OT: CEO responses to Covid-19

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:23:24 PM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 6:49:14 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 14/03/20 08:43, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 23:50, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 7:47:04 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 19:02, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 17:57, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 5:47:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
I am expecting my 98yo mother to catch it sometime. She will, rightly, not
be a priority, and it will kill her. Her grandmother survived the 1919 flu
and significantly influenced my mother. She died in her mid 90s, having
been born in the mid 30s. 1830s, that is. 100 years is not a long time

Why is it right that your mother's health "not be a priority"???  I guess I
shouldn't ask that.  It's not likely I'll appreciate the answer.

Triage dear boy, triage.

Given limited and insufficient resources, you put your efforts
where they will do the most good.

So why is saving the life of a grandparent not "good"?

Sigh; that's a strawman argument.
The key words are "limited", "insufficent" and "most".

If you /still/ can't grasp the point, consider that
saving the life of a parent with 30 good years ahead
of them is more important than someone with maybe
a couple of poor years ahead of them.

You have made no justification for not treating anyone.

You have two people that need treatment.
You can only treat one due to lack of time/material/personnel.
What do you do?
Is that "justification"?

Those are real-world dilemmas.
You can't escape them by wishing you were in an ideal world.

Just in case you still cling to your illusions....

The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors. There
are now simply too many patients for each one of them to
receive adequate care. Instead of providing intensive care
to all patients who need it, the authors suggest, it may
become necessary to follow “the most widely shared criteria
regarding distributive justice and the appropriate
allocation of limited health resources.” Those who are too
old to have a high likelihood of recovery, or who have too
low a number of “life-years” left even if they should
survive, would be left to die. This sounds cruel, but
the alternative, the document argues, is no better.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/

That sounds like the Obamacare 'Death Panels.

Or more precisely, the Republican anti-Obamcare propaganda that got dreamed up at the time.

The US rations health care on the basis that if you can't afford it, you die.

Everybody else rations it on the basis that you try to keep as many people alive for as long as possible within the money available.

For some reason, rich people prefer the current US system.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:09:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:29:32 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:53:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-13 10:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

snip

Apparently kids don't get this. So why are we closing schools?

Because they have grandparents. There are indications that teenagers
are very efficient carriers.

How long can we keep schools closed?

Probably until we can develop and distribute a vaccine, if necessary.

China has cut it's new case rate down to ten a day, and is starting to unlock the lock-down in selected areas.

The US still hasn't got it's act together to the point where it has even got enough virus testing kits, so they seem unlikely to be able to do as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You keep talking about vaccines in a way that indicates you don't know the first thing about them.

1) vaccines take years to develop- standard protocol is three phases and the largest and last phase three follows participants for two years or more looking for side effects among other things. If you think safety testing is unimportant, check out the vaccine induced autoimmune disease of the First Gulf War anthrax vaccine. You're not going to see a vaccine sooner than 5 years, if ever.

2) depending on the urgency, authorities give approval for vaccine use at very low levels of effectiveness. most of the time it seems to be 30%, but in an emergency they'll go lower. You almost never see anything remotely close to 100%, even 60% is very highly unusually successful.

3) it's difficult for a vaccine to induce a strong antibody response in older people, so as usual the age dependence works its way in there making the vaccine just nigh short of worthless for that age group.

Still think your friggin imaginary vaccine is going to help you?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 12:37:15 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:09:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:29:32 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:53:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-13 10:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

snip

Apparently kids don't get this. So why are we closing schools?

Because they have grandparents. There are indications that teenagers
are very efficient carriers.

How long can we keep schools closed?

Probably until we can develop and distribute a vaccine, if necessary.

China has cut it's new case rate down to ten a day, and is starting to unlock the lock-down in selected areas.

The US still hasn't got it's act together to the point where it has even got enough virus testing kits, so they seem unlikely to be able to do as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You keep talking about vaccines in a way that indicates you don't know the first thing about them.

1) vaccines take years to develop- standard protocol is three phases and the largest and last phase three follows participants for two years or more looking for side effects among other things. If you think safety testing is unimportant, check out the vaccine induced autoimmune disease of the First Gulf War anthrax vaccine. You're not going to see a vaccine sooner than 5 years, if ever.

