:30:51 PM »
"Can't you just admit you don't have a single example of the Democrats blaming Trump for the repercussions on the economy?"

Just going to jump in here real quick.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/06/democrats-trump-coronavirus-economy-166950

"In a string of recent TV appearances, Biden has explicitly tied the pandemic’s health effects to its economic devastation, casting them as dual crises and yoking both of them to Trump."


125
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 15, 2020, 08:17:37 PM »
We also need to keep the lock down for a while for the healthcare workers who are dying when they shouldn't be just because they don't have the protective gear they need. And just my opinion here but we hear a lot about the N95 masks but from what I understand those are insufficient for this type of job. And we don't even have enough of those.

126
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 15, 2020, 03:22:45 PM »
We're starting to see more successful treatment options now.

One sad thing to think about is the hundreds of thousands who die and the millions more who have long term lung damage when a simple cure for the vast majority of them may be just around the corner, a month or two away.

That's a more optimistic reason for trying to flatten the curve, not just to save hospital beds and ventilators used. Maybe eventually most people do get infected but the longer we can delay that the better their treatment options become.

That might be something else that makes this different from the usual yearly flus. With everyone around the world working so hard on this coupled with it's somewhat unique symptoms, great progress is being made on new and sometimes even old forms of treatment.

A month or two may make the difference here. Maybe even weeks if we're lucky. The gains in terms of lifelong productivity by the tens of thousands who are saved both in terms of their lives and their health will be worth it.

Hopefully this doesn't continue for too much longer. Even without a cure, once testing ramps up, and it looks like they may have a new easy saliva test, that can get people back out too if we see that they have some immunity, most of them anyway for the ones for whom the immunity holds.

127
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 14, 2020, 03:11:54 PM »
"Let them meet, then put the whole lot of them into an enforced quarantine with each other."

Of course the problem with both of our ideas is when these people end up getting so sick they need ventilators and use up other scarce medical resources because of their folly. We wouldn't go to the extreme of telling them that if you do this then you are on your own. Plus we get back to the problem of these are people who just don't listen because they don't take it seriously. They won't practice social distancing for their own protection and they won't do it even when they know they are infected for the protection of others.

128
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 14, 2020, 03:08:02 PM »
I agree it's almost certainly a bad idea to let people purposefully infect themselves even under so called controlled circumstances. I don't recommend it at all.  But it's kind of like the drug problem. Some people just don't listen. Of course in this case it's even worse because when they don't listen they don't just hurt themselves but everyone around them. Well that is still like the drug problem but with the contagion they are infecting others with their problem, not just hurting them indirectly. But the point is for people who just won't listen what do you do? Give them a more controlled environment or just let them do their own thing? I suppose the analogy here would be like giving them a safe room to get high with drugs you know aren't contaminated. Then they have to stay in that room until they are no longer a danger to others. And though the analogy isn't that good, it holds for a little while because no matter how much safer you try to make it, it's still incredibly dangerous with so many unknown variables that could result in tragedy. Well like I said I'm not really suggesting it. Just flying it up the flagpole to watch it get burned, and rightfully burned down too.

But it does make a point. If even trying to do this in a controlled environment is recklessly dangerous and perhaps futile, then letting people ignore the social distancing precautions and just get themselves and others infected is of course even worse. If someone knew there was a room full of infected people, would they willingly go into it and get themselves infected? That's basically what refusing to practice social distancing precautions is.

129
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 14, 2020, 02:55:53 PM »
"Maybe they should all volunteer to get infected."

Now I'm not recommending what I'm going to write next, but it's an idea. Probably a very stupid idea but...

Remember how parents used to have chickenpox parties for their kids? Well if people want to get themselves infected maybe it could be done in a controlled environment. There isn't a vaccine yet but if you want to just get infected and get it over with so you can do your quarantine and get back to work with your immunity pass maybe there could be a way to do it while keeping your initial viral load very small so you get your exposure but hopefully with a little bit less risk compared to what could happen in an uncontrolled environment even with social distancing and precautions.

For instance, there was the bus driver who went viral for scolding a lady for not covering her coughs. He died of the virus a few days later. Maybe he was exposed to a much higher initial viral load by that lady and it got deep into his lungs compared to if he had been exposed in a controlled setting, kind of like a weak live virus vaccine. Of course he may have died even with a very low initial exposure. Now I don't know. Just spitballing this. The point is he didn't have a choice. But if a vaccine is going to take more than a year then this might be an option for some people to help with developing herd immunity but perhaps mitigating some of the risks especially if they insist on ignoring and flouting precautions anyway. I understand it would be challenging to say the least to do this in any sort of lab setting but it might be worth a shot. Of course before any of that can happen we need to get the testing problem sorted.

