This plus Dogfish Head being bought by Boston Brewing Co make me less sad about missing the annual trip to Rehoboth (which was scheduled for last week!)
Well my baseless hope that those sniffles I got at the end of January were COVID seem dashed. Thanks a lot stupid Red Cross!
They have the antibody test as part of their basic testing stuff and they share the result with you so that's kind of nice. I'm wondering if they're doing that testing for safety or as part of an infection tracking operation.
Los Angeles County health officials issued a dire warning Monday that conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic are deteriorating rapidly and the highly contagious virus is spreading swiftly in the nation’s most populous county.
They said they are now faced with one of their biggest fears: that the reopening of L.A. County would coincide with sudden jumps in disease transmission that have the potential to overwhelm public and private hospitals.
Again, remdesivir has shown no benefit with regard to death rate. It's not a life saving medication. It may reduce hospital stays by 2-4 days, but that's about it.
As an aside, I'm struggling with today's news considerably. Everyone's outrage is valid, and I feel ashamed of my profession.
If you are a hospital with a course of Remdesivir on hand, then it is absolutely worth it to use it on a patient at $3k. The mean cut in stay time is 4 days, which would cost at least $12k, and from a patient perspective it cuts time on ventilators/oxygen etc as well. It may have shown no signal on mortality yet, however it is certainly a health benefit for you to leave the hospital sooner as it means you can begin an at home recovery sooner and have less chance of acquiring a hospital acquired infection (because you have left the hospital)
It is foolish of Gilead to charge this much, but, this is just the ridiculous nonsense way that US health insurance worth. They say the drug costs a batrillion dollars, every major hospital has a negotioted plan for 75% off, then the insurers give another 75% discount and then medicare gets a discount again.
The price being $3k doesn't mean much to what your bill might be. It just means that people without insurance are fucked. BUT, short of literally giving the drug away to people with insurance, they are pretty much obliged to price it in a way where those without insurance can't afford it.
It's the fault of the medical system in this country. Not really Gilead, although, I'd have argued in this case that they should have created a charitable foundation whose responsibility was the manufacture of the drug and who would be assigned 90% of all profits for the next 6 months. or something.
I just want to highlight some really important things. I hope you read this.
The ACTT1 study for remdesivir (the one everyone quotes for remdesivir as a positive drug) used time to recovery as their clinical endpoint.
One might assume this means recovery like we would think (feeling better, not in the hospital). However, the study classified time to recovery as
The primary outcome measure was the time to recovery, defined as the first day, during the 28 days after enrollment, on which a patient satisfied categories 1, 2, or 3 on the eight-category ordinal scale. The categories are as follows: 1, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities; 2, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both; 3, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care (used if hospitalization was extended for infection-control reasons).
1 is the ideal situation. 2 and 3 are both still pretty bad! We don't know if remdesivir decreased time to recovery in a certain way. It is a weird study design but I get that they wanted to capture a lot of possibilities.
Now, let's take a look at the actual graphs. First off, comparing survival curves is a super complicated process in the first place and there are a lot of statistical requirements to actually make it okay to compare survival curves. Given that this is in a medical journal, they definitely did not look at this. Also this was not a mean decrease of 4 days. This was a median decrease of 4 days for a group of categories lumped together. When you look at the individual categories, it looks a lot less promising.
Survival curves have a blurry interval around them that show how certain the result might be. When two curves have overlapping intervals, it is really hard to say that there is a true difference between them.
Overall yes there is a good separation of curves (but really this is not super exciting data). The overlap is very bad for patients who don't receive oxygen. Remdesivir did nothing for this population. Remdesivir helped patients receiving oxygen, but super duper did not help patients on mechanical ventilation, ECMO, or high-flow oxygen. So there is a specific group of people who Remdesivir maybe helped (in a very vague way).
And you don't have to listen to me. You can read what the authors themselves said.
These preliminary findings support the use of remdesivir for patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19 and require supplemental oxygen therapy. However, given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient.
Indeed, I reviewed that paper in some detail. Its an excellent study design which really got into the details of how Remdesivir offers real benefits to patients (primarily by getting them off Oxygen sooner) and healthcare systems. Nothing weird about it at all, results are clear and statistically significant.
Remdesivir is beneficial, it is not a slam dunk as a treatment by any means, but there is clear evidence (as you just showed) it helps you recover faster. It is absolutely worth $3k to a patient in terms of the likely financial and health benefits to them. Should Gilead have charged less? Clearly so, but, the problem is the environment in which our hospitals operate in which 'Price' is a nonsensical concept which means nothing in terms of the money Gilead expects to make, the money hospitals will pay, or the bill patients will receive.