They certainly used to.

One if the proposed vaccines is intended to present just the "spike" protein on the corona virus, which is what locks onto the cells that corona virus infects.

That is the common feature of all corona viruses, which would make the vaccine effective against many different strains of virus, and if the virus mutates it out shape so that the antibody doesn't recognise it, it also it's capacity to lock onto the cells it infects.

This is a new approach, and depends on the new tricks that molecular biologists have developed. Telling us how things used to work isn't all that useful.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09/coronavirus-scientists-play-legos-with-proteins-to-build-next-gen-vaccine/

> 2) depending on the urgency, authorities give approval for vaccine use at very low levels of effectiveness. most of the time it seems to be 30%, but in an emergency they'll go lower. You almost never see anything remotely close to 100%, even 60% is very highly unusually successful.

Vaccines reduce the probability of getting infected. To get an epidemic an infected person has to infect more than one new victim while the infection is active, and any protection is useful.

> 3) it's difficult for a vaccine to induce a strong antibody response in older people, so as usual the age dependence works its way in there making the vaccine just nigh short of worthless for that age group.

Which is why I get the flu vaccine every year because I'm over 70?

It may not be as effective as it is for younger people, but the protection I get is still useful.

> Still think your friggin imaginary vaccine is going to help you?

It's a whole lot better than nothing. And it's not my imagination which is sucking in venture capital.

Australia's CSL (which used to be the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories before it got privatised) is now the most valuable company on the Australian stock market.

https://www.csl.com/news/2020/20200212-csl-media-statement-on-coronavirus

They aren't pitching in to make money - their specialty is influenza vaccines - but as a humanitarian effort (at least at this stage).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 08:49:09 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/03/20 02:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
China has cut it's new case rate down to ten a day, and is starting to unlock
the lock-down in selected areas.

It will be *very* interesting to see what happens.

If they go back to business and population density as usual, there
will be many, many sources of reinfection.

But ten a day in a population of 1.4 billion? Some people will believe
anything.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Mikko OH2HVJ]

John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> writes:

> What about hydrogen peroxide rather than alcohol?

Formaldefyde or hydrogen peroxide vapour / fumigation are used in
BSL3/BSL4 labs, so I would guess it's good enough.

--
mikko

 

[David Brown]

On 13/03/2020 22:02, George Herold wrote:

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 2:31:14 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-13 14:20, David Brown wrote:
On 13/03/2020 18:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:



Their live animal markets, on the other hand, are swarming with all
sorts of creatures captured illegally by smugglers from all sorts of
places, with no concept of hygiene or infection safety.

But the first dozen or so patients had no connection with the market.
Epidemiology 101, first semester.

Any comments on this?
Yeah IDK. What you suggest sounds possible.

It is impossible (at this stage, anyway) to rule out the possibility
that the lab was involved. But it is considered (by the experts on such
epidemics, rather than experts in conspiracy theories and assigning
blame) much more likely that the market was the source. It is highly
likely that we will never know for sure - and it doesn't matter anyway.

Again knowing nothing,
viruses are pretty simple and I think they sequence the whole thing...
and won't that give some clue as to the origin?

As RNA viruses go, this is a biggie with nearly 30 thousand base pairs.
But you are right that they sequenced the whole thing quite quickly, and
it gives clues to its origins - everything points to natural evolution
in animal hosts, with pangolins being the current lead candidate.

This means the animal market, which had lots of such animals in close
concentration with lots of people, is the prime suspect. But it is, of
course, conceivable that the lab had been examining strains that they
had obtained from pangolins with a view to predicting or preventing an
outbreak, and that it accidentally leaked from there.

George H.
(mostly clueless, counting on experts.)

Your honesty is a breath of fresh air.

 

[David Brown]

On 13/03/2020 19:31, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-03-13 14:20, David Brown wrote:

I don't despise you or anyone else.  I despise the "don't think - find
someone to blame" attitude.

Strange way to talk about people you have no strong feelings about, that.

I'm not super fond of the "move along, now, don't get upset, we're all
going to die sometime anyway, and it's all Trump's fault" attitude.

