Jump to content

keith

Members
  • Content Count

    1,678
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

keith last won the day on April 2

keith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,416

About keith

  • Rank
    Mean Green Eagle
  • Birthday December 5

Profile Information

  • Home
    Newtown, CT

Recent Profile Visitors

3,250 profile views
  1. Early on when there was a lot of discussion about the potential source of the virus (bat soup, the Wuhan wet market, the virology lab, bat guano, snake meat, etc.) someone on a radio show I was listening to said something I thought was interesting. He said, and I paraphrase because I don't recall the exact words..."if you see a giraffe walking down the street in your neighborhood, it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to assume it escaped from the local zoo."
  2. Social distancing NYC-style.... https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-in-nyc-subway-cut-backs-leads-to-packed-commute/ Hopefully better hygiene (washing your hands, not touching your face, wearing masks, better/more frequent sanitation of subway cars) is all playing a role too.
  3. Not trying to be argumentative, just probing, but what when you say people are getting the necessary health care to survive are you referring to COVID-19 health care or "normal" non-COVID-19 life saving health care that people are able to receive because the hospitals are not full? For COVID-19 health care, I hear Gov. Cuomo say almost every day, that if you go on a ventilator, you don't come off. I don't know if he means 100% don't come off or some other high percentage. So going on a ventilator may be more palliative care rather than health care. For whatever reason, there may not have been anything medical science could have done to save them. Many people do get released from the hospital. Why? What made this disease different for them? What health care did they receive? Was it just fluids and rest to let the body's immune system fight it off? Was it drugs? We've heard about some drugs being tired (tamiflu, hydroxychloroquine, z-pack, zinc, redemisivir, HIV drugs, others?). Maybe someone knows all the answers, but the data hasn't been made available to the general public to draw any conclusions. All we get (for the most part) is very aggregated number of cases, deaths, recovered, etc. For non-COVID-19 health care (heart attacks, accidents, cancer treatments, etc.), the 1,000 bed Navy hospital ship Comfort was docked in NYC to take care of those patients. After several days, according to some reports, there were very few patients being treated on the Comfort. Perhaps social distancing did have a direct impact on the number of non-COVID-19 emergency room visits because everyone was at home. This could be viewed as a positive outcome from a health care perspective, but I'm not sure this is how we want to live our lives. Unfortunately some patients were transferred from the Javits Center to the Comfort and brought the disease with them. They were trying to keep the Comfort disease-free, but in the end couldn't. I believe the Comfort may be treating COVID-19 patients as well now. I tend to agree with your last sentence. This is about as difficult of a rock and hard place situation as you could possibly find yourself in. I don't envy anyone faced with making such difficult decisions. My personal view (and that's all it is) is that I would caution any declaration of social distancing (or any one response) as being a success or failure at this point. It's too early and there are just too many other variables involved. There is an old saying that correlation does not equal causation and I think that applies here. Some might say that new hospitalizations (ICU cases, deaths, etc.) have decreased as the calendar turned over to April and the weather started warming up (they did after all) or that we finally started (at least in NYC - the streets appear empty, but there have been some crowded subway cars) to build some level of herd immunity or that the use of masks has started to make a difference. Was this all about social distancing, a coincidence, a combination or some other factors we don't understand yet?
  4. Actually, social distancing was not focused on reducing infections or, for that matter, deaths as a result of the virus. At its core, the goal of social distancing was to protect the health care system (i.e. hospitals) from being overwhelmed if everyone was infected at the same time. We may end up with the same number of infections (and deaths) but it will be spread out over a longer timeframe allowing the health care system to deal with it more effectively. Personally, I think the virus is going to do, what it's going to do. Hopefully, a beneficial side-effect of social distancing is less deaths, but all this really shows is that the predictive models for deaths may be off by orders of magnitude.
  5. Both are apparently very contagious. Ebola, however, has a much higher mortality rate if you get it (up to 90% in some past outbreaks, but averages around 50% - incredibly high) and it has nothing to do with being in a high risk category. If you get it, you have a good chance of dying. We won't know the total mortality rate of COVID-19 for some time, but it seems to be very dangerous to certain segments of the population rather than anyone who is infected. The only good thing about Ebola is it tends to kill whoever it infects way before they have had an opportunity to infect a lot of other people so it "dies out" faster. Edit: I should have added that Ebola seems to be about as close to a death sentence as you can get in the medical profession for the doctors, nurses, first responders and other medical staff that put their personal fears and anxieties aside and treat and care for Ebola patients.
