Please stop sounding like a rational-minded, objective individual. You're making way too much sense. It's really upsetting the apple cart around here.
Hospitals Know What’s Coming https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...-prepared-hospital-nearly-overwhelmed/617156/ Perhaps no hospital in the United States was better prepared for a pandemic than the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. After the SARS outbreak of 2003, its staff began specifically preparing for emerging infections. The center has the nation’s only federal quarantine facility and its largest biocontainment unit, which cared for airlifted Ebola patients in 2014. The people on staff had detailed pandemic plans. They ran drills. Ron Klain, who was President Barack Obama’s “Ebola czar” and will be Joe Biden’s chief of staff in the White House, once told me that UNMC is “arguably the best in the country” at handling dangerous and unusual diseases. There’s a reason many of the Americans who were airlifted from the Diamond Princess cruise ship in February were sent to UNMC. In the past two weeks, the hospital had to convert an entire building into a COVID-19 tower, from the top down. It now has 10 COVID-19 units, each taking up an entire hospital floor. Three of the units provide intensive care to the very sickest people, several of whom die every day. One unit solely provides “comfort care” to COVID-19 patients who are certain to die. “We’ve never had to do anything like this,” Angela Hewlett, the infectious-disease specialist who directs the hospital’s COVID-19 team, told me. “We are on an absolutely catastrophic path.” ...
Another load of horse **** from a liberal rag. (And I've been posting this for months...) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
What, from either @gifford1967's specifically quoted part of the article or anything else from the article itself, isn't true? Because it's a "liberal rag," I highly doubt you read any of it, and are just disagreeing for that sole reason.
https://www.latimes.com/science/sto...p-coronavirus-spread-in-danish-clinical-trial Face mask trial didn’t stop coronavirus spread, but it shows why more mask-wearing is needed Back in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers in Denmark decided to conduct an usual experiment to test the infection-fighting power of face masks the same way they’d evaluate a potential vaccine or drug. At the time, mask use was not recommended by Danish health authorities, and fewer than 5% of residents used them outside hospital settings. Those conditions made it possible to conduct the first — and only — randomized controlled trial of the face coverings. The researchers recruited more than 6,000 volunteers from around the country who spent at least three hours each day with people from other households and didn’t wear masks for their jobs. About half of these volunteers were chosen at random to receive 50 surgical masks and were asked to wear them whenever they left home for the next month. The other half did not get masks and served as controls. Overall, 95 of the 4,862 volunteers who made it to the end of the study became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. That’s an infection rate of just under 2%. But no matter how the researchers sliced and diced their data, they could not find a strong signal that the volunteers in the mask group were more protected than their counterparts in the control group. In a typical clinical trial, this is the point where researchers would say their intervention didn’t work. But in this case, the investigators went the other way. The problem, they said, wasn’t with the masks. The problem was that people didn’t use masks enough. The study results “should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections,” wrote the team led by researchers from Copenhagen University Hospital. A trio of current and former editors of Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal that published the study, went further. “Masks likely need to be worn by most if not all people to reduce community infection rates,” they wrote. “The results of this trial should motivate widespread mask wearing to protect our communities and thereby ourselves.” It’s not as if there’s no reason to believe masks can prevent the spread of COVID-19. Scientists say the coronavirus moves from person to person mainly through the air, either on respiratory droplets or smaller, aerosolized particles. If either of these makes its way into the respiratory tract, an infection can take off. People with active infections are most contagious in the first few days after exposure, often before they develop symptoms. That’s why the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health authorities say it’s important to wear a mask whenever you’re in close contact with people from other households, even if you don’t feel sick. Widespread mask use is credited with keeping the COVID-19 death toll in the double digits in places such as New Zealand (25 deaths to date), Singapore (28 deaths) and Vietnam (35 deaths). In Taiwan, where officials ramped up mask production just a few weeks after the WHO announced the existence of the novel coronavirus, only seven people have died of COVID-19. “Use of face masks has emerged as a powerful tool to reduce the health and economic harms of the pandemic,” Dr. Thomas Frieden, a former CDC director who now leads the nonprofit health initiative Resolve to Save Lives, and his colleague Dr. Shama Cash-Goldwasser wrote in a commentary that accompanied the study. If masks work so great, why did they make so little difference in Denmark? The study authors and their allies offer multiple explanations. The trial was conducted in two waves, with the first group testing masks between April 14 and May 15 and the second group testing them between May 2 and June 2. During most of that time — until May 18 — restaurants and cafes in the country were closed. Stores were open and public transportation was operational, but customers were advised to maintain physical distancing. In addition, there were limits on social gatherings as well as visits to hospitals and nursing homes. With all these measures in place, the added benefit of wearing masks might be negligible when the community prevalence of the virus is low, the researchers wrote. (At the time of the