As I said, I don't go looking for someone to blame. Nor do I subscribe
to fatalistic "we're all going to die, so don't bother doing anything"
attitudes. Since there was nothing in my posts to indicate that I did,
I assume you were just giving generalities that I'd agree with.

 

[David Brown]

On 14/03/2020 09:12, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 3:44:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

There isn't much you can do about breathing. But you can wash your hands and try not to touch your face until you have washed. There are no guarantees in life, but you can play the smart odds.

How about an electronic solution?
An accelerator that launches sized alcohol droplets into the air with
an electron charge?
The droplets will not collect due to repulsion, and might stay in the
air for similar reasons.

What exactly will that accomplish? Alcohol is much more volatile than water. The droplets will accomplish pretty much nothing while in the air but will quickly evaporate.

Yes, but if the concentration is high enough, breathing it in will help
you forget all your worries about viruses Alcohol droplets and
vapour in the air will go to your head pretty quickly.

 

[David Brown]

On 14/03/2020 13:46, John S wrote:

On 3/13/2020 8:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 13/03/2020 06:45, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 12:46:28 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

* Excuse me, but doesn't it spread in the air?

You are excused.

While droplets containing the virus can be spread through the air,
the means of picking up the droplets is most often by touching
something and then touching your mucous membranes, eyes, nose, mouth.
The droplets can remain airborne for some time, but on a surface the
virus can live for many hours or even some days.  Droplets aren't
going to remain airborne nearly that long.

There isn't much you can do about breathing.  But you can wash your
hands and try not to touch your face until you have washed.  There
are no guarantees in life, but you can play the smart odds.


That is all good advice.

It applies equally to normal flu, and most other viruses - the path is
mainly cough/sneeze droplets to surface, then surface to face.

It's worth noting that most people don't know how to wash their hands
properly to minimise the risk of giving or getting an infection.

And as you noted, an alcohol wipe is of little use - you want 30 seconds
of wet alcohol to deactivate the virus.  (If the virus is protected by
sneeze droplets or other mucus, it takes minutes - but one would hope it
is obvious that you should at least wipe globs of phlegm from your hands
if you can't wash them.)  Washing is more effective than alcohol
sanitizers for your hands, when possible.

Disinfectant on surfaces is fine.


(Some viruses, such as noroviruses, are almost completely unaffected by
alcohol, so washing is good general practice.)


What about hydrogen peroxide rather than alcohol?

A little hydrogen peroxide is a good idea - hand sanitizer usually has
about 3% of it. (Too much is not good for your skin.) But still,
washing with soap and water is generally best when possible.

Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 9:37:15 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:09:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:29:32 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:53:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-13 10:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

snip

Apparently kids don't get this. So why are we closing schools?

Because they have grandparents. There are indications that teenagers
are very efficient carriers.

How long can we keep schools closed?

Probably until we can develop and distribute a vaccine, if necessary.

China has cut it's new case rate down to ten a day, and is starting to unlock the lock-down in selected areas.

The US still hasn't got it's act together to the point where it has even got enough virus testing kits, so they seem unlikely to be able to do as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You keep talking about vaccines in a way that indicates you don't know the first thing about them.

1) vaccines take years to develop- standard protocol is three phases and the largest and last phase three follows participants for two years or more looking for side effects among other things. If you think safety testing is unimportant, check out the vaccine induced autoimmune disease of the First Gulf War anthrax vaccine. You're not going to see a vaccine sooner than 5 years, if ever.

2) depending on the urgency, authorities give approval for vaccine use at very low levels of effectiveness. most of the time it seems to be 30%, but in an emergency they'll go lower. You almost never see anything remotely close to 100%, even 60% is very highly unusually successful.

3) it's difficult for a vaccine to induce a strong antibody response in older people, so as usual the age dependence works its way in there making the vaccine just nigh short of worthless for that age group.

Still think your friggin imaginary vaccine is going to help you?

Yes I still think a vaccine is going to help me. Even if the effectiveness is low it will reduce the percentage of people that are spreading the virus.

Dan

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/03/20 12:23, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 6:49:14 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 14/03/20 08:43, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 23:50, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 7:47:04 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 19:02, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 17:57, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 5:47:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
I am expecting my 98yo mother to catch it sometime. She will, rightly, not
be a priority, and it will kill her. Her grandmother survived the 1919 flu
and significantly influenced my mother. She died in her mid 90s, having
been born in the mid 30s. 1830s, that is. 100 years is not a long time

Why is it right that your mother's health "not be a priority"???  I guess I
shouldn't ask that.  It's not likely I'll appreciate the answer.

