Moderator: Soñadora
Ajax wrote:Jamie, have you stooped to wearing a button-down shirt and tie with nothing but your banana hammock on the lower half?
Chris Chesley wrote:Our company has always been a tele-commute, work from home company. One of our peeps shared this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYu_bGbZiiQ
Chris Chesley wrote:Our company has always been a tele-commute, work from home company. One of our peeps shared this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYu_bGbZiiQ
LarryHoward wrote:Chris Chesley wrote:Our company has always been a tele-commute, work from home company. One of our peeps shared this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYu_bGbZiiQ
I’ve been on that meeting.
BeauV wrote:Olaf Hart wrote:In an ideal situation, ventilation would achieve much better results if we had an effective antiviral medication.
The emphasis on ICU and ventilators is a red herring, the only effective management here is old school public health measures until then.
OH, thanks yet again for the straight facts on this. Like the rest, I hadn't thought much about the lung damage. In digging into this, the only analog we have for it is the World War 1 veterans who came home from the front with massive lung damage from gas attacks. This is really bad news for us all long term.
On a more positive note, reading has turned up a theory I'd like your thoughts on: If the "viral load" a person is subjected to is small enough, do they develop immunities without becoming seriously infected? I may be suffering from the fallacy of the converse here: knowing that a large viral load suffered by healthcare workers is bad, can a very small viral load allow someone to develop immunity slowly and safely??
BeauV wrote:OH,
You mean my Tenessee Grandfather's favorite insult: "You toothless mouth breathing bastard!" Might have some basis in fact?? ?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I have often heard that the nose can provide a level of defense for the lungs. You're the first medical person I've heard provide a rational reason for that. Perhaps all these nose hairs I'm developing in my late 60s are another defense measure. (I know TMI TMI!)
Thanks,
B
BeauV wrote:OH,
You mean my Tenessee Grandfather's favorite insult: "You toothless mouth breathing bastard!" Might have some basis in fact?? ?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I have often heard that the nose can provide a level of defense for the lungs. You're the first medical person I've heard provide a rational reason for that. Perhaps all these nose hairs I'm developing in my late 60s are another defense measure. (I know TMI TMI!)
Thanks,
B
Ajax wrote:This is Jamie's meeting:
https://youtu.be/2xPwfSL4Pw0?t=351
Charlie wrote:BeauV wrote:OH,
You mean my Tenessee Grandfather's favorite insult: "You toothless mouth breathing bastard!" Might have some basis in fact?? ?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I have often heard that the nose can provide a level of defense for the lungs. You're the first medical person I've heard provide a rational reason for that. Perhaps all these nose hairs I'm developing in my late 60s are another defense measure. (I know TMI TMI!)
Thanks,
B
So I get the value of the nose hair. But what’s the value of all this rampant ear hair growth I’m experiencing????
Charlie wrote:BeauV wrote:OH,
You mean my Tenessee Grandfather's favorite insult: "You toothless mouth breathing bastard!" Might have some basis in fact?? ?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I have often heard that the nose can provide a level of defense for the lungs. You're the first medical person I've heard provide a rational reason for that. Perhaps all these nose hairs I'm developing in my late 60s are another defense measure. (I know TMI TMI!)
Thanks,
B
So I get the value of the nose hair. But what’s the value of all this rampant ear hair growth I’m experiencing????
Olaf Hart wrote:Unfortunately the COVID outbreak has led to outbreaks of another disease as well
http://thesciencepost.com/outbreak-of-d ... 50-states/
Benno von Humpback wrote:Olaf Hart wrote:Unfortunately the COVID outbreak has led to outbreaks of another disease as well
http://thesciencepost.com/outbreak-of-d ... 50-states/
It's endemic here.
Ajax wrote:Benno von Humpback wrote:Olaf Hart wrote:Unfortunately the COVID outbreak has led to outbreaks of another disease as well
http://thesciencepost.com/outbreak-of-d ... 50-states/
It's endemic here.
