It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionThe COVID-19 Thread Redux(401 posts) (401 posts) 
(401 posts) 
Pages:
1
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
20
27
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
avatar
Nirth: Does anyone have a credible source on updated data regarding age difference, chronic issues before being infected or anything else that might be of use to determine risk? WHO released numbers but it's from February 28th. It seems high risk was at the time only 80 years of age or more, usually with chronic issues.
Dunno the exact data, but "thankfully"(as in it could be worse, so thankfully it's not) it seems to mostly be hitting those over 70 or so and those with pre-existing conditions(and also those with suppressed or destroyed immune systems), and even then it's around 5-10% of all cases needing hospitalization and around 5% or less succumbing to the disease.
==================================================

avatar
Angm4r: I just want to add the recipe of the WHO for disinfection is not working as intended and should not be used. Better use Isopropanol (sorry do not know the english word for it) 70%.
Good advice, but that's assuming people can get ahold of it OR the ingredients to make such.

Also the virus(afaik) "dies" on skin from just using good soap and water......so as long as people don't touch their faces and wash their hands regularly they should be much safer(though not 100% safe from this) by using common sense and following the other WHO/CDC guidelines.

avatar
Angm4r: To the person above me, afaik by my sister who is leading emergency station and intensive care station in a german hospital, risk is 50+ and not 80+. But it can also get younger people as those have died to it as well.
That's likely just that one hospital/area(or a few of them)....i.e. a statistical anomaly.

Yes, SOME 50+ people have landed in the hospital, BUT the majority have been over 65-70.

(Yes, some younger people have gotten this and died as well.....although the numbers of young people who got such & died were low, and possibly[not certainly] might have been caused in part by pre-existing/underlying conditions)
======================================
======================================

To all reading/the thread: Added a news story link someone linked in another thread to the OP post....will likely add more later
Post edited April 08, 2020 by GameRager
Posted April 08, 2020
avatar
francksteel: Just got warned by moderator because of my #122 second part.
So my apologies to GameRager.
avatar
GameRager: It happens....with times being stressful we can all(even me on occasion) sometimes say/do things we should think twice about.

(BTW do you mean post 121 or 123? I ask as post 122 is my post)
=====================================================

avatar
wpegg: No - he has low credibility. He has burned his capacity to be trusted by being untrustworthy in the past.

This is a useful measure. You won't agree based on a rambling comment about "surely we should trust information, not the people that tell us to trust it" or some other misdirection while ignoring the idea and usefulness of credibility.
avatar
GameRager: That's not how facts work.....facts are facts no matter who says them or why....credibility or little-no credibility.
Well, I was right in my second paragraph.
avatar
GameRager: (i.e. Say you know 2+2=4.....if someone you don't trust or trust much says 2+2=4 that doesn't suddenly mean 2+2=5/3/fish)
Firstly, a trivial example makes it easy to avoid the underlying point. However lets say that someone didn't know, and was unable or unwilling to determine the answer to 2+2, they will look for the answer from others (assuming they need it). If there are conflicting answers out there then the one that the person will believe comes down to the credibility they attribute to the answerer, they have no other measure to base it on. If the question is a more nuanced and less easily determined one, as an abstract example "When will the virus reach it's peak?", then that becomes all the more true.
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
avatar
GameRager: That's not how facts work.....facts are facts no matter who says them or why....credibility or little-no credibility.

(i.e. Say you know 2+2=4.....if someone you don't trust or trust much says 2+2=4 that doesn't suddenly mean 2+2=5/3/fish)
There are no facts, only interpretations.

But even if you won't accept this, I don't think it's wise to compare something which can be know apriori (like your math example of 2+2=4) with thing which requires empirical confirmation.
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
Auto-censorship

Please also erase quote of my posts.
Post edited April 26, 2020 by francksteel
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
avatar
Mafwek: There are no facts, only interpretations.
By facts I meant he showed news reports/articles/posts with information that can likely easily be verified or debunked with a bit of checking.

avatar
Mafwek: But even if you won't accept this, I don't think it's wise to compare something which can be know apriori (like your math example of 2+2=4) with thing which requires empirical confirmation.
Still, my main point was that what he was showing(not his take on it) is no more or less true because he showed it to people or because it's shown in one of his videos.
=============================================
=============================================

Just in:
A nurse was suspended for raising money for gear for her fellow workers and then distributing said gear to them without authorization
Post edited April 08, 2020 by GameRager
Posted April 08, 2020
avatar
GameRager: A nurse was suspended for raising money for gear for her fellow workers and then distributing said gear to them without authorization
Makes sense. If a hospital starts using unapproved gear they invalidate all insurance and liability protection. She wasn't suspended for the money raising, she was suspended for the distribution.

Would it have been useful - maybe, but it's got to be through their channels, otherwise who knows what might be introduced based on the "common sense" of a nurse, fish fertilizer?.
Posted April 08, 2020
high rated
Some good news again.

