He talks about using milestones to do it slowly and safely. He is couching his term 100% in what he has said before. Do it slowly and appropriately. He talks about if cases are going up and not using the benchmarks they should take extra precautions and such. Including enforcing social distancing, masks, and son.
He walks a fine line though and points to over and over again in the actual interview, not the CNBC cut up statements, that opening is fine if benchmarks are met. It is slow and monitored. And social distancing is maintained. None of which is a 180.
Open when you reach benchmarks is pretty much the standard line. Just no one has met those benchmarks.
He talks about using milestones to do it slowly and safely. He is couching his term 100% in what he has said before. Do it slowly and appropriately. He talks about if cases are going up and not using the benchmarks they should take extra precautions and such. Including enforcing social distancing, masks, and son.
He walks a fine line though and points to over and over again in the actual interview, not the CNBC cut up statements, that opening is fine if benchmarks are met. It is slow and monitored. And social distancing is maintained. None of which is a 180.
Open when you reach benchmarks is pretty much the standard line. Just no one has met those benchmarks.
Guess it's more headline fuckery, then? Cause I read that article as him siding with Trump now, and abandoning reality.
Is that not correct?
It’s him trying to say that he, and the responsible scientific community, is not advocating that the country stay in extreme lockdown until there is a vaccine and that there is a responsible path to opening, and that if people just wait and follow real guidelines and respond quickly and in a targeted fashion if things go wrong we can all have a much more satisfying life than we do today in 3 months time.
It’s not just the headline- the article paints his statements very differently than his actual words because CNBC is still a business outfit run by rich assholes who want the line to go up
He talks about using milestones to do it slowly and safely. He is couching his term 100% in what he has said before. Do it slowly and appropriately. He talks about if cases are going up and not using the benchmarks they should take extra precautions and such. Including enforcing social distancing, masks, and son.
He walks a fine line though and points to over and over again in the actual interview, not the CNBC cut up statements, that opening is fine if benchmarks are met. It is slow and monitored. And social distancing is maintained. None of which is a 180.
Open when you reach benchmarks is pretty much the standard line. Just no one has met those benchmarks.
Well that’ll teach me to only read the article.
I legit was reading it and noticing it didn't sound like him and I don't trust CNBC. Which also their opening question to him was idiotic. And once I listened to him directly it was what I wrote.
CNBC as pointed out is a news outlet focused much like the Wall Street Journal on the ultra-wealthy class and will talk to that group and willing cut and past things as they do it.
In Brazil, 15 percent of deaths have been people under 50 — a rate more than 10 times greater than in Italy or Spain. In Mexico, the trend is even more stark: Nearly one-fourth of the dead have been between 25 and 49. In India, officials reported this month that nearly half of the dead were younger than 60. In Rio de Janeiro state, more than two-thirds of hospitalizations are for people younger than 49.
A reminder this disease is not vicious and even the US we have been very much protected by having a developed medical system and even though we have systemic poverty it still is miles above many places in the world. And this disease is deadly to all ages.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well worth a read and good to pass to anyone who doesn’t seem to grasp how extremely nasty this disease can be if you are one of the unlucky ones.
Jam Warrior on
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The reason behind Trump pushing to reopen churches? Falling poll numbers among his base, the white evangelicals. Turns out, some of the death cultists really don't want to die themselves; they're fine with everyone else dying, but are absolutely terrified of it happening to them personally and it's starting to get through to them that viruses don't care about their tribal allegiances.
Treat government like a business - only worry about propping up your numbers for this current quarter. The next earnings report and Fox News poll needs to look good before all other concerns, including such minor concerns as how many people die to make that report/poll look good right now (or how the report/poll after next looks after all those deaths). Businesses will kill millions so the stock market numbers stay tepid, and Trump will kill his own base so his fee-fees today aren't hurt.
The reason behind Trump pushing to reopen churches? Falling poll numbers among his base, the white evangelicals. Turns out, some of the death cultists really don't want to die themselves; they're fine with everyone else dying, but are absolutely terrified of it happening to them personally and it's starting to get through to them that viruses don't care about their tribal allegiances.
Which seems inherently contradictory, given that mass gathering in churches, especially if sacrements are offered, or hymns are sung by the parishioners, seem like a potentially dangerous vector for the virus.
"I don't want to die, so I'll go to a place where we can pack dozens if not hundreds of people into tight quarters, share a cup, and exhale heavily in song."
Call me daft, but that seems like a bad combination for the stated goal of not wanting to die.