Honestly my main takeaway is, "Theres solid signal there that it helps people not on oxygen, but your trial for them wasn't big enough and 'too many' of the placebo patients recovered by themselves. You need a bigger trial because your error bars were too big and included '~100% recover' ". Its clearly only an OK drug here, but those curves in the oxygen requiring cohort are pretty darn clear. If I'm on Oxygen, I want Remdesivir immediately.
Also, those curves make me really want to see the similar data for dexamathasone.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+1
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
snip large image
This plus Dogfish Head being bought by Boston Brewing Co make me less sad about missing the annual trip to Rehoboth (which was scheduled for last week!)
one moment please while I scream incoherently into the fucking void. fucking tourists. (not directed at you personally.
I know mom hasn't been anywhere near there but... still.
Los Angeles County health officials issued a dire warning Monday that conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic are deteriorating rapidly and the highly contagious virus is spreading swiftly in the nation’s most populous county.
They said they are now faced with one of their biggest fears: that the reopening of L.A. County would coincide with sudden jumps in disease transmission that have the potential to overwhelm public and private hospitals.
OH REALLY, YA THINK SO?
Well hi-dee-ho looks like it's time for another round of "can't find any fucking supplies in the store because assholes are gonna hoard".
It has been literal months since I've even SEEN a container of disinfectant wipes.
Selfishly, the closing of LA beaches for 4th of July weekend is maybe the most upsetting closure so far for me. I just want to sit far away from people on the sand all day like I do every year.
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
lets check in and see what the big financial brains have to say... oh
Every single last little part of that has me hyperventilating with rage. Are there studies out yet that say it's worth that price point, or is it still in the "might be slightly useful maybe" stage? Like, don't put me on that, I'm not paying for it for the slight maybe-benefit it seems to show. I'll take my chances with the disease.
This ire is not directed at you at all but just reading the phrase 'worth the price point' as it pertains to treatment of a potentially deadly and extremely infectious disease has my face turning red
Yeah I know, but I live in the US and that's where we are. And generally speaking, you can't put a price on life. Frankly, I don't even know where I was going with it. It wouldn't have been better to charge a bunch if it saved more lives. Preliminary studies don't seem to show there's much there and if that's the case IMO it probably shouldn't be offered. They shouldn't be talking about how much they're going to charge for it at all before they know it's worthwhile in the first place. I think the real reason they're talking about it this way is that they already stepped up production assuming it would be worth it, and they are going to push the ever-loving shit out of it either way.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
lets check in and see what the big financial brains have to say... oh
Every single last little part of that has me hyperventilating with rage. Are there studies out yet that say it's worth that price point, or is it still in the "might be slightly useful maybe" stage? Like, don't put me on that, I'm not paying for it for the slight maybe-benefit it seems to show. I'll take my chances with the disease.
This ire is not directed at you at all but just reading the phrase 'worth the price point' as it pertains to treatment of a potentially deadly and extremely infectious disease has my face turning red
Yeah I know, but I live in the US and that's where we are. And generally speaking, you can't put a price on life. Frankly, I don't even know where I was going with it. It wouldn't have been better to charge a bunch if it saved more lives. Preliminary studies don't seem to show there's much there and if that's the case IMO it probably shouldn't be offered. They shouldn't be talking about how much they're going to charge for it at all before they know it's worthwhile in the first place. I think the real reason they're talking about it this way is that they already stepped up production assuming it would be worth it, and they are going to push the ever-loving shit out of it either way.
I assume they're quoting prices so that they can "negotiate" down when the federal government starts paying for the drug before any additional study is done. It's all varying forms of scheme. A pandemic is a great time to be in pharma. Always look for the naked capitalist in every executive to ever figure out how they can filter public money into private gains.
It actually seems to be unrelated to handmaidens tale and predates the show at least. The “Balm of Gilead” was an actual real life folk medicine that eventually people started believing had magic powers.
it very slightly postdates the book (1985 vs 1987), but yeah, that's obviously not the reference.
I mean, they are both slightly creepy references to a biblical allusion. It was probably not intentionally creepy on the companies part given the 80's. FWIW I have heard Balm of Gilead referenced in a mostly secular way: It was a use name for a plant from the Adirondacks that came up in some songs as it was used as medicine by loggers and such.