130
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: April 14, 2020, 04:23:51 AM »
"Yesterday, (Jan.31.2020) Donald Trump further diminished the United States in the eyes of the world by expanding his travel ban not only on the Chinse people, now placing new restrictions on the residents of six more nations that limit who is allowed to come to the United States. And Trump’s adding more countries to his list of who’s not welcome in America. It’s not who we are — and we’ll prove that when we beat Trump this November and end the ban". ~ Joe Biden


131
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 12, 2020, 05:26:41 PM »
It's not unreasonable to try to tally the costs of our contagion prevention efforts, economic and otherwise, even if in the end people feel they are worth it. I'll add another one. The gyms closing. I think it's worth it but if it goes on for a long time people will be more out of shape and there are health consequences for that too. Even a lot of the workout equipment is sold out at the stores. Sure you try to stay in shape without a gym and that's fine but it's not quite the same and it's not quite as good especially with the after workout steam, sauna, and hot tub gone.

Like with renewable energy, it's good but there are trade-offs and sacrifices and it's important to understand and quantify them both to figure out ways to get around them as well as to determine perhaps when too much is enough.

132
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: April 10, 2020, 10:46:47 PM »
I like the insights into the sausage factory y'all provide. We just see the results but it's hard to know who to really blame without a lot more information and understanding of the whole process.

133
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 07, 2020, 11:41:38 AM »
I've got a good feeling that with everyone wearing masks in crowded areas we're going to see the rates of infection fall significantly.

We've been through most of this already but I'm going to rehash it just for crystal clarity and anyone can tell me if I'm wrong.

In a way the worry about the uninfected person getting their cloth masks infected is misplaced; the worry about how if you're uninfected you're going to touch your mask that was clean when you left the house but got infected out in public and then you infect yourself misses the point. Sure go through the proper motions to avoid cross contamination and all that but that's not what the masks are really doing here.

They are to keep infected people from spreading the virus so much and so far. So the people with the infected masks are already infected. Their masks are infected. Their hands are probably infected. Their whole house and car is infected. When they touch their infected mask with their infected hands it doesn't matter because it's all already infected anyway. They just aren't putting as much of that infection out into the air as they would without the mask.

And if you aren't infected the mask doesn't do much if anything to protect you and that's fine. As stated many times your cloth mask doesn't let you walk into a room full of maskless infected people and remain uninfected. But if you walk into a room full of masked infected people even though your mask is doing little or nothing to help you, their masks are. Hopefully your mask is not getting infected because the infected people have their masks on and their infection isn't getting airborne as much so isn't landing on your mask. That's the theory.

Still, always be careful regardless. But I think we're finally on the right track here.

134
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 05, 2020, 12:14:43 PM »
And away we go...

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/texas-city-mandates-people-wear-155328581.html

Should you wear a mask during the coronavirus pandemic? The city of Laredo, Texas, has decided that yes, you do. And if you don’t wear one, they could fine you.

The city’s emergency mandate, which went into effect on April 2, states that every person over the age of five must wear “some form of covering over their nose and mouth” when using public transportation, taxis, ride shares, pumping gas or when inside a building open to the public. That face covering can include a homemade mask, scarf, bandana or handkerchief. The penalty for violating the order is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine up to $1,000.

The rule does not apply to people who are riding in “a personal vehicle,” who are alone in “a separate single space,” who are engaging in “permissible outside physical activity,” who are alone with their household members or who are eating food. It also doesn’t apply if when wearing a face covering poses a health, safety or security risk to the individual. Laredo’s mandate is reportedly the first in the U.S. to enforce the wearing of face coverings.

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


They look like a city of outlaws but appearances aside it's a step in the right direction.

135
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:42:31 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/face-masks-how-the-trump-administration-went-from-no-need-to-put-one-on-to-fight-coronavirus-185852253.html

The Key:

"A study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine found that viral particles “can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours,” perhaps for as many as three. That makes it imperative to keep those particles from becoming airborne in the first place."



Many people in Asia have long worn such masks as a matter of routine, especially when traveling, and have faced social stigma for doing so. Now, however, that practice appears to have been vindicated.

“It’s a civic duty,” one Chinese student living in New York told Time magazine earlier this month. “If I have a mask on,” she explained, “I could cut the chain off where I am. That could save a lot of people.”