In Brazil, 15 percent of deaths have been people under 50 — a rate more than 10 times greater than in Italy or Spain. In Mexico, the trend is even more stark: Nearly one-fourth of the dead have been between 25 and 49. In India, officials reported this month that nearly half of the dead were younger than 60. In Rio de Janeiro state, more than two-thirds of hospitalizations are for people younger than 49.
A reminder this disease is not vicious and even the US we have been very much protected by having a developed medical system and even though we have systemic poverty it still is miles above many places in the world. And this disease is deadly to all ages.
I kinda have to wonder if it's not because most of the deaths from the 70+ crowd are just being written off as other causes. But when a 40 year old dies it's harder to cover up.
The reason behind Trump pushing to reopen churches? Falling poll numbers among his base, the white evangelicals. Turns out, some of the death cultists really don't want to die themselves; they're fine with everyone else dying, but are absolutely terrified of it happening to them personally and it's starting to get through to them that viruses don't care about their tribal allegiances.
Which seems inherently contradictory, given that mass gathering in churches, especially if sacrements are offered, or hymns are sung by the parishioners, seem like a potentially dangerous vector for the virus.
"I don't want to die, so I'll go to a place where we can pack dozens if not hundreds of people into tight quarters, share a cup, and exhale heavily in song."
Call me daft, but that seems like a bad combination for the stated goal of not wanting to die.
Churches are close to meat packing plants and shutdown protests in terms of creating case clusters.
Virginia's first death was a pastor who defied warnings, and most of their first ten or twenty were members of his family and his congregation.
The reason behind Trump pushing to reopen churches? Falling poll numbers among his base, the white evangelicals. Turns out, some of the death cultists really don't want to die themselves; they're fine with everyone else dying, but are absolutely terrified of it happening to them personally and it's starting to get through to them that viruses don't care about their tribal allegiances.
Which seems inherently contradictory, given that mass gathering in churches, especially if sacrements are offered, or hymns are sung by the parishioners, seem like a potentially dangerous vector for the virus.
"I don't want to die, so I'll go to a place where we can pack dozens if not hundreds of people into tight quarters, share a cup, and exhale heavily in song."
Call me daft, but that seems like a bad combination for the stated goal of not wanting to die.
Churches are close to meat packing plants and shutdown protests in terms of creating case clusters.
Virginia's first death was a pastor who defied warnings, and most of their first ten or twenty were members of his family and his congregation.
Church populations are much older on average than meat packing plant workers. Covid-19 spreads like a spark in dry brush among the elderly. Churches are often the only group social activity very frail elderly people take part in.
The reason behind Trump pushing to reopen churches? Falling poll numbers among his base, the white evangelicals. Turns out, some of the death cultists really don't want to die themselves; they're fine with everyone else dying, but are absolutely terrified of it happening to them personally and it's starting to get through to them that viruses don't care about their tribal allegiances.
Which seems inherently contradictory, given that mass gathering in churches, especially if sacrements are offered, or hymns are sung by the parishioners, seem like a potentially dangerous vector for the virus.
"I don't want to die, so I'll go to a place where we can pack dozens if not hundreds of people into tight quarters, share a cup, and exhale heavily in song."
Call me daft, but that seems like a bad combination for the stated goal of not wanting to die.
Churches are close to meat packing plants and shutdown protests in terms of creating case clusters.
Virginia's first death was a pastor who defied warnings, and most of their first ten or twenty were members of his family and his congregation.
Church populations are much older on average than meat packing plant workers. Covid-19 spreads like a spark in dry brush among the elderly. Churches are often the only group social activity very frail elderly people take part in.
And it's an activity that comes with built-in reassurance that God will protect you.
In Brazil, 15 percent of deaths have been people under 50 — a rate more than 10 times greater than in Italy or Spain. In Mexico, the trend is even more stark: Nearly one-fourth of the dead have been between 25 and 49. In India, officials reported this month that nearly half of the dead were younger than 60. In Rio de Janeiro state, more than two-thirds of hospitalizations are for people younger than 49.
A reminder this disease is not vicious and even the US we have been very much protected by having a developed medical system and even though we have systemic poverty it still is miles above many places in the world. And this disease is deadly to all ages.
I kinda have to wonder if it's not because most of the deaths from the 70+ crowd are just being written off as other causes. But when a 40 year old dies it's harder to cover up.
Also testing in places like Mexico or Brazil is even more anemic than in the US, and their populations are younger. You can trust utterly unreliable and skewed data to show you whats going on.
An inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. COVID-19 is an extremely contagious disease that can lead to severe illness and death … By visiting Walt Disney World Resort, you voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19.
Mark Schlissel, the president of the University of Michigan, says no football if there are no students on campus in the fall. Which you'd think wouldn't be a debate, but then you wouldn't know the NCAA.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
And how voluntary is it that their underpaid workers are going back to work to support this?