Triage dear boy, triage.

Given limited and insufficient resources, you put your efforts
where they will do the most good.

So why is saving the life of a grandparent not "good"?

Sigh; that's a strawman argument.
The key words are "limited", "insufficent" and "most".

If you /still/ can't grasp the point, consider that
saving the life of a parent with 30 good years ahead
of them is more important than someone with maybe
a couple of poor years ahead of them.

You have made no justification for not treating anyone.

You have two people that need treatment.
You can only treat one due to lack of time/material/personnel.
What do you do?
Is that "justification"?

Those are real-world dilemmas.
You can't escape them by wishing you were in an ideal world.

Just in case you still cling to your illusions....

The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors. There
are now simply too many patients for each one of them to
receive adequate care. Instead of providing intensive care
to all patients who need it, the authors suggest, it may
become necessary to follow “the most widely shared criteria
regarding distributive justice and the appropriate
allocation of limited health resources.” Those who are too
old to have a high likelihood of recovery, or who have too
low a number of “life-years” left even if they should
survive, would be left to die. This sounds cruel, but
the alternative, the document argues, is no better.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/


That sounds like the Obamacare 'Death Panels'.

Nah. It sounds like the US corporate death panels:
"sorry, your money has run out, bye"

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/03/20 17:48, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:49:10 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/03/20 08:43, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 23:50, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 7:47:04 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 19:02, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 17:57, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 5:47:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
I am expecting my 98yo mother to catch it sometime. She will, rightly, not
be a priority, and it will kill her. Her grandmother survived the 1919 flu
and significantly influenced my mother. She died in her mid 90s, having
been born in the mid 30s. 1830s, that is. 100 years is not a long time

Why is it right that your mother's health "not be a priority"???  I guess I
shouldn't ask that.  It's not likely I'll appreciate the answer.

Triage dear boy, triage.

Given limited and insufficient resources, you put your efforts
where they will do the most good.

So why is saving the life of a grandparent not "good"?

Sigh; that's a strawman argument.
The key words are "limited", "insufficent" and "most".

If you /still/ can't grasp the point, consider that
saving the life of a parent with 30 good years ahead
of them is more important than someone with maybe
a couple of poor years ahead of them.

You have made no justification for not treating anyone.

You have two people that need treatment.
You can only treat one due to lack of time/material/personnel.
What do you do?
Is that "justification"?

Those are real-world dilemmas.
You can't escape them by wishing you were in an ideal world.

Just in case you still cling to your illusions....

The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors. There
are now simply too many patients for each one of them to
receive adequate care. Instead of providing intensive care
to all patients who need it, the authors suggest, it may
become necessary to follow “the most widely shared criteria
regarding distributive justice and the appropriate
allocation of limited health resources.” Those who are too
old to have a high likelihood of recovery, or who have too
low a number of “life-years” left even if they should
survive, would be left to die. This sounds cruel, but
the alternative, the document argues, is no better.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/

Italy has 60 million people, and 21K corona cases so far, 1440 deaths.

So what? From 3 days ago, and it hasn't got better since then.
The last paragraph is the kicker: need ventilator and
over 60? Tough luck....

The first identifies herself as Martina, but I believe she is
Martina Crivellari, an intensive care cardiac anaesthesiologist
at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan.

She said: "There are a lot of young people in our Intensive
Care Units (ICUs) - our youngest is a 38-year-old who had
had no comorbidities (underlying health problems).

"A lot of patients need help with breathing but there are
not enough ventilators.

"They've told us that starting from now we'll have to choose
who to intubate - priority will go to the young or those
without comorbidities.

"At Niguarda, the other big hospital in Milan, they are
not intubating anyone over 60, which is really, really young."