That awkward feeling when the culture shifts and the uplifting, benevolent thing your company was named for 40 years ago is now associated with extremist theocratic fascism :redface:
It actually seems to be unrelated to handmaidens tale and predates the show at least. The “Balm of Gilead” was an actual real life folk medicine that eventually people started believing had magic powers.
it very slightly postdates the book (1985 vs 1987), but yeah, that's obviously not the reference.
I mean, they are both slightly creepy references to a biblical allusion. It was probably not intentionally creepy on the companies part given the 80's. FWIW I have heard Balm of Gilead referenced in a mostly secular way: It was a use name for a plant from the Adirondacks that came up in some songs as it was used as medicine by loggers and such.
That awkward feeling when the culture shifts and the uplifting, benevolent thing your company was named for 40 years ago is now associated with extremist theocratic fascism :redface:
Having it be named after what I assume was probably a snake oil was better?
It actually seems to be unrelated to handmaidens tale and predates the show at least. The “Balm of Gilead” was an actual real life folk medicine that eventually people started believing had magic powers.
it very slightly postdates the book (1985 vs 1987), but yeah, that's obviously not the reference.
I mean, they are both slightly creepy references to a biblical allusion. It was probably not intentionally creepy on the companies part given the 80's. FWIW I have heard Balm of Gilead referenced in a mostly secular way: It was a use name for a plant from the Adirondacks that came up in some songs as it was used as medicine by loggers and such.
That awkward feeling when the culture shifts and the uplifting, benevolent thing your company was named for 40 years ago is now associated with extremist theocratic fascism :redface:
Having it be named after what I assume was probably a snake oil was better?
lets check in and see what the big financial brains have to say... oh
Every single last little part of that has me hyperventilating with rage. Are there studies out yet that say it's worth that price point, or is it still in the "might be slightly useful maybe" stage? Like, don't put me on that, I'm not paying for it for the slight maybe-benefit it seems to show. I'll take my chances with the disease.
This ire is not directed at you at all but just reading the phrase 'worth the price point' as it pertains to treatment of a potentially deadly and extremely infectious disease has my face turning red
Yeah I know, but I live in the US and that's where we are. And generally speaking, you can't put a price on life. Frankly, I don't even know where I was going with it. It wouldn't have been better to charge a bunch if it saved more lives. Preliminary studies don't seem to show there's much there and if that's the case IMO it probably shouldn't be offered. They shouldn't be talking about how much they're going to charge for it at all before they know it's worthwhile in the first place. I think the real reason they're talking about it this way is that they already stepped up production assuming it would be worth it, and they are going to push the ever-loving shit out of it either way.
You CAN put a price on life. Half the reason we're in this mess is that we as a country in the US refuse to admit that we can and should do that. Every other country in the world engages in cost controls by starting from the foundational assumption that there is a reasonable price that society should be willing to pay to extend the life of one of it's members by one year, and if that year is shitty, then the price should be discounted. Not making this assumption is why the US operates in this ridiculous price fugue state where you might be billed a million dollars for a CT scan, or $500k for a week in a hospital bed. Because you 'can't put a price on life', which translates to saying, "There is no price too great to charge for something which saves lives" which in turn translates to saying, "As this item has infinite value, it is fair that it is denied to those who are poor"
In the US market, the price is absolutely worth it. If you are administered the drug, you may expect to save ~$9000 off the price of your hospital stay, and you may expect your bed to be available for someone else 4 days sooner, potentially saving more lives. A Phase 3 double blind placebo clinical trial has been completed and returned statistically significant results. The drug works. This is not some random preprint. Both the EU and US have approved its use to treat Covid19. The drug may do more than just reduce your hospital stay time, but, the trial was not large enough to prove that, primarily because not very many of the low severity control group died and so the experiment lacked enough power to prove that it could help them (because the low severity control groups bar overlaps with the best possible data point for remdesivir even if it cured every patient in the group)
*infographic showing the southern states going full "Yeah, that can't happen here"*
- Carl T. Bergstrom is a biology professor at UW, and the infographic is from Johns Hopkins.
I do find it interesting that several places (AZ, KS, TX) have gone "Whoa, whoa, what the fuck!". A little late, sure, but honestly, I expected them to go full "ride orand die" with Trump on this. Them undercutting the President in any way is actually a surprise.
Sure, Kansas has a Democratic governor, but I kinda expected her to be not as liberal as she appears to be.