Mark Schlissel, the president of the University of Michigan, says no football if there are no students on campus in the fall. Which you'd think wouldn't be a debate, but then you wouldn't know the NCAA.
Is this a threat to say students need to be back on campus, or should this be read as a positive statement?
Mark Schlissel, the president of the University of Michigan, says no football if there are no students on campus in the fall. Which you'd think wouldn't be a debate, but then you wouldn't know the NCAA.
Is this a threat to say students need to be back on campus, or should this be read as a positive statement?
Depends how cynical you're feeling, but generally speaking Schlissel is a pure academic who only sort of understands big time college sports. He did not at all when he took the job, which made his first crisis being Brady Hoke's cluelessness endangering a football player's life and Dave Brandon trying to cover it up an interesting situation. In that situation he did the right thing (firing both). He also holds a professor position in immunology.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The reason behind Trump pushing to reopen churches? Falling poll numbers among his base, the white evangelicals. Turns out, some of the death cultists really don't want to die themselves; they're fine with everyone else dying, but are absolutely terrified of it happening to them personally and it's starting to get through to them that viruses don't care about their tribal allegiances.
Which seems inherently contradictory, given that mass gathering in churches, especially if sacrements are offered, or hymns are sung by the parishioners, seem like a potentially dangerous vector for the virus.
"I don't want to die, so I'll go to a place where we can pack dozens if not hundreds of people into tight quarters, share a cup, and exhale heavily in song."
Call me daft, but that seems like a bad combination for the stated goal of not wanting to die.
For what he's trying to do in terms of appealing to white conservative religious folk I'm pretty sure the point is less letting them go to church and more being seen fighting for "religious freedom" against the godless perfidious leftwingers and scientists and government and all that.
eg -
“Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential, but have left out churches and other houses of worship. It's not right. So, I'm correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential,“ Trump said.
Actually opening churches is almost besides the point.
Fossil fuel corporations and fossil fuel billionaires, of course. If the coronavirus response is the climate crisis on fast forward, the resistance to doing anything to make it less deadly of course comes from the fossil fuel groups. Notable funders are ExxonMobil, the Koch family foundation, and Murray Energy the bankrupt coal company which claims it doesn't even have the money now to pay its lawyers, but apparently can find enough coins under the couch cushions to fund campaigns to kill millions through negligence. The latter I can definitely believe is just trying to kill as many people as possible out of cruelty, at least.
Fossil fuel corporations and fossil fuel billionaires, of course. If the coronavirus response is the climate crisis on fast forward, the resistance to doing anything to make it less deadly of course comes from the fossil fuel groups. Notable funders are ExxonMobil, the Koch family foundation, and Murray Energy the bankrupt coal company which claims it doesn't even have the money now to pay its lawyers, but apparently can find enough coins under the couch cushions to fund campaigns to kill millions through negligence. The latter I can definitely believe is just trying to kill as many people as possible out of cruelty, at least.
You might just have been misreading the news. They're morally bankrupt, not bankrupt bankrupt. (Also, eat shit, Bob.)
Edit: I'm joking. They are also bankrupt bankrupt.
WHO is stopping all trials of hyroxocloroquine, as it is harming patients significantly more than it is helping them (if it is helping them at all).
Via Norwegian public broadcaster NRK (in Norwegian).
So...
Trump's clearly going to take this well, and not use this as "proof" that America defunding their contribution to WHO in the middle of a pandemic isn't the most stupid fucking outcome.
Trump will say fifty things, who cares. It's essential that the trials be stopped, because it's literally hurting people. Can't bother stressing about what the guy will do.
The long-awaited study, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appeared on The New England Journal of Medicine website on Friday evening. It confirms the essence of the government’s assertions: Remdesivir shortened recovery time from 15 days to 11 days in hospitalized patients. The study defined recovery as “either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization.”
The trial was rigorous, randomly assigning 1,063 seriously ill patients to receive either remdesivir or a placebo. Those who received the drug not only recovered faster but also did not have serious adverse events more often than those who were given the placebo.
Trump will say fifty things, who cares. It's essential that the trials be stopped, because it's literally hurting people. Can't bother stressing about what the guy will do.
The world is moving on from American leadership. As other countries return to normal and the virus continues to burn hot here, they will also move on from trade, university education, and research in favor of safer nations.
The long-awaited study, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appeared on The New England Journal of Medicine website on Friday evening. It confirms the essence of the government’s assertions: Remdesivir shortened recovery time from 15 days to 11 days in hospitalized patients. The study defined recovery as “either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization.”
