Wapsi Square Forum

Well, I don't think I need to get tested now, as the coughing is kinda gone. I'm wondering if it's just because I'd been going outside more and getting in contact with pollen and random kinds of dust.

They dialed it back, since then, removing the pedestrian extra space at the left, but at the height of the "Let's make room for cyclists and pedestrians during this COVID thing", this was one of the more egregious examples of accommodations they made:
The street already had a bidirectional bike path, separated by an island from the rest of the traffic. They took one more lane, and made each cyclist lane unidirectional (but still ending up with bidirectionality on the same side of the street, which experts say is not a good idea: it creates more risks of accidents at intersections). Then they took one lane on the other side, and made it a bidirectional pedestrian path, leaving only one lane of travel for vehicles in each direction. There were several streets like that...

Meanwhile, here's another article about hydroxychloroquine...

Found online:

people are so anxious for bars to re-open it's like they don't know you can charge yourself double for a beer and stare at your phone at home too

Honestly, I don't get the allure of bars. Noisy, too many people, and too expensive. But then, 8 have a tendency to be kinda cheap.

Another Opinion on the matter: Masks are prolonging the problem by delaying herd immunity.

Story here.

Also: Testing False Positive rate is about 3%, so.... problems with the numbers.

The False Positive thing is why they usually have you quarantine for 10 days after a test, even if you are asymptomatic.

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." - FDR

Illusions about Covid - from a Gallup research project about public perceptions here.

TL;DR:

Six months into this pandemic, Americans still dramatically misunderstand the risk of dying from COVID-19:

On average, Americans believe that people aged 55 and older account for just over half of total COVID-19 deaths; the actual figure is 92%.

Americans believe that people aged 44 and younger account for about 30% of total deaths; the actual figure is 2.7%.

Americans overestimate the risk of death from COVID-19 for people aged 24 and younger
by a factor of 50; and they think the risk for people aged 65 and older is half of what it actually is (40% vs 80%).

These results are nothing short of stunning.

You know that about half the regular gang here is 65 or over, right?

Mere 40% chance of premature horrid death from a virus as contagious as the common cold? Why would that worry anyone ?

Typeminer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:11 am You know that about half the regular gang here is 65 or over, right?

Mere 40% chance of premature horrid death from a virus as contagious as the common cold? Why would that worry anyone ?

everybody's saying it's just about time
but it's partly about space
the rest is all about not dividing things up
and leaving every last little piece in its place

you can start out slow
you can speed things up
you can take things as they are
your average person is afraid to talk about death
but not afraid of driving a car
take the whole ball of wax
stick it to the facts
life might stop on a dime
sooner or later it's now or never
don't you think it's just about time? - Just About Time. by the Flatlanders

Also:

you can get rid of stress, get a lot of rest,
get an aids test, enroll in est,
move out west where it's sunny and dry
and you'll live to be a hundred
but you're still gonna die.

you're still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
so you'd better have some fun
'fore you say bye-bye,
'cause you're still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die - Still Gonna Die - written by Shel Silverstein, as recorded by the Old Dogs {of the four, only one is still with us,,,}

Typeminer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:11 am You know that about half the regular gang here is 65 or over, right?

Mere 40% chance of premature horrid death from a virus as contagious as the common cold? Why would that worry anyone ?

There also seems to be an overly-simplistic assumption in much of the the "oh, the young have a low death rate" arguments. That is, "if you don't die then it's harmless to you so you might as well get it quickly and become immune."

Would that life were so simple and easy.

Yes, if you're in the 30-39 age bracket, your chances of dying are much less than if you're my age (65). On the other hand, your chances of needing to be hospitalized for treatment are around 25% as high as mine. That's not great odds. Spending a week as a hospital in-patient sucking oxygen through a cannula (assuming that they have a bed for you and the oxygen supply hasn't run out) is no fun at all. It's also going to be a big expense... can your budget cover it? The biggest single cause of personal bankruptcy in this country is debt from medical expenses.

What's more, surviving COVID-19 doesn't mean "not harmed". There's a good deal of evidence that many survivors take some serious long-term damage to their lungs and cardiovascular systems. You get this thing, you may never really heal up properly... you could be crippled for life.

I believe it's in everyone's best interests to apply the recommended mitigation strategies... masks and social distancing and hand hygiene and cleaning. That will help keep down the community spread of this virus, protecting everyone (granted, us elders have the most to gain from this) until the medical professional has an effective vaccine to distribute. Maybe six months, maybe a year?

At that point we can achieve "herd immunity" by vaccination. That will result in far fewer deaths, and far less permanent injury and illness, than achieving herd immunity by having almost everyone get sick.

This looks very promising: a targeted antiviral you could take as a once-a-day inhaler dose, acting as both a prophylactic against infection and as a treatment if you're already infected.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/08/41824 ... t-covid-19

It wouldn't provide the sort of long-lasting protection you'd get from a good vaccine, but it would be a lot better than nothing (and unlike a vaccine it would be effective immediately).

Could be just the thing to help cut off community infection chains... give a week's supply to everyone who treats positive and to everyone in contact with them.