MorganV on
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
You CAN put a price on life. Half the reason we're in this mess is that we as a country in the US refuse to admit that we can and should do that. Every other country in the world engages in cost controls by starting from the foundational assumption that there is a reasonable price that society should be willing to pay to extend the life of one of it's members by one year, and if that year is shitty, then the price should be discounted. Not making this assumption is why the US operates in this ridiculous price fugue state where you might be billed a million dollars for a CT scan, or $500k for a week in a hospital bed. Because you 'can't put a price on life', which translates to saying, "There is no price too great to charge for something which saves lives" which in turn translates to saying, "As this item has infinite value, it is fair that it is denied to those who are poor"
I hated reading this but I never really thought of it that way. Or I guess maybe I think of it that way every time I think of the jerk in charge of setting the price on epi-pens, which was exactly that: you should be willing to pay whatever price they set because of what it does, despite the fact that the actual manufacturing cost is pennies.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
*infographic showing the southern states going full "Yeah, that can't happen here"*
- Carl T. Bergstrom is a biology professor at UW, and the infographic is from Johns Hopkins.
I do find it interesting that several places (AZ, KS, TX) have gone "Whoa, whoa, what the fuck!". A little late, sure, but honestly, I expected them to go full "ride orand die" with Trump on this. Them undercutting the President in any way is actually a surprise.
Sure, Kansas has a Democratic governor, but I kinda expected her to be not as liberal as she appears to be.
hoooooly shit, I opened that and a few down in related tweets there was one from Mitch McConnell about how there should be no stigma for wearing masks. That makes me so angry.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
+5
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Why is every big company and right-wing organization not selling branded two-cent masks for people to wear for $29.99 each, it's a whole new clothing slot that previously had nothing just waiting to be filled by something that people will pay for, what kind of capitalist nightmare is this anyway, God these people are the worst
There is so much money to be made in selling them and even more money to be made in requiring them, this makes no sense, what even is this world.
The only thing more important than money is identity.
In fact, the mask thing is great for broadcasting identity! It has a tangible cost! It says "Look, I'm part of this group, and I'm willing to literally die to show my fealty."
So well done Republicans, you've tied medical advice to identity, and we all get to reap the whirlwind.
But masks don't show your identity, they just show your stupid face. Like the weirdos with the snake flags? Those could have been masks. Gun "enthusiast"? Get one from your favorite manufacturer. Christian? Communicate the piece of scripture most important to you with the simple code of chapter and verse, and then people will have to pick up a bible to see what it says! This shit writes itself.
I just do not understand this. You can get your fans, your consumers, your in-group to pay you a whole lot for a two-cent piece of fabric to advertise for you, and help them stay safer so they can keep doing it. That's capitalism.
All I ask is a little internal consistency.
The part you're missing is where their chosen one has made it a point of identity that masks are for liberal babies. People who wear masks aren't one of us. So why sell them?
Yeah I've got no idea why the clothing companies aren't jumping on this though. Why aren't there Gucci brand masks out there for $200 a pop? Or are the higher-ups that deep into Trumpism too?
*infographic showing the southern states going full "Yeah, that can't happen here"*
- Carl T. Bergstrom is a biology professor at UW, and the infographic is from Johns Hopkins.
I do find it interesting that several places (AZ, KS, TX) have gone "Whoa, whoa, what the fuck!". A little late, sure, but honestly, I expected them to go full "ride orand die" with Trump on this. Them undercutting the President in any way is actually a surprise.
Sure, Kansas has a Democratic governor, but I kinda expected her to be not as liberal as she appears to be.
hoooooly shit, I opened that and a few down in related tweets there was one from Mitch McConnell about how there should be no stigma for wearing masks. That makes me so angry.
"Both our Hugo’s Tacos locations are now closed temporarily. We look forward to reopening again soon when it’s safe!"
- Hugo's Tacos is a two location restaurant that closed voluntarily because their staff were getting verbal and physical abuse for requiring masks for service.
Masks are a political issue, only because the President has made it one.
Sure, there would be a small percentage of "sovereign citizen" dickheads that'd take it as an affront to their personal liberties, but the reason it's a big fucking issue is because of the vain wanker in the White House not wanting his bronzer to wear off on the mask.
You CAN put a price on life. Half the reason we're in this mess is that we as a country in the US refuse to admit that we can and should do that. Every other country in the world engages in cost controls by starting from the foundational assumption that there is a reasonable price that society should be willing to pay to extend the life of one of it's members by one year, and if that year is shitty, then the price should be discounted. Not making this assumption is why the US operates in this ridiculous price fugue state where you might be billed a million dollars for a CT scan, or $500k for a week in a hospital bed. Because you 'can't put a price on life', which translates to saying, "There is no price too great to charge for something which saves lives" which in turn translates to saying, "As this item has infinite value, it is fair that it is denied to those who are poor"
I hated reading this but I never really thought of it that way. Or I guess maybe I think of it that way every time I think of the jerk in charge of setting the price on epi-pens, which was exactly that: you should be willing to pay whatever price they set because of what it does, despite the fact that the actual manufacturing cost is pennies.