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-11/italy-doctors-coronavirus-covid-19-quarantine-milan-health/

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/03/20 17:48, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:49:10 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/03/20 08:43, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 23:50, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 7:47:04 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 19:02, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 17:57, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 5:47:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
I am expecting my 98yo mother to catch it sometime. She will, rightly, not
be a priority, and it will kill her. Her grandmother survived the 1919 flu
and significantly influenced my mother. She died in her mid 90s, having
been born in the mid 30s. 1830s, that is. 100 years is not a long time

Why is it right that your mother's health "not be a priority"???  I guess I
shouldn't ask that.  It's not likely I'll appreciate the answer.

Triage dear boy, triage.

Given limited and insufficient resources, you put your efforts
where they will do the most good.

So why is saving the life of a grandparent not "good"?

Sigh; that's a strawman argument.
The key words are "limited", "insufficent" and "most".

If you /still/ can't grasp the point, consider that
saving the life of a parent with 30 good years ahead
of them is more important than someone with maybe
a couple of poor years ahead of them.

You have made no justification for not treating anyone.

You have two people that need treatment.
You can only treat one due to lack of time/material/personnel.
What do you do?
Is that "justification"?

Those are real-world dilemmas.
You can't escape them by wishing you were in an ideal world.

Just in case you still cling to your illusions....

The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors. There
are now simply too many patients for each one of them to
receive adequate care. Instead of providing intensive care
to all patients who need it, the authors suggest, it may
become necessary to follow “the most widely shared criteria
regarding distributive justice and the appropriate
allocation of limited health resources.” Those who are too
old to have a high likelihood of recovery, or who have too
low a number of “life-years” left even if they should
survive, would be left to die. This sounds cruel, but
the alternative, the document argues, is no better.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/

Italy has 60 million people, and 21K corona cases so far, 1440 deaths.

One of the things I've taught my daughter is that
answers are easy, but it is more difficult and important
to work out what is the right question.

I've no reason to doubt those figures/answers, but they sure
as hell aren't the answer to *important* questions.

The important questions in this case are the number of
dangerously ill people in intensive care beds vs the
number of beds/doctors/equipment.

For the UK...

I'm an NHS doctor treating coronavirus – you have no idea how
bad things could get. If we go the way of Italy, we're going
to run out of intensive care beds in two weeks

For an idea of how quickly case numbers can explode, look
to Italy. One week after it hit 320 cases, the country
reported 2,036; a week later, nearly 10,000; next week
that number will likely rise to 50,000 or more. There’s
nothing I have seen that tells me the exact same thing
isn’t coming for us in the UK. We only have around 4,000
intensive care unit (ICU) beds in England, 80% of which
are already full. If we follow the same trajectory as
Italy, with 10% of coronavirus patients needing ICU treatment,
we will need 200 beds next week, 1,000 the week after.
That’s already the entire ICU capacity. Every two days
after that, we will need twice the number of beds again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-uk-doctor-nhs-hospital-symptoms-italy-china-a9397736.html

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.

Dan

 

On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:49:10 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/03/20 08:43, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 23:50, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 7:47:04 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 19:02, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/03/20 17:57, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 5:47:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
I am expecting my 98yo mother to catch it sometime. She will, rightly, not
be a priority, and it will kill her. Her grandmother survived the 1919 flu
and significantly influenced my mother. She died in her mid 90s, having
been born in the mid 30s. 1830s, that is. 100 years is not a long time

Why is it right that your mother's health "not be a priority"???  I guess I
shouldn't ask that.  It's not likely I'll appreciate the answer.

Triage dear boy, triage.

Given limited and insufficient resources, you put your efforts
where they will do the most good.

So why is saving the life of a grandparent not "good"?

Sigh; that's a strawman argument.
The key words are "limited", "insufficent" and "most".

If you /still/ can't grasp the point, consider that
saving the life of a parent with 30 good years ahead
of them is more important than someone with maybe
a couple of poor years ahead of them.

You have made no justification for not treating anyone.

You have two people that need treatment.
You can only treat one due to lack of time/material/personnel.
What do you do?
Is that "justification"?

Those are real-world dilemmas.
You can't escape them by wishing you were in an ideal world.

Just in case you still cling to your illusions....

