Are you personally worried about getting the Coronavirus?

Are you personally worried about catching the Coronavirus?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.0%

  • No

    Votes: 59 59.0%
  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.
HawkGold said:
After now 2 stints in hospital for daughter this week, I am convinced there is no way to stop this. Even hospitals being locked down there are so many holes in their defense. It's rather ridiculous what passes on through. Not going to work.
Click to expand...
Has this experience made you more or less confident in whatever treatment your daughter is receiving?
 
PCHawk said:
It doesn't yet. But again, it's just starting. I don't have time to read it right now, so does it compare where the virus is right now to what it takes to register as a global crisis by the time the virus is done spreading? Or does it not qualify as a global crisis based on what it takes to qualify at this point since first community spread?
Click to expand...

More the latter. This is an opinion piece by a physician (not an epidemiologist) with scarce data. He also qualifies everything by saying this COULD become a global health crisis eventually.

If you want to consume some content from the "dire" end of the spectrum:

It's Okay to be Smart is a science education video channel, I enjoy watching it with the kids. They just did a nice piece on the realities of exponential growth:

This piece took a modeling approach to explain why it is necessary to enforce some pretty harsh restrictions right away:
The latter piece really has a doomsday feel where they paint the worst-case-scenario, which I hope would not be very likely. But they say all of this is manageable (even the economic side) if we react strongly now before things get too bad.

Some point out the fact that China and South Korea have gotten things under control as reasons for why we DON'T have to respond harshly. However, those countries got things under control BECAUSE OF harsh restrictions. In the case of S. Korea, the restrictions have been much less harsh than others (China, Italy, Spain, France, etc.), but they were able to do that because of their extensive testing and tracking, and because their populace took the social-distancing recommendations seriously (largely due to previous experience with '02/'03 SARS pandemic). There are still quite a few people in this country who think this is all made up.
 
The term "peer reviewed" is being used pretty loosely here.

Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that Chloroquine has some positive benefits and should be considered for use off-label until we have better data.

The use of Azithromycin makes little sense actually, as antibiotics have no effect on viruses whatsoever. I guess it's possible that the viral infection is triggering secondary bacterial superinfections which could respond. Hard to say, but regardless, antibiotics are WAY overprescribed already for viral illnesses.
 
CP87 said:
More the latter. This is an opinion piece by a physician (not an epidemiologist) with scarce data. He also qualifies everything by saying this COULD become a global health crisis eventually.

If you want to consume some content from the "dire" end of the spectrum:

It's Okay to be Smart is a science education video channel, I enjoy watching it with the kids. They just did a nice piece on the realities of exponential growth:

This piece took a modeling approach to explain why it is necessary to enforce some pretty harsh restrictions right away:
The latter piece really has a doomsday feel where they paint the worst-case-scenario, which I hope would not be very likely. But they say all of this is manageable (even the economic side) if we react strongly now before things get too bad.

Some point out the fact that China and South Korea have gotten things under control as reasons for why we DON'T have to respond harshly. However, those countries got things under control BECAUSE OF harsh restrictions. In the case of S. Korea, the restrictions have been much less harsh than others (China, Italy, Spain, France, etc.), but they were able to do that because of their extensive testing and tracking, and because their populace took the social-distancing recommendations seriously (largely due to previous experience with '02/'03 SARS pandemic). There are still quite a few people in this country who think this is all made up.
Click to expand...

The Chinese government lies about everything. They actually are saying there are no new cases there. C'mon man.

Three brave Chinese journalists have disappeared after testifying to the truth.
 
SteveGarvey1 said:
The Chinese government lies about everything. They actually are saying there are no new cases there. C'mon man.

Three brave Chinese journalists have disappeared after testifying to the truth.
Click to expand...
The U.S. government would never lie though.
aG4yJ.gif
 
PCHawk said:
It doesn't yet. But again, it's just starting. I don't have time to read it right now, so does it compare where the virus is right now to what it takes to register as a global crisis by the time the virus is done spreading? Or does it not qualify as a global crisis based on what it takes to qualify at this point since first community spread?
Click to expand...

A million and a quarter road deaths worldwide on an annual basis. Is that a crisis? What number constitutes a crisis?
 
Illinois going on statewide "shelter in place" from tomorrow at 5pm until April 7.

For the flu. Thank God I have an essential job because me and most of my drivers work in Illinois.

Here's the kicker. Not ONE politician, in their quest to be a folk hero, has mentioned one peep about how domestic violence and crime are about to skyrocket, taxing or law enforcement officers and health care workers at least as much as this flu could.

One poster mention suicides are about to increase. That's definitely in play.

But 92 year old Mildred in Happy Valley Nursing Home will have a better chance of making it to 93, even as she's barely coherent enough to celebrate it.

And I say all this knowing damn well that my dad is 75, on oxygen, and suffers from COPD. He has enough sense to do what is necessary with the government trying to impose it on him.
 
okeefe4prez said:
A million and a quarter road deaths worldwide on an annual basis. Is that a crisis? What number constitutes a crisis?
Click to expand...

People choose to drive and many of them are terrible drivers. That is totally different than getting a viral infection.

Hundreds of millions continue to smoke and get ill from it even after taxes have astronomically raised the price of cigarettes. again a lifestyle choice and one that is very hard to kick the habit

Yeah, I could shelter in place for 2 months and then go out and get run over or killed in a car accident but I would be choosing to do those normal activities of being out and about.
 
#1DieHardHawk said:
The term "peer reviewed" is being used pretty loosely here.

Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that Chloroquine has some positive benefits and should be considered for use off-label until we have better data.

The use of Azithromycin makes little sense actually, as antibiotics have no effect on viruses whatsoever. I guess it's possible that the viral infection is triggering secondary bacterial superinfections which could respond. Hard to say, but regardless, antibiotics are WAY overprescribed already for viral illnesses.
Click to expand...

Use of antibiotics is often suggested as a prophylactic approach to reducing incidence and mortaility due to bacterial pneumonia:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796779/

The actual deployment is tricky for the reasons you raise. It is probably a gun best kept in the holster until necessary.
 
haydensly said:
Dr. Fauci addressed this today in the press conference. He referred to it as a false equivalency.
Click to expand...
Crisis management 101...rename anything awkward with a newer name...speak of the great people working the issue, tell everyone how you are looking forward to improving the "unfortunate challenge" we face but were not responsible for. It is kind of fun, actually. You don't have to fool everyone, just quite a few.
 
CP87 said:
Use of antibiotics is often suggested as a prophylactic approach to reducing incidence and mortaility due to bacterial pneumonia:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796779/

The actual deployment is tricky for the reasons you raise. It is probably a gun best kept in the holster until necessary.
Click to expand...
Yes, "bacterial" pneumonia. The study looked explicitly at patients with known bacterial involvement, as the first paragraph under "discussion" states:

... We studied AV and AB intervention strategies using a mathematical model that explicitly included bacterial infection and potential bacteria transmission. Overall, we find that AB intervention strategies do not lead to significant reduction in the total number of cases – even for the situation where bacteria infected hosts can transmit both virus and bacteria. However, AB control measures help to reduce the number of bacterial infections – which are more likely in need of medical attention or hospitalization. Additionally, AB treatment or prophylaxis can significantly reduce mortality. This is achieved by specifically targeting bacteria infected hosts that have a high risk of mortality...

As I mentioned above, it does make sense when you consider the possibility of a secondary bacterial infection, which is basically what this article is referencing. That would explain the improved mortality rate in patients with the aforementioned "high risk of mortality."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top