136
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:08:21 AM »
"... people wearing masks reduce other compliance behavior."

I'm not getting the logic here. The people who were acting in non-compliant ways like going to churches, funerals, choir practice, and so on were not wearing masks anyway. If they were going to insist on being non-compliant on social distancing, it wouldn't have hurt to have them at least wear masks. Look at that Korean woman who went to the church where masks weren't allowed and super-spread it to dozens or maybe hundreds.

I agree that if people were told if you are going to this church service then you can go if everyone wears a mask then that is counter-productive. The service should not be allowed to be held at all. But... if they are going to go anyway then would it be better if everyone at least had masks than not? If people are going to be riding on buses and trains and subways anyway then surely it's better that they all wear masks than just breathe all over each other and cough and sneeze willy nilly all over the place like that lady did on the bus and had the bus driver die. And especially in the grocery stores. People still have to go there. Masks should be required.

I disagree about the asymptomatic carriers being a minor source of contagion. Time is telling but the latest word I'm seeing is that they are a much bigger source than was previously suspected. Of course I suspected it all along. It's really the only thing that makes sense to explain how fast this is spreading.

137
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 05, 2020, 08:59:30 AM »
It's too bad everyone wasn't required to wear at least improvised masks from the get go. Masks at churches, masks at choir practice, masks at conventions, masks in hotel lobbies, masks on planes, trains, and in taxis. We can never know for sure now but I'd be willing to bet most of the people now infected would not have been. There wouldn't even be the shortage of N95s because the healthcare workers wouldn't need them as much since not as many people would be infected. I'd even go so far as to say that with mandatory masking we could get back to a much greater semblance of normalcy much more quickly. Dine-in restaurants would still be out and maybe a few other problematic things like that but by and large our society and economy could get back on track in relatively short order. And I could certainly be mistaken. Maybe it wouldn't make that much of a difference. But there is thing we know for sure. We tried having our government tell the general public not to wear masks and that failed miserably, fatally. Trying the exact opposite is certainly worth a shot.

And to be clear 100% masking is not a substitute for social distancing and hand washing and other mitigation measures. It's not an either/or but an and.

138
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 05, 2020, 05:44:12 AM »
The main point is that it has to be 100% of people wearing masks to really do the trick. If one person isn't wearing a mask and they happen to be the asymptomatic super spreader then they are putting the virus into the air and getting it onto the masks of everyone who may touch their mask and infect themselves or what have you. But if that asymptomatic super spreader is also wearing a mask then the amount of virus they put into the air and the distance it travels is tremendously reduced so when the other people who don't have it maybe goof up and not handle their masks perfectly it doesn't matter because the virus never got onto their mask in the first place. It stayed in the super spreader's mask or in relatively close proximity instead of getting spewed out and picked up on ventilation currents just hanging around in the air for someone to walk into it or inhale it. Even after people recover and are therefore presumably immune and can't spread it they should still wear masks, not because they are a danger to anyone but just to enforce complete social compliance and make the people not wearing masks the odd ones out, banned from grocery stores and subject to fines like in some Asian countries. And again, it doesn't even have to be N95 masks. Cloth masks like even an old shirt will do to keep the virus from spreading as much or as far. It's the same principle as coughing or sneezing into your sleeve, and the mask helps with that too for people who forget, don't care, or have slow reflexes.

There was the heartbreaking story of the bus driver who went on a viral rant because an elderly lady got on his bus and was coughing all over the place without covering her mouth. If she had been wearing a mask it probably would have helped a lot. Certainly wouldn't have hurt. The corona virus killed that poor man shortly afterwards.

139
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 04, 2020, 05:07:55 PM »
And right after I wrote that I see this. Timely.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/noble-lie-masks-coronavirus-never-104001181.html

"Those of you of a certain age will doubtless remember a time when it was universally acknowledged that wearing masks would not protect you or anyone else from the coronavirus pandemic. By "certain age" here I mean all living Americans born on or before April 1, 2020, which according to my notes is when it became possible to express a contrary position in polite society.

This was always nonsense. The White House is now suggesting that all of us should wear masks whenever we leave our houses...

Whether the journalists and other apparent experts who enthusiastically spread this apparent lie about masks knew it was false is very much an open question. Some of us found it odd that the same people were also saying that masks should be reserved for use by medical professionals. If masks don't do anything, why do doctors and nurses need them? Are they an ornamental part of a dress uniform? The mind reels.

Regardless of the personal honesty of those involved in it, this propaganda campaign should never have been conducted in the first place...