The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors. There
are now simply too many patients for each one of them to
receive adequate care. Instead of providing intensive care
to all patients who need it, the authors suggest, it may
become necessary to follow “the most widely shared criteria
regarding distributive justice and the appropriate
allocation of limited health resources.” Those who are too
old to have a high likelihood of recovery, or who have too
low a number of “life-years” left even if they should
survive, would be left to die. This sounds cruel, but
the alternative, the document argues, is no better.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/

Italy has 60 million people, and 21K corona cases so far, 1440 deaths.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Today I got emails from the CEOs of three companies
about their actions to protect us against Covid-19.
Walmart said their stores are cleaned daily, with
sanitizing solutions. Subway said they're cleaning
most-touched surfaces once per hour. A local pub-
restaurant, Tavern in the Square, uses disinfectant
wipes to clean and sanitize all tables, phones, POS-
screens, check presenters, booths, chairs and menus
in between guest's seatings. Plus five other items.

Nuclear extinction. Nuclear winter. Global cooling. Global warming.
Sea level rise. Ozone hole. The Population Bomb. Y2K. Ebola. SARS.
MERS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoryoomsday_scenarios

This sort of thing is ever popular.

We just went to Safeway for our usually quiet Saturday morning
shopping. It was jammed. Nowhere to park, no carts. Shelves stripped
in no logical pattern. Huge checkout lines full of overloaded carts.
Who needs six boxes of Pancko and two gallons of vodka?

No edamame or frozen peas. No tater tots. No baking chocolate. Hardly
any coffee or ice cream.

The aisles are stacked with toilet paper, and some people are filling
their carts with toilet paper. But, oddly, no run on kleenex, which
I'd think you'd want if you got flu.

The thing about panic buying, is that people will take all that stuff
home and have to stash it somewhere. Then the supplier surge will show
up.

I could start a rumor about sweet pickles or blue corn chips or
something.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 4:22:18 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Today I got emails from the CEOs of three companies
about their actions to protect us against Covid-19.
Walmart said their stores are cleaned daily, with
sanitizing solutions. Subway said they're cleaning
most-touched surfaces once per hour. A local pub-
restaurant, Tavern in the Square, uses disinfectant
wipes to clean and sanitize all tables, phones, POS-
screens, check presenters, booths, chairs and menus
in between guest's seatings. Plus five other items.

Nuclear extinction. Nuclear winter. Global cooling. Global warming.
Sea level rise. Ozone hole. The Population Bomb. Y2K. Ebola. SARS.
MERS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoryoomsday_scenarios

This sort of thing is ever popular.

We just went to Safeway for our usually quiet Saturday morning
shopping. It was jammed. Nowhere to park, no carts. Shelves stripped
in no logical pattern. Huge checkout lines full of overloaded carts.
Who needs six boxes of Pancko and two gallons of vodka?

No edamame or frozen peas. No tater tots. No baking chocolate. Hardly
any coffee or ice cream.

The aisles are stacked with toilet paper, and some people are filling
their carts with toilet paper. But, oddly, no run on kleenex, which
I'd think you'd want if you got flu.

The thing about panic buying, is that people will take all that stuff
home and have to stash it somewhere. Then the supplier surge will show
up.

I could start a rumor about sweet pickles or blue corn chips or
something.

Speaking of rumors, I heard the Wuhan flu's gonna cause a
critical shortage of picosecond timing generators. I'm
urging everyone I see to stock up on picosecond timing
generators (and laser pulsers) now while they can, before
it's too late...

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

> A more interesting question is what China would have to gain from lying about their statistics.

Forcing (or tricking) people back to work.

 

edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote in
news:a8ba5f16-1066-4f97-938c-74e49b551aad@googlegroups.com:

A more interesting question is what China would have to gain from
lying about their statistics.

Forcing (or tricking) people back to work.

Unlike how suck the 1918 flu got everyone, it still passed
eventually.

This one will pass to from seeing the South Korea stats, and those
from China too, if they are to be believed to be an accurate
representation as are the Korea stats.

That is regardless of whether they started out by not providing
data.

This thing will pass. It will take those of us it takes. Sad but
true. Most will fight and beat it with some showing little or no
symptoms. Some, however will respond violently to it, and contract
pneumonia and fall very ill and some will pass from us.

The differences are that in some nations, they guage whether or not
to treat eder victims at all.

Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

Either way, most of us will get through it.

 

[mpm]

Something to consider:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."