Virus Impact on CP

Yes, well, as I understand it we have a terrible track record with novel coronavirus vaccines. Even the influenza vaccine can be injurious and in most seasons ends up being the wrong mix for the strain of flu we end up with. I'm not an 'anti-vaxxer' by any means; so far as I know all of my shots are up to date *except* that I don't take the flu shot because when I did, I usually lost days of work to the minor illness that resulted.

Now that's a well established vaccine, and generally considered safe. And if you're trading a week of the flu for a couple of days of vaccine sensitivity discomfort, that's not a bad trade. But when you rush a vaccine into production that not only doesn't work right, but injures people at a higher rate than the virus you were hoping to stop, then you have a bit of a problem.

I'm not sure we'll get an effective vaccine for this thing. But then after what happened last week I'm not certain we will need one if it spreads "in the right way". 2,800 inmates in a prison tested positive for COVID-19. 38 were sick enough to require hospital care (1%). More than 90% were asymptomatic and if they weren't in prison wouldn't even have been tested. What does that mean for the rest of us who do not live in a communal environment, and so should expect a lower total infection rate than the 87% found in the prison...should our hospitalization rate still be around 1%?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I suppose the answer to that depends on how representative of the general population the prisons sample is. I have no idea, when I was 17 I spent about 45 minutes in the can for not paying a traffic fine. That was enough for me, I switch the channel anytime anything related to prisons comes on. Hearing that word makes me uncomfortable.

Any prison experts here? 😂

I’m no prison expert...but I do live in Florida.

According to the local news this morning, Gov. DeWine will announce our re-opening plan later today.
And he's declared this to be "Spirit Week" and he's encouraging everyone to wear pajamas today.
So, big day here in Ohio.

Wearing pajamas is "spirit week"? At the Sandusky Meijer that was just a typical Tuesday.

Pretty good listen. Long, but interesting none the less. The whole thing is good, but at the 30:00 minute mark and for a couple minutes after is telling, at least from his side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfLVxx_lBLU&feature=youtu.be

Uncle Steve said:

I have no problem with laws against drunk driving.
But I wouldn't support prohibition as a means to prevent it.
Would you?

You clearly do not know what the word "prohibited" means. You are not prohibited from eating lunch, practicing your faith or buying stuff. You just need to do it in a way that does not endanger others.

CPfan1976 said:

Sure as hell doesn't sound like flattening the curve or going downward to me.

I'll just leave this right here...

djDaemon said:
You clearly do not know what the word "prohibited" means. You are not prohibited from eating lunch, practicing your faith or buying stuff. You just need to do it in a way that does not endanger others.

Yes, clearly.
And I get what you're saying. Shopping at the big-box stores is safe while dining-in at restaurants endangers others.
Everybody knows that, and I'd be a fool to dispute it.

ILS 0523 said:

Pretty good listen. Long, but interesting none the less. The whole thing is good, but at the 30:00 minute mark and for a couple minutes after is telling, at least from his side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfLVxx_lBLU&feature=youtu.be

I agree with this. Therefore it must be wrong...

It's absolutely wrong. Two guys in Bakersfield, California share a couple of anecdotes that have no basis in peer-reviewed research or anything resembling the scientific method. What are they comparing to? Where is the control group? How do they account for the infection rate in NYC or Northern Italy?

This is what I'm talking about... people have to stop sharing this crap. The idea that two rando guys have cracked the code when there is actual, observable outcomes all over the world is not critical thinking of any kind.

Goodness gracious - where did I say he cracked the code? I said it was a good listen from another perspective - is there anywhere I stated 'Hey, this is the answer' -

All I said was it was a good listen. If you want to take that as me being all bought in, this is the holy grail, look at how we overreacted, etc. - you do you. It's your forum after all.

Jeff said:

This is what I'm talking about... people have to stop sharing this crap.

And this is what's wrong with individuals such as yourself who run around telling people what we should or should not be saying. We do have a first amendment to our constitution, check that one out. (I'm not talking about your website, I'm talking about the general repudiation of things you don't agree with).

If people were intelligent, if reporting and the media at large were fair and accurate, then misinformation would not matter (I'm not saying that this link contains misinformation, I've not yet listened). People would be able to parse misinformation and put it in the mental recycle bin.

Here are some good articles for knowledge - info sharing is all (specific to Covid and the impact it has on patients with respiratory illnesses along with long-term effects). Are they 'crap? Don't know, I haven't obtained my MD or PhD.

But clearly I just watch YouTube and obtain all my information there. Sigh--

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2213-2600%2820%2930167-3

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-asthma-risk.html

https://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/article/6870

As for trends, here are a few of the ones I use.

In the meantime, I'll work on cracking a book and educating myself before sharing such 'crap' in the future.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

https://ncov2019.live/data

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm

And finally, for peer reviewed studies - will the below link suffice?

But hey, I'm just a sheep following the latest YouTube hits!

So, back on point, looking forward to what the Governor of Ohio has to say about the phased reopening plan.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

MaverickLaunch said:

...if reporting and the media at large were fair and accurate...

I've lost count of the number of times you've made this claim, but I have kept track of the number of times you've substantiated this claim with evidence: zero.

djDaemon said:

MaverickLaunch said:

...if reporting and the media at large were fair and accurate...

I've lost count of the number of times you've made this claim, but I have kept track of the number of times you've substantiated this claim with evidence: zero.

It doesn't even require substantiation. It requires a set of eyes and ears, and a brain. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it plainly.

Well I suppose in a sense you're right, false statements do not require substantiation.

But in order to demonstrate something as factual, yeah, that absolutely does require substantiation. Facts, by definition, are something that has been proven to be true.

I think the issue is that you're confusing your unsubstantiated opinion with a fact.

The thing is, there was a law about fair and balanced reporting in the news. Look up the Fairness Doctrine sometime.

Also look into just who made sure it wasn't a thing anymore.