...We must put an end to the idea that the best way to get through this crisis is to say things we know are not true in the hope of getting people to behave a certain way. This means not saying masks are useless when what you really mean is, "Masks are in short supply, please consider before you start hoarding them whether you really need them at present and if so how many."

140
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 04, 2020, 05:00:47 PM »
Now on a positive note I just went shopping for groceries and I'd say about 80% of the people are now wearing masks. People are listening to what they're being told. They just need to be told the right thing. Before when our government said the general public should not wear masks I'd say it was maybe 30% wearing them. Our government actually made it seem like you were not patriotic if you wore a mask because the healthcare workers needed them. The public doesn't need the N95 though to keep from breathing out the virus as we talk in crowds. That should have been obvious from the beginning just like it's obvious right now. A cloth mask won't help a healthcare worker but it will help the asymptomatic carriers contain the amount and the distance their virus laden droplets travel out of their infected mouths.

141
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 04, 2020, 04:56:12 PM »
"... and all you supporters of him here followed suit, and were accusing everyone who 'hyped' the coronavirus of doing it to damage Trump."

I will take exception to that as I was a screaming chicken little about this from the beginning and knew the sky was falling. And fallen it has. I knew the Trump administration botched it. The travel ban was too limited. Telling the general public not to wear masks made absolutely no sense whatsoever. In the same breath that the government said don't wear masks they said but do if you are infected and we all already knew asymptomatic people were spreading it which brings us to the testing issue and another massive failure to prepare. And I still support Trump for the most part. The borders need to be secure now more than ever. The only thing Trump has going for him is that the Democrats are still even worse. Biden didn't even want the limited travel ban Trump put in place and I don't remember any other Democrats calling for travel bans and travel restrictions which was exactly what we needed. They also distracted everyone including themselves with the impeachment debacle. Sure Trump shouldn't have let himself get distracted. He should have been on top of it anyway. He wasn't. He failed. He took it too lightly and he was dead wrong. But the same could be said about the Democrats in Congress. They all took their eyes off the ball and dropped it.

142
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 03, 2020, 02:38:48 PM »
I have a concerned about people with the virus being quarantined with each other as if it no longer matters because they can't get infected twice. Now we know people exhale the virus and it gets into the air. So the worry is that while their body is still making more virus within itself that viral load is being added to by the air they are breathing which is infected by everyone around around and also themselves. Now I don't know if works like that but I have to wonder.

Of course you can have quarantine situations where everyone is isolated from each other and that's great, but I'm not sure they are all like that and it seems like sometimes they might just put everyone who is corona virus positive into the same room without separate ventilation systems or anything to keep their air from mingling.

The same principle may even hold for asymptomatic carriers associating with each other. Again, not sure just wondering out loud. If two or more people have it and are separated then they only have to deal with their own viral loads but if they are all together and sharing the same virus laden air then would the added viral load on their systems increase their danger by taxing their bodies more than they might be able to handle if they were alone instead?

143
General Comments / Re: census
« on: April 03, 2020, 12:54:40 AM »
I had mentioned before that I thought it was inappropriate not to let white people choose their ethnic backgrounds on the census the way everyone else gets to and that apparently the census people took that complaint to heart and now encourage white people to fill in the blank on their background. Now I'm not sure why they can't just let everyone do that instead of checking boxes. Or they could give the white people a bunch of boxes to check too. To quote Billie Jean (the legend not the tennis player), "Fair is fair." I filled it out online too. It was simpler than I remember it being the last time. Maybe I got the long form whereas this time I filled it out online. Do they still have a long form? I don't remember a citizenship question either.

But I'm glad they are accepting suggestions. If you ever see the Gardetto's snack mix, well I wrote the company an email describing how sometimes I took all the rye chips out of the bag and ate only those and left the rest for everyone else so I suggested they try a bag with rye chips only and they actually did it. You can find them as the Special Request variety. And you're welcome.

144
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 31, 2020, 04:27:26 AM »
The mask task.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-weighing-advising-americans-wear-070300787.html

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is considering whether to update its guidelines on the new coronavirus to advise Americans to wear homemade masks outside of the home — not so much to protect the people wearing the mask but as another tool to limit the spread of COVID-19, The Washington Post reports. The new virus is spread mainly through saliva droplets emitted during a cough, sneeze, or even talking, and having a mask to capture those drops would presumably keep sick, especially asymptomatic, coronavirus carriers from spreading the disease."