I'm not particularly mad at remdesivir price gouging because there are so many better examples of medical ripoffs that are even worse crimes of the soul, like insulin pricing. It's a drop in a bucket of nightmares.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+5
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
lets check in and see what the big financial brains have to say... oh
Every single last little part of that has me hyperventilating with rage. Are there studies out yet that say it's worth that price point, or is it still in the "might be slightly useful maybe" stage? Like, don't put me on that, I'm not paying for it for the slight maybe-benefit it seems to show. I'll take my chances with the disease.
This ire is not directed at you at all but just reading the phrase 'worth the price point' as it pertains to treatment of a potentially deadly and extremely infectious disease has my face turning red
Yeah I know, but I live in the US and that's where we are. And generally speaking, you can't put a price on life. Frankly, I don't even know where I was going with it. It wouldn't have been better to charge a bunch if it saved more lives. Preliminary studies don't seem to show there's much there and if that's the case IMO it probably shouldn't be offered. They shouldn't be talking about how much they're going to charge for it at all before they know it's worthwhile in the first place. I think the real reason they're talking about it this way is that they already stepped up production assuming it would be worth it, and they are going to push the ever-loving shit out of it either way.
You CAN put a price on life. Half the reason we're in this mess is that we as a country in the US refuse to admit that we can and should do that. Every other country in the world engages in cost controls by starting from the foundational assumption that there is a reasonable price that society should be willing to pay to extend the life of one of it's members by one year, and if that year is shitty, then the price should be discounted. Not making this assumption is why the US operates in this ridiculous price fugue state where you might be billed a million dollars for a CT scan, or $500k for a week in a hospital bed. Because you 'can't put a price on life', which translates to saying, "There is no price too great to charge for something which saves lives" which in turn translates to saying, "As this item has infinite value, it is fair that it is denied to those who are poor"
In the US market, the price is absolutely worth it. If you are administered the drug, you may expect to save ~$9000 off the price of your hospital stay, and you may expect your bed to be available for someone else 4 days sooner, potentially saving more lives. A Phase 3 double blind placebo clinical trial has been completed and returned statistically significant results. The drug works. This is not some random preprint. Both the EU and US have approved its use to treat Covid19. The drug may do more than just reduce your hospital stay time, but, the trial was not large enough to prove that, primarily because not very many of the low severity control group died and so the experiment lacked enough power to prove that it could help them (because the low severity control groups bar overlaps with the best possible data point for remdesivir even if it cured every patient in the group)
The US insurance industry has many problems, but the inability to put a dollar value on a life and the treatments that can extend it is definitely not one of them. They manage to do those calculations all the time. The US system just places a higher value on corporate profits.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+4
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Taking bets on whether or not medicaid will cover remdesivir
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Taking bets on whether or not medicaid will cover remdesivir
I believe the administration will want it to be covered because it gives money to the right people. I also think there's a push to kill the preexisting conditions clause in the ACA still and there's already several editorials by experts saying that COVID-19 related illness might end up being a preexisting condition.
So, give money from a social service that helps the elderly to rich people who own pharma? check.
Try to turbofuck anyone not of the proper demographic and make sure insurers don't have to cover anything? check.
I think there's probably enough push back the second thing wont happen, and there may not be enough money in the system for the first thing to happen without adjusting pricing/budget/healthcare. So even with malicious intent this could end out a watershed event for hospital systems and HMOs. It's of their own doing, however.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Found out yesterday that the day before we visited her (an already set up meeting) my mom went to a restaurant with friends door three hours.
She told me she has taken a COVID test but the results won't be back for a few days.
My fiancee and I feel fine and I believe the risk of transmission is low so soon after infection (assuming she has it) but it's like, jesus fuck.
When I said it was dumb she actually said that she agrees and stuff should be shut down as if she had to go.
Taking bets on whether or not medicaid will cover remdesivir
I believe the administration will want it to be covered because it gives money to the right people. I also think there's a push to kill the preexisting conditions clause in the ACA still and there's already several editorials by experts saying that COVID-19 related illness might end up being a preexisting condition.
So, give money from a social service that helps the elderly to rich people who own pharma? check.
Try to turbofuck anyone not of the proper demographic and make sure insurers don't have to cover anything? check.