I am generally pessimistic when it comes to the state totals (and on top this, I'm not 100% certain about the totals, either), but...

I can say with some certainty that it appears that the state of Arizona hit its "plateau" back on the 8th of July.

I have found out that a LARGE number of "COVID" infections are being treated with Erythromycin- an anti-biotic, that has no effect on a virus. Seems that a LARGE number of people who are wearing masks for the first time don't understand that if you DON'T change or wash the damn thing every two hours, you wind up wearing a petri dish and essentially infect yourself with a strep/staph respiratory issue. These are being reported as 'COVID' because the lack of elective surgeries are leaving hospitals insolvent and a COVID diagnosis means federal monies.

Sgt. Howard wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:27 am I have found out that a LARGE number of "COVID" infections are being treated with Erythromycin- an anti-biotic, that has no effect on a virus. Seems that a LARGE number of people who are wearing masks for the first time don't understand that if you DON'T change or wash the damn thing every two hours, you wind up wearing a petri dish and essentially infect yourself with a strep/staph respiratory issue. These are being reported as 'COVID' because the lack of elective surgeries are leaving hospitals insolvent and a COVID diagnosis means federal monies.

Citation, please? Link to original reports of this?

As I recall, it has been a common practice for decades to give antibiotics to some patients whose primary illness is a viral pneumonia such as influenza (or a pneumonia from chemical inhalation). The antibiotic (erythromycin or whatever) isn't being given to treat the virus; as you pointed out it won't affect the virus at all.

Rather, it's being given to prevent or treat a "secondary" bacterial infection. Lungs which are compromised by a virus are at elevated risk of getting a bacterial infection as well.

Citation: see https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/home ... pneumonia/ which says, among other things,

The treatment of viral pneumonia is primarily supportive with oxygen therapy, adjuvant antibacterial antibiotics, and non-invasive or invasive ventilation (if required).

This article seems to date back to before the COVID-19 pandemic... it shows existing practice, not something new.

It makes perfect sense to me that this could also be true in the case of COVID-19. Lungs which are inflamed and flooded with goopy fluid as the result of viral infection would be a perfect "petri dish" for bacterial growth. Giving erythromycin would keep bacteria from going wild and killing the patient, and give the body time to fight off the virus and heal. Another site I read indicated that antibiotics could be given in cases of viral pneumonia "if infiltrates are seen" - that is, if X-rays show the lungs filling up with fluid. That's a textbook description of how a bad case of COVID-19 behaves.

With regard to your statement that "a COVID diagnosis means federal monies" - you've claimed this before, I asked you for a link to evidence that this is actually true, and you said you didn't have a specific source for it at the time. Do you now? Just which specific monies paid to a hospital come from a specific diagnosis of COVID?

The Trump administration is eying a possible fast-track for a British experimental coronavirus vaccine ahead of the November presidential election, despite lacking enough evidence to conclude that the vaccine is safe and effective,according to a Financial Times report.

The vaccine, which is being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University, currently has enrolled 10,000 people in its next study. That is 20,000 fewer than the Food and Drug Administration typically requires as a minimum threshold to green-light a vaccine in advanced testing. While the vaccine developers do plan on conducting a larger trial as well, the results will come later than the results of the smaller study, and the Trump administration has reportedly discussed issuing an emergency use authorization for the vaccine in October.

{The FT article is behind a paywall, so the above is from The Daily Beast...}

Dave wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:44 pmWith regard to your statement that "a COVID diagnosis means federal monies" - you've claimed this before, I asked you for a link to evidence that this is actually true, and you said you didn't have a specific source for it at the time.

Everybody Knows that it's true - just like Everybody Knows mail voting causes massive fraud.

Everybody Knows that the plague is coming...

I still have ties to three hospitals in this area- to reveal my sources is a major potential HIPPA violation with several
names on it.

Sgt. Howard wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:07 am I still have ties to three hospitals in this area- to reveal my sources is a major potential HIPPA violation with several
names on it.

HIPPA is about giving patients control of their personal health information, and forbidding distribution and use of that information without the patient's authorization. From https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professio ... index.html:

Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12

“Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
the provision of health care to the individual, or
the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,

and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number).

De-Identified Health Information. There are no restrictions on the use or disclosure of de-identified health information.14 De-identified health information neither identifies nor provides a reasonable basis to identify an individual.

I'm not asking for individually identifiable health information. As far as I can tell I'm not asking you (or your contacts) to disclose any information protected by HIPPA.

You're making a claim about diagnoses and how they relate to financial compensation of hospitals, Sarge. I'm asking if can point to any public, verifiable information to support it... public testimony by an official, published policies by any government body, published legislation or regulations, a story by an investigative reporter or newspaper, anything like that.

Anybody can say "I heard it from an insider" about anything. For it to be believable, it needs to be independently verifiable. Otherwise it's just a rumor, and there are a huge number of contradictory rumors floating around out there.

Dave wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 1:14 amAnybody can say "I heard it from an insider" about anything. For it to be believable, it needs to be independently verifiable. Otherwise it's just a rumor, and there are a huge number of contradictory rumors floating around out there.

BUMP