The trial was rigorous, randomly assigning 1,063 seriously ill patients to receive either remdesivir or a placebo. Those who received the drug not only recovered faster but also did not have serious adverse events more often than those who were given the placebo.
There's been some discussion of this in the discussion thread.
My understanding (not a medical doctor or biochemist/chemical engineer):
It's promising, but more studies are needed (and this one changed the target from reduce deaths to reduce recuperation time mid-study).The biggest issue appears to be that it's a bitch and a half to synthesis the drug. So it's highly unlikely to be deployable at scale anytime soon. (It's possible that they can optimize the production process, but that'll take a lot of time.)
The long-awaited study, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appeared on The New England Journal of Medicine website on Friday evening. It confirms the essence of the government’s assertions: Remdesivir shortened recovery time from 15 days to 11 days in hospitalized patients. The study defined recovery as “either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization.”
The trial was rigorous, randomly assigning 1,063 seriously ill patients to receive either remdesivir or a placebo. Those who received the drug not only recovered faster but also did not have serious adverse events more often than those who were given the placebo.
Indeed, and while we shouldn't read too much into clinical outcomes which didn't have the statistical power to provide a good p value, I would propose that a good way to look at this data is that the balance of probability is that remdesivir not only reduces hospital stays (clearly ststistically significant data) but that it also will be shown to decrease the death rate in larger trials but we cannot yet be certain.
The long-awaited study, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appeared on The New England Journal of Medicine website on Friday evening. It confirms the essence of the government’s assertions: Remdesivir shortened recovery time from 15 days to 11 days in hospitalized patients. The study defined recovery as “either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization.”
The trial was rigorous, randomly assigning 1,063 seriously ill patients to receive either remdesivir or a placebo. Those who received the drug not only recovered faster but also did not have serious adverse events more often than those who were given the placebo.
There's been some discussion of this in the discussion thread.
My understanding (not a medical doctor or biochemist/chemical engineer):
It's promising, but more studies are needed (and this one changed the target from reduce deaths to reduce recuperation time mid-study).The biggest issue appears to be that it's a bitch and a half to synthesis the drug. So it's highly unlikely to be deployable at scale anytime soon. (It's possible that they can optimize the production process, but that'll take a lot of time.)
Yeah, I saw that, but my point was that all those who are pushing chlorowhatsit as a miracle drug haven't paid any attention at all to remdesivir which might well be. It's interesting.
Trump will say fifty things, who cares. It's essential that the trials be stopped, because it's literally hurting people. Can't bother stressing about what the guy will do.
The world is moving on from American leadership. As other countries return to normal and the virus continues to burn hot here, they will also move on from trade, university education, and research in favor of safer nations.
The problem is it really isn't "moving on". America isn't providing any leadership, but thanks in part to this originating in China, no one is stepping in to fill the leadership void. The world is now the Chicago Bears circa 2015. The team has stopped relying on Jay Cutler to lead them, Great!..now what?
Posts
Did you listen to him?
It wasn't as much as a 180.
He talks about using milestones to do it slowly and safely. He is couching his term 100% in what he has said before. Do it slowly and appropriately. He talks about if cases are going up and not using the benchmarks they should take extra precautions and such. Including enforcing social distancing, masks, and son.
He walks a fine line though and points to over and over again in the actual interview, not the CNBC cut up statements, that opening is fine if benchmarks are met. It is slow and monitored. And social distancing is maintained. None of which is a 180.
Open when you reach benchmarks is pretty much the standard line. Just no one has met those benchmarks.
Well that’ll teach me to only read the article.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Is that not correct?
It’s him trying to say that he, and the responsible scientific community, is not advocating that the country stay in extreme lockdown until there is a vaccine and that there is a responsible path to opening, and that if people just wait and follow real guidelines and respond quickly and in a targeted fashion if things go wrong we can all have a much more satisfying life than we do today in 3 months time.
I legit was reading it and noticing it didn't sound like him and I don't trust CNBC. Which also their opening question to him was idiotic. And once I listened to him directly it was what I wrote.
CNBC as pointed out is a news outlet focused much like the Wall Street Journal on the ultra-wealthy class and will talk to that group and willing cut and past things as they do it.
A reminder this disease is not vicious and even the US we have been very much protected by having a developed medical system and even though we have systemic poverty it still is miles above many places in the world. And this disease is deadly to all ages.
As a reminder, the head of the CDC is a flunky.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52760992
Well worth a read and good to pass to anyone who doesn’t seem to grasp how extremely nasty this disease can be if you are one of the unlucky ones.