I think there's probably enough push back the second thing wont happen, and there may not be enough money in the system for the first thing to happen without adjusting pricing/budget/healthcare. So even with malicious intent this could end out a watershed event for hospital systems and HMOs. It's of their own doing, however.
I've read blog posts running hypotheticals on how COVID is going to impact insurance rates going forward. It's a combination of long-term side effects from infection, trying to recoup expenses from this year, and the risk of future outbreaks. Just another example of the misery that is the USA's health care system.
I guess it's another reason to try and contain this thing because people are going to be paying for it one way or another.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I know typically it's recommended to wash clothing you purchase before wearing. Do you think that applies to stuff like rewashable face masks you buy from Etsy and the like?
I know typically it's recommended to wash clothing you purchase before wearing. Do you think that applies to stuff like rewashable face masks you buy from Etsy and the like?
I know typically it's recommended to wash clothing you purchase before wearing. Do you think that applies to stuff like rewashable face masks you buy from Etsy and the like?
Yes.
Yup. Any time you don't know what material had been treated with prior to its purchase, it should be properly washed.
Also, there's a non-zero chance the person making your mask has Covid, and depending how quickly you get it, a non-zero chance that the virus is still potent.
And that'd be a fucking dumbest way possible to contract it.
MorganV on
+3
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
I know typically it's recommended to wash clothing you purchase before wearing. Do you think that applies to stuff like rewashable face masks you buy from Etsy and the like?
Yes.
Yup. Any time you don't know what material had been treated with prior to its purchase, it should be properly washed.
Also, there's a non-zero chance the person making your mask has Covid, and depending how quickly you get it, a non-zero chance that the virus is still potent.
And that'd be a fucking dumbest way possible to contract it.
Hard disagree.
Source: videos of COVID conspiracy idiots
+10
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
As states grapple with how to safely start the upcoming school year, the American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for students to be physically present in classrooms rather than continue in remote learning for the sake of their well-being.
The group, which represents and guides pediatricians across the country, updated its back-to-school recommendations to say evidence shows the academic, mental and physical benefits of in-person learning outweigh the risks from the coronavirus.
"The AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school," the group said on its website.
Why is every big company and right-wing organization not selling branded two-cent masks for people to wear for $29.99 each, it's a whole new clothing slot that previously had nothing just waiting to be filled by something that people will pay for, what kind of capitalist nightmare is this anyway, God these people are the worst
There is so much money to be made in selling them and even more money to be made in requiring them, this makes no sense, what even is this world.
The only thing more important than money is identity.
In fact, the mask thing is great for broadcasting identity! It has a tangible cost! It says "Look, I'm part of this group, and I'm willing to literally die to show my fealty."
So well done Republicans, you've tied medical advice to identity, and we all get to reap the whirlwind.
But masks don't show your identity, they just show your stupid face. Like the weirdos with the snake flags? Those could have been masks. Gun "enthusiast"? Get one from your favorite manufacturer. Christian? Communicate the piece of scripture most important to you with the simple code of chapter and verse, and then people will have to pick up a bible to see what it says! This shit writes itself.
I just do not understand this. You can get your fans, your consumers, your in-group to pay you a whole lot for a two-cent piece of fabric to advertise for you, and help them stay safer so they can keep doing it. That's capitalism.
All I ask is a little internal consistency.
The part you're missing is where their chosen one has made it a point of identity that masks are for liberal babies. People who wear masks aren't one of us. So why sell them?
Yeah I've got no idea why the clothing companies aren't jumping on this though. Why aren't there Gucci brand masks out there for $200 a pop? Or are the higher-ups that deep into Trumpism too?
They are starting to. My guess is that those businesses took the fairly reasonable assumption that surgical and N95 mask producers would be ramping up production (probably due to the judicious use of the Defense Production Act to ensure our safety in a pandemic, obviously) and so people would just buy those instead of a repurposed t-shirt pattern with some rubberbands.
Plus, I would imagine that clothing purchases have broadly dropped thanks to the pandemic, so swapping out patterns to compete with literal medical suppliers versus just shutting down lines seemed a silly idea.
As states grapple with how to safely start the upcoming school year, the American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for students to be physically present in classrooms rather than continue in remote learning for the sake of their well-being.
The group, which represents and guides pediatricians across the country, updated its back-to-school recommendations to say evidence shows the academic, mental and physical benefits of in-person learning outweigh the risks from the coronavirus.
"The AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school," the group said on its website.
This is remarkably short sighted.
Eh, home/online schooling is pretty unequivocally shit and I can see it being harmful in the long term.