The study that may change the world I've written about previously regarding how the virus is affecting households (and whether or not you can get infected through common smear infections) is coming along very nicely, however it will still take a (few) weeks for it to be released because the scientists that conducted the study want to gather as many objective axioms as possible, they also stated that more than 85% of infected people actually enjoyed and welcomed the scientists presence, some were even baking cake for the scientists which is kinda cute :D! Once the study is released to the public I'm gonna post it here and I'm also certain its gonna be available in english.

Just so you guys remember, the study primarily tries to solve the question how people can get infected and how long can the virus "live through" on surfaces. Every value we know (as described by the WHO, CDC and others like the RKI) only provide values through laboratory studies, which does not represent "commonfolk reality" after all. The study itself is the answer whether or not the "virus paranoia", like excessive handwashing and cleaning of all surfaces (not to be confused with basic hygene that everyday people should adhere to regardless of this virus or not) and the need of closing every once of public life is varranted or not. By gathering data on understanding how long the virus can survive outside of the body and the ways on how you can get infected people can get valuable data on not only how to accurately prevent its spread, but also what types of institutions of public life may actually be at risk rather than "shutting everything down" if you get what I mean.

Not only that, australian scientists found out that Ivermecitin 50% is quite literally wrecking vast parts of the virus through laboratory studies, inhibiting its multiplication in cell culture, which is a good sign on not only how the virus works but inhibitors like these are easy to manufacture this specific medicine and very common. Pretty sure that you can manufacture several types of medication that may also include Ivermecitin as a primary inhibitor. Since this virus is pretty slow in terms of mutation, chances of it adepting to these sort of things are also pretty slim (its also a good indication on why vaccines will work very well). This is also a huge implication that this might work well on humans, I think that we know more about how Ivermecitin works against SARS-CoV-2 during the month of May.

Sources: Regarding the study previously written about, in german

Another source, also in german

Some explaination, this time in english (most important link for most of you folks)

Regarding the subject of Ivermecitin
Post edited April 08, 2020 by Dray2k
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
avatar
wpegg: Makes sense. If a hospital starts using unapproved gear they invalidate all insurance and liability protection. She wasn't suspended for the money raising, she was suspended for the distribution.
I guess you're right...she should've given the money to the hospital and let them buy the gear.....still, it pisses me off than rules seemingly trump good deeds in this day and age.

avatar
wpegg: Would it have been useful - maybe, but it's got to be through their channels, otherwise who knows what might be introduced based on the "common sense" of a nurse, fish fertilizer?.
So are you saying a nurse....an actual nurse....is too dumb to buy proper gear?
Posted April 08, 2020
avatar
wpegg: Would it have been useful - maybe, but it's got to be through their channels, otherwise who knows what might be introduced based on the "common sense" of a nurse, fish fertilizer?.
avatar
GameRager: So are you saying a nurse....an actual nurse....is too dumb to buy proper gear?
Could be. It's about the required processes, you can't take chances.
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
avatar
Dray2k: Some good news again.

The study that may change the world I've written about previously regarding how the virus is affecting households (and whether or not you can get infected through common smear infections) is coming along very nicely, however it will still take a (few) weeks for it to be released because the scientists that conducted the study want to gather as many objective axioms as possible, they also stated that more than 85% of infected people actually enjoyed and welcomed the scientists presence, some were even baking cake for the scientists which is kinda cute :D!
That is good to hear(and the cake baking thing is also touching to hear about).

avatar
Dray2k: Once the study is released to the public I'm gonna post it here and I'm also certain its gonna be available in english.
Also good to hear.....when you post it i'll be sure to link it in the OP post as well. :)
===================================================

avatar
wpegg: Could be. It's about the required processes, you can't take chances.
Don't you think they already are by making staff re-use their gear for up to a week?
Post edited April 08, 2020 by GameRager
Posted April 08, 2020
avatar
GameRager: Don't you think they already are by making staff re-use their gear for up to a week?
this is a false equivalence.
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
avatar
wpegg: this is a false equivalence.
Explain how, then....it is not enough to say "this is x or y" without showing what you mean.

(Also legal issues aside: are you trying to say/infer that it's better to use used old gear than new gear just because the new gear isn't "vetted" by the administration/bought by them?)
Posted April 08, 2020
avatar
wpegg: this is a false equivalence.
avatar
GameRager: Explain how, then....it is not enough to say "this is x or y" without showing what you mean.
I am saying that the introduction of gear is a different issue to the use and allocation of approved gear. It doesn't matter if the gear is sufficient, acceptable, useful, even vaguely decent, it's a different thing. I'm not suggesting what's right, I'm responding to your question.
Posted April 08, 2020
low rated
avatar
wpegg: I'm not suggesting what's right, I'm responding to your question.
Then tell me what you think is right, if you could oblige me on this.
Posted April 08, 2020
avatar
wpegg: I'm not suggesting what's right, I'm responding to your question.
avatar
GameRager: Then tell me what you think is right, if you could oblige me on this.
No. You've twisted the conversation, I was never pontificating on right or wrong, I was trying to help you to understand why the link you'd posted with the implication there was injustice there, was in fact reasoned, and explaining my belief as to what their reasons were.
Pages:
1
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
20
27
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionThe COVID-19 Thread Redux(401 posts) (401 posts) 
(401 posts)