Ha, if that were real Maryland would be blood red.
BeauV wrote:From everything I can find out, Prof. Lioannindis is correct about a number of things:
1) We don't really know the fatality rate. Of course, as things have moved along we're getting more and more information. I looked for a LONG time for some indication of when this video was produced, I can't find a way to even find when it was posted on YouTube. This is critically important as the Professor's opinion on the specifics might have changed over the last month. I'm appalled that YouTube doesn't make this actual source, the date of the posting, and any revisions to the information available. But, as the prof. says the media (never forget YouTube is a media company) is exaggerating. This exageration has been obvious in BOTH directions.
I went hunting and found an article from March 17th on STAT HERE. It's worth reading and realizing that we knew very little about the epidemic in NY City on March 17th, and the Prof. probably wrote the article at least a week or two prior to the March 17th publication date. On March 10th, to follow the Prof. own logic, we didn't know much outside of China, only Italy was a reliable data source. Now, we have over 100,000 cases in NY state alone, we have much better data. We can simply ignore China and use the data we have. We need the Prof to update his opinion, publically.
2) Fortunately, SARS-CoV2 is not nearly as deadly as the measles. We've been lucky. If we are locking down the entire economy for a disease which is a tiny fraction of the problem of the measles, then why in the world isn't vaccination for measles mandatory? We are close to seeing a serious resurgence in measles, yet our decision making is so flawed that herd immunity is ignored by many for a proven disease that is about 18 times as deadly as SARS-CoV2. Obviously, Americans have an attitude that if you're so stupid that you don't vaccinate for measles and die, it's your own damn fault. But, what do we do with parents who are that stupid and their children die?
My point is: when we don't know how bad something is, we rightfully act as conservatively as we can until we know better. Personally, I wish we would act rationally with the data we do have, but we're opinionated (as opposed to informed) humans. So we let the measles come back while we crush the economy over something less deadly. I learned long ago that humans do NOT make decisions based on fact, in most cases. If they did, many many things would work far better. They make many of their most important decisions based on fear or greed - which are the primary reason they make such terrible investors.
3) Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware of the Professor's work and admire him tremendously. We should listen to him - continuously. He turned the cardiovascular world on its head by showing that the stents and statins don't increase lifespan. Source: HERE. Basically, statins reduce the number of small heart attacks you have but don't extend your life by any amount according to the data. Similarly, stents make you feel a lot better and increase the quality of life (I would certainly get one if I needed it for this reason), but they also do not extend your life. In both cases, the data was exactly opposite to the basis upon which billions of dollars are spent in the medical system worldwide. I'm actually a big fan of the Prof. Here's a very approachable article about what the Prof does: HERE
My point is we should continuously listen to the Professor and be willing to change our mind as he changes his. But, as far as I can tell after his initial article he has been silent on the issues he raises. That's terrible. I'm certain he's received a massive amount of flack for his article and he's a mild academic. But, when he changes his mind, and he will because he has intellectual integrity, he should tell us.
Sadly, science is getting buried in the business of making money. Fear gets people to pay. Fear gets people to vote. Fear gets people to give up their liberty. Fear is often entirely unjustified. But, as of early March, we didn't have accurate data on the facts the Prof uses. We do now. It's time for a new version of his research and thoughts.
kdh wrote:I just read the Atlantic article on Ioannidis's work.
1) Biostatisticians are, culturally, in the service of physicians and generally not appreciated. And medical training for doctors is not particularly hard-scientific or mathematical. Until the culture changes, evidence and scientific inference are going to be suppressed.
2) It's easier to criticize than create. Finding flaw in a scientific argument is easy, especially when an exception can be held up as refutation in a statistical analysis.
We've invented a new way to describe statisticians--"data scientists." It's helped our cred and in clearly meritocratic industries like my own temporarily adopted field of finance we've taken over--the nerds are inheriting the earth. I would consider working in medicine but I won't until doctors on the whole get a better attitude.