study, the daily incidence of new infections was four times lower in Denmark than it was in the U.S.) Masks are believed to help in two ways. Although they can protect wearers from the incoming germs, their primary benefit is their ability to prevent the wearer’s germs from spreading to others. Because few Danish residents were wearing masks during the study period, volunteers were mostly exposed to maskless people who could spread a virus easily — and that was true regardless of whether they were randomly assigned to wear a mask or not. Another problem is that people assigned to wear masks often chose not to. Only 46% of volunteers in the mask group told the researchers they followed all the rules about wearing masks in public, 47% said they “predominantly” wore their masks, and 7% said they didn’t follow the rules. In other words, the journal editors noted, “the study examined the effect of recommending mask use, not the effect of actually wearing them.” There’s also the possibility that people who wore masks felt a false sense of security and let down their guard in other ways that increased their risk of infection. Given these various shortcomings, you might suspect the Annals of Internal Medicine editors were tempted to reject the study so it wouldn’t wind up in the hands of increasingly vocal opponents of mask mandates. They don’t blame you for wondering — indeed, they anticipate this question in their editorial. “With fierce resistance to mask recommendations by leaders and the public in some locales, is it irresponsible for Annals to publish these results, which could easily be misused by those opposed to mask recommendations? We think not,” wrote Dr. Christine Laine, the journal’s editor in chief, along with Dr. Eliseo Guallar, the deputy editor for statistics, and Dr. Steven Goodman, a senior statistical editor for the journal. Burying the findings of a well-conducted study that didn’t turn out as expected would be worse, they wrote. “We need to gather many pieces of evidence to solve the puzzle of how to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” they explained. “For this reason, we thought it important to publish the findings and carefully highlight the questions that the trial does and does not answer.” Frieden and Cash-Goldwasser agreed that researchers still have work to do. But in the meantime, they wrote, the bottom line is clear: “If everyone wears a mask when near others, everyone is safer.”
Nope. I've been around hundreds of people. All without masks. Of the ones I know? 5 got Wuhan. Nobody was hospitalized. Oh, and I hang out constantly with people who work in hospitals. When they say it's bullshit, I believe them.
Well we know of 260,000 dead in the USA from COVID19 in approximately 8 months. We will likely be looking at 400,000 or more by year end with the holiday season coming up. That doesn’t count long term side effects either. With 300 million Americans, within one year we could be looking at 1:600 of all Americans dying from COVID in one year. The numbers would be far worse if we had not taken the weak half measures we did take. I personally had COVID and it was very nasty but I survived. So far I know 5 people that have died from it. I don’t have all the answers and there really is no simple solution everyone will agree with. I do know I wouldn’t be taking advice from @Roscoe Arbuckle as only weeks ago he was blustering about Trump easily skating to re-election and that sure as hell didn’t happen. If people are not careful and the vaccinations are not successful and widely taken, we could see a death number over by the time this is no longer a concern, of close to a million dead Americans in only a couple years. One million dead Americans is close to the total number of Americans that have died in war in all of history. Wear a mask and use common sense. Even if you don’t care if you can get it, you can give to someone else that does care and can get very sick and possibly die.
Your friends that work in the hospital say COVID is bullshit? That’s interesting bc my experience is the total opposite. My friends/family that work in the hospital are all more concerned about it than others, I believe bc they are constantly around the serious cases of COVID more than the avg person. They are always the ones pushing to wear masks. Do your friends that work in the hospital see patients or do they clean the bathrooms or serve food in the cafeteria?
You have the right to disagree but that doesn't mean it's correct. Consider how much Sweden was touted as a success story. We've known for months that not only is their infection rate and death toll much higher than their neighbors but also that there economy suffered. It is very telling that Sweden is now putting in restrictions to fight the disease. A lot of people getting sick isn't good for the economy.
For all of those who are concerned about the economy and I fully agree the economy is taking a hit we can still do something about it. I challenge Clutchfans even if you can't go inside a bar or a restaurant get more takeout. I got take out the last three nights and will do it again tonight. I've tipped 25-33%. in addition to my meal. My work has picked up a lot recently and is going to get busier in the next few weeks so I can afford it. I know that my friends in the service industry are hurting. Getting takeout and tipping well isn't a sacrifice for me so if you can afford it you can do something directly to help the service industry.
I got a girlfriend that's better than this But you don't remember at all As we get older and stop making sense You won't find her waiting long Stop making sense, stop making sense Stop making sense, making sense
Just scrolling through. It sounds like a debate about covid handling vs economy. There was an actual economic study on the long-term economic impact of the last major pandemic ("Spanish" flu). US cities that "locked" down have a much better long term economic recovery than cities that let it ride through.
Yes...but to disprove what? The entire article? All I'm asking is for you to say what, in the article, is factually untrue. You'd have an easier time getting people to buy into what you're saying if you're not completely vague about the point you're trying to make. But go ahead, call people who ask an innocuous question, a moron. That'll show me!