Treat government like a business - only worry about propping up your numbers for this current quarter. The next earnings report and Fox News poll needs to look good before all other concerns, including such minor concerns as how many people die to make that report/poll look good right now (or how the report/poll after next looks after all those deaths). Businesses will kill millions so the stock market numbers stay tepid, and Trump will kill his own base so his fee-fees today aren't hurt.
Which seems inherently contradictory, given that mass gathering in churches, especially if sacrements are offered, or hymns are sung by the parishioners, seem like a potentially dangerous vector for the virus.
"I don't want to die, so I'll go to a place where we can pack dozens if not hundreds of people into tight quarters, share a cup, and exhale heavily in song."
Call me daft, but that seems like a bad combination for the stated goal of not wanting to die.
I kinda have to wonder if it's not because most of the deaths from the 70+ crowd are just being written off as other causes. But when a 40 year old dies it's harder to cover up.
Churches are close to meat packing plants and shutdown protests in terms of creating case clusters.
Virginia's first death was a pastor who defied warnings, and most of their first ten or twenty were members of his family and his congregation.
Church populations are much older on average than meat packing plant workers. Covid-19 spreads like a spark in dry brush among the elderly. Churches are often the only group social activity very frail elderly people take part in.
And it's an activity that comes with built-in reassurance that God will protect you.
Also testing in places like Mexico or Brazil is even more anemic than in the US, and their populations are younger. You can trust utterly unreliable and skewed data to show you whats going on.
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/regional/florida/disney-coronavirus-risk-message/67-3e51df7d-3767-4b46-94a2-133083f54152
They are requiring face coverings, at least, if you're 3 and older.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't know about toddlers but my "weeee I'm a ninja" phase never ends.
Is this a threat to say students need to be back on campus, or should this be read as a positive statement?
Depends how cynical you're feeling, but generally speaking Schlissel is a pure academic who only sort of understands big time college sports. He did not at all when he took the job, which made his first crisis being Brady Hoke's cluelessness endangering a football player's life and Dave Brandon trying to cover it up an interesting situation. In that situation he did the right thing (firing both). He also holds a professor position in immunology.
For what he's trying to do in terms of appealing to white conservative religious folk I'm pretty sure the point is less letting them go to church and more being seen fighting for "religious freedom" against the godless perfidious leftwingers and scientists and government and all that.
eg -
Actually opening churches is almost besides the point.
Fossil fuel corporations and fossil fuel billionaires, of course. If the coronavirus response is the climate crisis on fast forward, the resistance to doing anything to make it less deadly of course comes from the fossil fuel groups. Notable funders are ExxonMobil, the Koch family foundation, and Murray Energy the bankrupt coal company which claims it doesn't even have the money now to pay its lawyers, but apparently can find enough coins under the couch cushions to fund campaigns to kill millions through negligence. The latter I can definitely believe is just trying to kill as many people as possible out of cruelty, at least.
Via Norwegian public broadcaster NRK (in Norwegian).
You might just have been misreading the news. They're morally bankrupt, not bankrupt bankrupt. (Also, eat shit, Bob.)
Edit: I'm joking. They are also bankrupt bankrupt.
So...
Trump's clearly going to take this well, and not use this as "proof" that America defunding their contribution to WHO in the middle of a pandemic isn't the most stupid fucking outcome.
Right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/health/coronavirus-remdesivir.html
The world is moving on from American leadership. As other countries return to normal and the virus continues to burn hot here, they will also move on from trade, university education, and research in favor of safer nations.
There's been some discussion of this in the discussion thread.
My understanding (not a medical doctor or biochemist/chemical engineer):
It's promising, but more studies are needed (and this one changed the target from reduce deaths to reduce recuperation time mid-study).The biggest issue appears to be that it's a bitch and a half to synthesis the drug. So it's highly unlikely to be deployable at scale anytime soon. (It's possible that they can optimize the production process, but that'll take a lot of time.)
Indeed, and while we shouldn't read too much into clinical outcomes which didn't have the statistical power to provide a good p value, I would propose that a good way to look at this data is that the balance of probability is that remdesivir not only reduces hospital stays (clearly ststistically significant data) but that it also will be shown to decrease the death rate in larger trials but we cannot yet be certain.
Yeah, I saw that, but my point was that all those who are pushing chlorowhatsit as a miracle drug haven't paid any attention at all to remdesivir which might well be. It's interesting.
No one really talks about Avigan, either.
The problem is it really isn't "moving on". America isn't providing any leadership, but thanks in part to this originating in China, no one is stepping in to fill the leadership void. The world is now the Chicago Bears circa 2015. The team has stopped relying on Jay Cutler to lead them, Great!..now what?