145
General Comments / Re: The Hunt
« on: March 30, 2020, 06:33:37 PM »
I thought it was hilarious. Almost all the jokes hit at least for me. Thanks for the recommendation. They're right that it was making fun of liberals more than anyone. If you like that you might like Tucker and Dale Versus Evil. People are so often just misunderstood. And the violence is so over the top it's just comedic, like Hot Shots Part Deux.

146
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 30, 2020, 09:02:52 AM »
An interesting idea. Immunity certificates. If the immunity holds this would of course help the economy tremendously, if they can get accurate tests.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-could-issue-hundreds-thousands-114500027.html

"German researchers plan to send out hundreds of thousands of coronavirus antibody tests over the coming weeks.
Individuals who test positive could be given an 'immunity certificate' which would allow them to leave their coronavirus lockdown early. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, are planning similar mass-testing in order to ease the global lockdown...

...However, coronavirus testing has so far been used with mixed success around the world.

Spain was recently forced to return tens of thousands of rapid coronavirus tests from a Chinese company after they were found to have only a 30% accuracy.

Some tests have also reportedly demonstrated false positives, where they have detected antibodies to other much more common forms of the coronavirus."

147
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 30, 2020, 08:57:55 AM »
“I hope my colleagues learned from that,” he said. “[Ford] deserves to be treated with dignity. It takes enormous courage for a woman to come forward, under the bright lights of millions of people watching, and relive something that happened to her, assert that something happened to her. And she should be treated with respect,” and that she “should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be, you know, abused again by the system.”

Joe Biden

148
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 30, 2020, 12:20:59 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/choir-decided-ahead-rehearsal-now-023414705.html

"Experts said the choir outbreak is consistent with a growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted through aerosols — particles smaller than 5 micrometers that can float in the air for minutes or longer.

The World Health Organization has downplayed the possibility of transmission in aerosols, stressing that the virus is spread through much larger "respiratory droplets," which are emitted when an infected person coughs or sneezes and quickly fall to a surface.

But a study published March 17 in the New England Journal of Medicine found that when the virus was suspended in a mist under laboratory conditions it remained "viable and infectious" for three hours — though researchers have said that time period would probably be no more than a half-hour in real-world conditions.

"Marr, the Virginia Tech researcher, said that the choir outbreak reminded her of a classic case study in the spread of infectious disease.

In 1977, an Alaska Airlines flight returned to Homer, Alaska, after experiencing engine trouble and sat on the tarmac there for four hours with the ventilation system off.

Of the 49 passengers on board, 35 developed flu symptoms and five were hospitalized. Researchers ultimately traced the outbreak to a woman who felt fine when she boarded but later became ill.

The case jolted epidemiologists into the realization that influenza could spread through the air.

Research has already shown that the coronavirus is nearly twice as contagious as influenza and far more deadly."

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

Without masks, one precaution that could be taken to reduce the chance of spreading the virus could be to simply stop talking. Everyone just try to breathe through their nose. I wonder if that would help. LetterRip mentioned it regarding the Japanese. If you had a packed train full of silent people compared to a packed train full of loud people jibber jabbering on their cell phones trying to be heard over one another at the end of the train ride with the same initial conditions of asymptomatic carriers present would there be a big difference in how many new people got infected?

I doubt this would catch on but one idea would be for people while they are out shopping and engaging in necessary interactions to do as little talking as possible. Our government could recommend some simple signs for the grocery store clerks and customers to exchange the usual pleasantries silently. And closed mouth smiles are of course always acceptable. Salutes for greetings may take the place of the elbow bumps as salutes work great even at a distance.

149
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 28, 2020, 09:33:28 PM »
More about masks. Nothing definitive but leaning toward public use being beneficial. Not really much new so won't quote anything  this time.

https://qz.com/1826717/do-masks-protect-against-coronavirus/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo

150
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 28, 2020, 06:46:05 PM »
Finally. This is the way to go. And it's a very good start at understanding what all we're dealing with here.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/why-coronavirus-antibody-testing-one-colorado-town-could-204200745.html

"United Biomedical is now working with San Miguel County, which includes the famous Rocky Mountain ski destination, to test all 8,000 residents for COVID-19 antibodies -- making it the first community in the country to do widespread antibody testing."

This needs to be done for everyone in the country who is willing, and the sooner the better. Not only can it help get things back closer to normal if it turns out those who've been exposed have some immunity but if it's done very quickly it can tell us the time frame of when initial exposures happened whereas if we wait six months there will be no telling because asymptomatic people or those with light symptoms could have gotten it almost any time as opposed to two months ago as many anecdotal reports suggest.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24