It seems to be one of the lower risk things on the whole with adequate precautions, so maybe society could give up their beach trips/bar crawl binge drinking/eyes wide shut costume orgies for a little bit as an offset so that kids don’t have to go without a whole year of proper schooling?
Posts
She deserves more but it's something.
This plus Dogfish Head being bought by Boston Brewing Co make me less sad about missing the annual trip to Rehoboth (which was scheduled for last week!)
They have the antibody test as part of their basic testing stuff and they share the result with you so that's kind of nice. I'm wondering if they're doing that testing for safety or as part of an infection tracking operation.
OH REALLY, YA THINK SO?
Indeed, I reviewed that paper in some detail. Its an excellent study design which really got into the details of how Remdesivir offers real benefits to patients (primarily by getting them off Oxygen sooner) and healthcare systems. Nothing weird about it at all, results are clear and statistically significant.
Remdesivir is beneficial, it is not a slam dunk as a treatment by any means, but there is clear evidence (as you just showed) it helps you recover faster. It is absolutely worth $3k to a patient in terms of the likely financial and health benefits to them. Should Gilead have charged less? Clearly so, but, the problem is the environment in which our hospitals operate in which 'Price' is a nonsensical concept which means nothing in terms of the money Gilead expects to make, the money hospitals will pay, or the bill patients will receive.
Honestly my main takeaway is, "Theres solid signal there that it helps people not on oxygen, but your trial for them wasn't big enough and 'too many' of the placebo patients recovered by themselves. You need a bigger trial because your error bars were too big and included '~100% recover' ". Its clearly only an OK drug here, but those curves in the oxygen requiring cohort are pretty darn clear. If I'm on Oxygen, I want Remdesivir immediately.
Also, those curves make me really want to see the similar data for dexamathasone.
one moment please while I scream incoherently into the fucking void. fucking tourists. (not directed at you personally.
I know mom hasn't been anywhere near there but... still.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Well hi-dee-ho looks like it's time for another round of "can't find any fucking supplies in the store because assholes are gonna hoard".
It has been literal months since I've even SEEN a container of disinfectant wipes.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah I know, but I live in the US and that's where we are. And generally speaking, you can't put a price on life. Frankly, I don't even know where I was going with it. It wouldn't have been better to charge a bunch if it saved more lives. Preliminary studies don't seem to show there's much there and if that's the case IMO it probably shouldn't be offered. They shouldn't be talking about how much they're going to charge for it at all before they know it's worthwhile in the first place. I think the real reason they're talking about it this way is that they already stepped up production assuming it would be worth it, and they are going to push the ever-loving shit out of it either way.
This is pretty savage.
Vintage store in AZ
God damn.....
pleasepaypreacher.net
Damn indeed. :eek:
I assume they're quoting prices so that they can "negotiate" down when the federal government starts paying for the drug before any additional study is done. It's all varying forms of scheme. A pandemic is a great time to be in pharma. Always look for the naked capitalist in every executive to ever figure out how they can filter public money into private gains.
That awkward feeling when the culture shifts and the uplifting, benevolent thing your company was named for 40 years ago is now associated with extremist theocratic fascism :redface:
Having it be named after what I assume was probably a snake oil was better?
It's a Biblical reference, same as the plant.
You CAN put a price on life. Half the reason we're in this mess is that we as a country in the US refuse to admit that we can and should do that. Every other country in the world engages in cost controls by starting from the foundational assumption that there is a reasonable price that society should be willing to pay to extend the life of one of it's members by one year, and if that year is shitty, then the price should be discounted. Not making this assumption is why the US operates in this ridiculous price fugue state where you might be billed a million dollars for a CT scan, or $500k for a week in a hospital bed. Because you 'can't put a price on life', which translates to saying, "There is no price too great to charge for something which saves lives" which in turn translates to saying, "As this item has infinite value, it is fair that it is denied to those who are poor"
In the US market, the price is absolutely worth it. If you are administered the drug, you may expect to save ~$9000 off the price of your hospital stay, and you may expect your bed to be available for someone else 4 days sooner, potentially saving more lives. A Phase 3 double blind placebo clinical trial has been completed and returned statistically significant results. The drug works. This is not some random preprint. Both the EU and US have approved its use to treat Covid19. The drug may do more than just reduce your hospital stay time, but, the trial was not large enough to prove that, primarily because not very many of the low severity control group died and so the experiment lacked enough power to prove that it could help them (because the low severity control groups bar overlaps with the best possible data point for remdesivir even if it cured every patient in the group)
*infographic showing the southern states going full "Yeah, that can't happen here"*
- Carl T. Bergstrom is a biology professor at UW, and the infographic is from Johns Hopkins.
