Re: Coronavirus General Discussion
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:15 am
More of a joke.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:36 pmIs that a personal observation? Wearing a mask = pussy? Just curious.
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10427
More of a joke.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:36 pmIs that a personal observation? Wearing a mask = pussy? Just curious.
Mmmm, gotta call bullshit on that one. Every gym I've been to (except my HS gym) has spray bottles of bleach everyone uses to wipe down equipment before they use it. There's a lot of aerosolized bleach floating around in gyms. I figure the increased immune function as a result of exercise has to factor in as well. Cubicle farms seem much more hazardous, but it would be Wrongspeak for a public official to say that.
Doesn't the "science" say that sunlight and alcohol inhibit it? Remember when the public health official in California said that the ocean was full of coronavirus and you couldn't pay her "a million dollars" to go to the beachBasically saying that the only places more dangerous would be concerts and similar venues. In my ignorance of epidemiology I've decided to just go based off of her warnings. Still, I think going late at night when no one is there has got to be an improvement over going at peak hours.
Yeah, I'm gonna plead ignorance again on this one. Rather than coming to my own misguided conclusions I'm going to farm out my thinking on this one to the local health authority.Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:20 am
Mmmm, gotta call bullshit on that one. Every gym I've been to (except my HS gym) has spray bottles of bleach everyone uses to wipe down equipment before they use it. There's a lot of aerosolized bleach floating around in gyms. I figure the increased immune function as a result of exercise has to factor in as well. Cubicle farms seem much more hazardous, but it would be Wrongspeak for a public official to say that.
Doesn't the "science" say that sunlight and alcohol inhibit it? Remember when the public health official in California said that the ocean was full of coronavirus and you couldn't pay her "a million dollars" to go to the beach
Canadians are known to be more respectful of authority than Americans.Smith1776 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:26 am I wonder if this general difference in perspective towards health authorities is common for people chatting across the 49th parallel. It's interesting that I don't see that level of cynicism from anyone here locally. Then again, here in B.C (and Canada generally) our Coronavirus response seems to have been more effective and responsible on the part of the health authorities compared to the U.S. If I were a U.S. citizen I'd probably be much more skeptical too.
We only get angry when we're low on maple syrup.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:02 am Canadians are known to be more respectful of authority than Americans.
You never even fought for your independence from Britain, remember?
Not in AZ they aren't. Hospitalizations have been sky rocketing, as has new cases, new deaths, and the rate of positive tests. The only thing going down, ironically, is the number of tests issued per day. There's a reason the very right wing governor put us back on partial lockdown yesterday. The hospital situation here is starting to get really dire. I have a couple friends that are nurses and the things they are sharing on social media about how bad things are in the hospital system here right now are also proof that things are not good under the covers.MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:12 pmI attribute the declining numbers to the fact that it took hold here first, just like in NYC, and is now burning out, while areas like AZ, FL, TX, etc that didn't get hit hard early are now having their turn. And even in those states, hospitalizations are declining.
Pmward, you're reading too many mainstream media articles. Arizona's hospitalizations peaked over 2 weeks ago. WSJ reported they've been heading down. I can't find the article, but here's the webpage showing daily hospitalizations - which is the best measure since case #s are strongly dependent on test availability:pmward wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:37 pmNot in AZ they aren't. Hospitalizations have been sky rocketing, as has new cases, new deaths, and the rate of positive tests. \MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:12 pmI attribute the declining numbers to the fact that it took hold here first, just like in NYC, and is now burning out, while areas like AZ, FL, TX, etc that didn't get hit hard early are now having their turn. And even in those states, hospitalizations are declining.
WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pmPmward, you're reading too many mainstream media articles. Arizona's hospitalizations peaked over 2 weeks ago. WSJ reported they've been heading down. I can't find the article, but here's the webpage showing daily hospitalizations - which is the best measure since case #s are strongly dependent on test availability:pmward wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:37 pmNot in AZ they aren't. Hospitalizations have been sky rocketing, as has new cases, new deaths, and the rate of positive tests. \MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:12 pmI attribute the declining numbers to the fact that it took hold here first, just like in NYC, and is now burning out, while areas like AZ, FL, TX, etc that didn't get hit hard early are now having their turn. And even in those states, hospitalizations are declining.
https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epid ... /index.php
AZ daily hosp.png
There was a "surge" yes, but...I'm not impressed. Compare this to what we had here in NYC (and note the y axis in this figure compared to the last one).