  6. I didn't vote either way on the post in question, but I would say that people probably were not responding to "facts" with their votes. It comes across as nothing more than an anti-Trump diatribe which, to be honest, doesn't help and undermines whatever message the author attempted to get across. We get it by now. There are some people that love Trump and will defend anything he says or does. There are also people who despise Trump and will attack him for anything he says or does. Quite frankly it's tiresome. Initially, I was going to try and intersperse some other "facts" in the timeline, but in the end decided it was better to just ignore it all together.
  7. Can we all agree that fake news, regardless of its source or political persuasion, really is bad?
  8. Hindsight is 20/20 and it applies to everyone, right? I did't think all the smart people listened to Trump anyway, so what he said or didn't say should have been irrelevant.
  9. Has anyone learned why companies like Facebook and Apple had stockpiles of hundreds of thousands and millions of N95 masks and our hospitals and state and local governments did not (or did they)? I've been checking around and asking contacts that are fairly well connected and the best anyone has been able to come up with is "because of the California fires."
  10. That's not good...I thought people were predicting a mini-baby boom in 9 months. No need for violence people, get a grip and go to a different part of the house or apartment and count to 10.
  11. People like to feel like they are doing something/contributing. If some are finding ways to keep their employees employed instead laying them off, that's a positive thing, isn't it? I actually listened to the "Easter surprise" news conference. He said he "hoped" and "wouldn't it be great" if we get going again by Easter - I think he really was talking about people being able to attend Easter services and if that could happen, it would be a "beautiful thing." After listening him for 3+ years, people should know by now that's how he talks. It wasn't some EO to open up the country by Easter Sunday. Hate him or love him, but a least be honest. Most of the things you don't want Trump to talk about are in response to questions, so maybe "journalists" should stop asking him stupid questions. Our public health officials early and often referred to the disease as flu-like with many of the same systems. You know what they say about first impressions. According to the Univ of Wash Virology Lab that has been doing a lot of testing (and assuming they have been following CDC guidelines and only test people who present with symptoms or are at risk - contact with someone who tested positive or recent travel - in other words, patients who are most likely to have COVID-19), only 9.7% of their 43,751 tests have come back positive. So, out of a fairly large non-random sample size that is skewed to those most likely to be infected, over 90% are not. If you want to be pissed at someone, be pissed at NYC officials who kept down-playing the risk and encouraged people to ride the subway, attend the parade, go to movies, go out to restaurants and bars, etc., etc. *That* is why NYC is f'ed up and they have f'ed up the whole country.
  12. This seems to be a common phrase these days, but to what end? Are you suggesting we just give up? Are you suggesting we don't manufacture masks unless they are N95? We obviously need those but other companies are better equipped to manufacture them. It seems that "everyday" masks can help too. This is what you commonly see being worn in Asian countries. If you recall, early on the message was masks were only helpful in stemming the spread of the virus if you cough or sneeze and can act as a reminder to not touch your face so it seems like every little bit will help. I've also heard politicians say "too little too late it was already here" with respect to travel restrictions, but I don't hear any of them suggesting that we open international travel back up.
  13. My apologies...I should have been more specific. Yes, those that were paying attention and tuned in leaned about a new novel coronavirus taking hold in Wuhan, China. My "everyone" was meant to refer to widespread use in the popular media (print, TV, social, etc.), not every individual. There are many examples and for many these were the first descriptions they heard. Consciously or unconsciously that's how they began referring to it.
  14. Here's my take on this FWIW. At the beginning and for quite a while as this thing was developing everyone, and let's be honest everyone, referred to it as the Wuhan virus, the China virus, the Chinese virus, the Wu flu, the Chinese flu, etc., etc., etc. No one thought this was racist. Then at some point someone somewhere decided that it was and if you used any of these terms from that point forward you were, by definition, a racist and inciting violence against anyone that looked Chinese. On one side, you go from being just like everyone else one minute to being a racist the next. If you are not a racist, being labeled one tends to piss you off. On the other side, words, phrases and descriptive names matter greatly and it is unconscionable for these to be used if they might be perceived as hurtful or could potentially lead to harassment of any individual or group. One side sees it as an unnecessary vilification of an entire race or an effort to place blame and the other side sees it as a factual description of where the pandemic originated. In the end it just becomes a pointless pissing contest and a massive distraction. I don't think anyone here would condone harassment of anyone or any group over this disease and would more likely be the ones to step in and stop it if they witnessed it happening. Oh, and wash your hands.
  15. COVID-19 is better as it identifies a specific strain of coronavirus.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.