I do find it interesting that several places (AZ, KS, TX) have gone "Whoa, whoa, what the fuck!". A little late, sure, but honestly, I expected them to go full "ride or and die" with Trump on this. Them undercutting the President in any way is actually a surprise.
Sure, Kansas has a Democratic governor, but I kinda expected her to be not as liberal as she appears to be.
I hated reading this but I never really thought of it that way. Or I guess maybe I think of it that way every time I think of the jerk in charge of setting the price on epi-pens, which was exactly that: you should be willing to pay whatever price they set because of what it does, despite the fact that the actual manufacturing cost is pennies.
hoooooly shit, I opened that and a few down in related tweets there was one from Mitch McConnell about how there should be no stigma for wearing masks. That makes me so angry.
The part you're missing is where their chosen one has made it a point of identity that masks are for liberal babies. People who wear masks aren't one of us. So why sell them?
Yeah I've got no idea why the clothing companies aren't jumping on this though. Why aren't there Gucci brand masks out there for $200 a pop? Or are the higher-ups that deep into Trumpism too?
Too bad there is.
"Both our Hugo’s Tacos locations are now closed temporarily. We look forward to reopening again soon when it’s safe!"
- Hugo's Tacos is a two location restaurant that closed voluntarily because their staff were getting verbal and physical abuse for requiring masks for service.
Masks are a political issue, only because the President has made it one.
Sure, there would be a small percentage of "sovereign citizen" dickheads that'd take it as an affront to their personal liberties, but the reason it's a big fucking issue is because of the vain wanker in the White House not wanting his bronzer to wear off on the mask.
I'm not particularly mad at remdesivir price gouging because there are so many better examples of medical ripoffs that are even worse crimes of the soul, like insulin pricing. It's a drop in a bucket of nightmares.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The US insurance industry has many problems, but the inability to put a dollar value on a life and the treatments that can extend it is definitely not one of them. They manage to do those calculations all the time. The US system just places a higher value on corporate profits.
Posting for the tiktok. A little levity.
Amazing.
I believe the administration will want it to be covered because it gives money to the right people. I also think there's a push to kill the preexisting conditions clause in the ACA still and there's already several editorials by experts saying that COVID-19 related illness might end up being a preexisting condition.
So, give money from a social service that helps the elderly to rich people who own pharma? check.
Try to turbofuck anyone not of the proper demographic and make sure insurers don't have to cover anything? check.
I think there's probably enough push back the second thing wont happen, and there may not be enough money in the system for the first thing to happen without adjusting pricing/budget/healthcare. So even with malicious intent this could end out a watershed event for hospital systems and HMOs. It's of their own doing, however.
She told me she has taken a COVID test but the results won't be back for a few days.
My fiancee and I feel fine and I believe the risk of transmission is low so soon after infection (assuming she has it) but it's like, jesus fuck.
When I said it was dumb she actually said that she agrees and stuff should be shut down as if she had to go.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I've read blog posts running hypotheticals on how COVID is going to impact insurance rates going forward. It's a combination of long-term side effects from infection, trying to recoup expenses from this year, and the risk of future outbreaks. Just another example of the misery that is the USA's health care system.
I guess it's another reason to try and contain this thing because people are going to be paying for it one way or another.
Yup. Any time you don't know what material had been treated with prior to its purchase, it should be properly washed.
Also, there's a non-zero chance the person making your mask has Covid, and depending how quickly you get it, a non-zero chance that the virus is still potent.
And that'd be a fucking dumbest way possible to contract it.
Hard disagree.
Source: videos of COVID conspiracy idiots
This is remarkably short sighted.
They are starting to. My guess is that those businesses took the fairly reasonable assumption that surgical and N95 mask producers would be ramping up production (probably due to the judicious use of the Defense Production Act to ensure our safety in a pandemic, obviously) and so people would just buy those instead of a repurposed t-shirt pattern with some rubberbands.
Plus, I would imagine that clothing purchases have broadly dropped thanks to the pandemic, so swapping out patterns to compete with literal medical suppliers versus just shutting down lines seemed a silly idea.
Eh, home/online schooling is pretty unequivocally shit and I can see it being harmful in the long term.
It seems to be one of the lower risk things on the whole with adequate precautions, so maybe society could give up their beach trips/bar crawl binge drinking/eyes wide shut costume orgies for a little bit as an offset so that kids don’t have to go without a whole year of proper schooling?