NYC hosp.png
There's a little land called "actual numbers" that you really should visit one of these days. Alas, members of the media don't seem to be familiar with the place.
For proper context, do we know what that same graph looked like this time last year, and the year before that? I.e., how do we know whether that ICU capacity graph is typical, somewhat atypical, or extremely atypical?
Conclusions
The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. Unless the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, national and provincial dental associations and regulatory agencies publically admit this fact, they will be guilty of perpetuating a myth which will be a disservice to the dental profession and its patients. It would be beneficial if, as a consequence of the review, all present infection control recommendations were subjected to the same rigorous testing as any new clinical intervention. Professional associations and governing bodies must ensure the clinical efficacy of quality improvement procedures prior to them being mandated. It is heartening to know that such a trend is gaining a momentum which might reveal the inadequacies of other long held dental infection control assumptions. Surely, the hallmark of a mature profession is one which permits new evidence to trump established beliefs. In 1910, Dr. C. Chapin, a public health pioneer, summarized this idea by stating, “We should not be ashamed to change our methods; rather, we should be ashamed not to do so.” Until this occurs, as this review has revealed, dentists have nothing to fear by unmasking.
Hospitals don't like empty beds. They like money, and you don't get that from having empty beds. They always try to operate as close to full capacity as possible - mine is almost always above 95%, and if it drops lower we start getting nastygrams about how we have become too lazy and need to find reasons to admit people. Think I posted about this before.Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:45 pmFor proper context, do we know what that same graph looked like this time last year, and the year before that? I.e., how do we know whether that ICU capacity graph is typical, somewhat atypical, or extremely atypical?
For what it's worth, I saw a recent email thread (forwarded to me by my retired physician dad) about ICU capacity in which a PACU nurse pointed out that her medical center runs its ICUs at full or near-full capacity "virtually all the time." It backs up the ER and bleeds into the PACU, which then has to hold surgical patients for many hours, sometimes entire nights and days, awaiting ICU beds. She said she's been told many hospitals do the same thing. Just something to consider.
You mean pmward.WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:59 amHospitals don't like empty beds. They like money, and you don't get that from having empty beds. They always try to operate as close to full capacity as possible - mine is almost always above 95%, and if it drops lower we start getting nastygrams about how we have become too lazy and need to find reasons to admit people. Think I posted about this before.Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:45 pm For what it's worth, I saw a recent email thread (forwarded to me by my retired physician dad) about ICU capacity in which a PACU nurse pointed out that her medical center runs its ICUs at full or near-full capacity "virtually all the time." It backs up the ER and bleeds into the PACU, which then has to hold surgical patients for many hours, sometimes entire nights and days, awaiting ICU beds. She said she's been told many hospitals do the same thing. Just something to consider.
The 60-70% capacity numbers at the start of pp4me's graph is due to cancelling elective procedures. That led to some seriously hurting hospitals who ended up having to furlough or lay off people as a result. The capacity at the end of pp4me's graph is still probably below normal for these hospitals.
Took me a while to figure out what for.
My wife Susan and I have come up with a plan to replace at least some of the missing sports events.flyingpylon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:31 pm In local sporting news, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway has announced that the Indy 500 will take place on August 23rd with the stands at 50% capacity.
Tickets are all being reissued. Ticket holders with more than 2 tickets are being guaranteed 50% of their originally allocated seats. They can choose to request more than 50% with some or all possibly being moved to a nearby location, or they can skip this year's race and apply some or all of their tickets as credits for tickets to next year's race.
The 2016 race was attended by 350,000 fans, so 50% would be 175,000 but nobody expects the number to be quite that high (2016 was a special year, the 100th running). Still could be over 100,000 since the grandstands normally seat 235,000. Depends on how many people still want to attend.
I'm still not sure it's really going to happen.