Bobref

I’ve made my views well known on several “weighty” subjects, as you are well aware. But I don’t consider “dueling ancient sexual harassment allegations” to be one.

That’s what I like on Sunday morning: a nice, well-reasoned and civil exchange of views on a weighty political subject.

The drug ranitidine does not cause cancer. Small amounts of NDMA, an impurity, was found, and testing determined that, as the medication ages in storage, the amount of NDMA can increase, depending on the conditions under which it is stored. NDMA is a probable human carcinogen ... in high doses. Hence, the recall. This was a flaw in the manufacturing process, not in the evaluation of the drug.

Junk science.

That’s just silly. Everyone knows that Lysol is administered by suppository. 🥺😖😷

I think it’s more than just a missed opportunity to get someone who can help now. There’s also the prospect of Mr. Sensitive getting butt-hurt over this and sulking, as he is wont to do from time to time.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Penn’s NIC schedule holds them back, and prevents them from “being all they can be.” Do you subscribe to that theory?

Isn’t “income equality” Ocasiospeak for socialism?

That’s an unwarranted conclusion. This was a retrospective study, meaning that they took medical records of old patients and analyzed them. Such studies are not nearly as valid as randomized, controlled and blinded prospective studies, because of the former’s inability to control variables. Not even the VHA people would consider these results anything close to conclusive. The results support only the very conclusion reached by these researchers: that the results should not be considered conclusive, and this study is no substitute for the type of controlled studies mandated by the FDA approval process. No conspiracy hiding under this rock. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Interesting that you should make that comparison. The Ro — the measure of ‘contagiousness’ — of primary pneumonic plague from Yersinia pestis, Bubonic Plague, was between 2.8 and 3.5. We are learning more and more every day about SARS-CoV-2, but right now estimates of its Ro are somewhere between 2 and 4. So, in terms of contagiousness, the diseases do appear comparable. But, that’s about as far as the comparison goes. The Plague is a bacterial illness, not viral. It’s spread is airborne, not via droplets. But most importantly, the mortality rate for Plague was well over 50%, because there were no antibiotics, no ventilators, and no ICUs. I wonder what the mortality rate for Plague would be today. The very recent un-analyzed results of spot antibody testing may suggest that many more people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 than previously thought, which would bring the mortality rate quite low, under 1%. Although a lot of people think this shows the virus is not really a great risk, to me it says more. If the overall mortality rate is actually much lower than we thought, that means the mortality rate in the vulnerable population is even higher than we thought. Without restrictions, and in the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment protocol, this virus will eventually devastate the nursing home population.

I’m not so sure you’re authorized to speak for the American people. Just wanted to make clear not to include me in that sentiment. Having said that, I agree with you. I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, too. But most of all, I hope whoever makes the call makes the right one.

Just wondering who the “we” is you kept referring to.

Speak for yourself.

This might help answer some of those questions. My wife, a nurse practitioner who is in charge of infection control at a Chicago Hospital, sent me this. The most up-to-date word on where we might be going. Published in Dentistry and 11 other channels Expert Opinion / Commentary · April 21, 2020 COVID-19 – A Glimpse Into the Future Jonathan Temte MD, PhD How can we see into the future? The simple answer is that we can’t. We are left only with guesses as to what may be. Some of these are educated and informed; others are wild speculation. It is the former that I will focus on today; informed predictions of what may happen with the global pandemic of COVID-19 in the coming weeks and months. At present, we have no vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and no evidence-based therapeutics for COVID-19. What we do have are public health measures, such as “social distancing,” for prevention and medical interventions consisting of supportive care. Leveraging our public health tools, however, buys time for the development and testing of vaccines and therapeutics. A very thoughtful and thorough projection is available, based on sophisticated modelling by Kissler and colleagues.1 Their efforts take into account the possible contributions of seasonality, duration of immunity, and cross-protection imparted by prior infection with the two other betacoronaviruses in common circulation (HKU1 and OC43). Then, they provide a variety of scenarios that simultaneously assess the effects of the length (4 weeks to indefinite) and strength (0–60% reductions in Ro) of social distancing. First some basics: Seasonal coronaviruses are seasonal; they circulated primarily in the late autumn, winter and early spring months in temperate regions; Immunity to HKU1 and OC43 wanes fairly rapidly, over the course of about a year; Some cross-protection exists between these two viruses, and perhaps, extends to SARS-CoV-2; Both of these seasonal coronaviruses are less infectious than SARS-CoV-2. The modeling efforts lead to some interesting and some uncomfortable conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 can proliferate at any time of the year (as we are seeing now across the globe); If immunity is not permanent, SARS-CoV-2 will eventually enter into regular circulation as our fifth seasonal coronavirus; If immunity is permanent (or very long-lasting), SARS-CoV-2 could disappear after a few years; High levels of seasonality will lead to a smaller initial peak, but larger wintertime outbreaks; Low levels of cross-protection from OC43 and HKU1 might allow resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 following a period of low activity lasting a few years. When social distancing is added without seasonality, the following scenarios emerge: Short durations of social distancing do little more than displace the cases into the near future; Longer durations of higher-intensity social distancing effectively reduce case burden in the near term, but result in significant outbreaks during autumn and winter; Permanent social distancing of moderate to high intensity works well to keep SARS-CoV-2 at bay (but would be unpalatable to almost all of us). Finally, and what I think are the most likely projections, are of those with social distancing added into a seasonal world: Short durations of social distancing slightly delay the peaks of COVID-19, but result in high overall infection rates; Longer durations of social distancing push the peaks into the winter months and increase the overall infection rate; Intermittent social distancing, based on good surveillance, may be needed to keep case load in check until vaccines are available or a sufficient percentage of the population has been infected, become immune, and herd effects take over. I suspect our best choices here require a Faustian deal, buying time now at the expense of a future catastrophe, in the hope that effective therapeutics and vaccines become available and that critical data emerge regarding the extent of population immunity, duration of immunity, and its rate of decline. Perhaps the last and best words for COVID-19 predictions are those of Ebenezer Scrooge, “Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be?”2 Only u will tell.t https://www.practiceupdate.com/c/b5bf643b-c8c2-4989-a214-ba428701ad73?elsca1=soc_share-this-email&elsca2=social&elsca3=email

Feature articles in Practice Update are peer reviewed before publication. Dr. Temte is the former chair of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in 2015

Perhaps you’d like to see what the professionals have to say about this. Not in a press conference. Not with a political agenda. Just doctor to doctor. My wife sent this to me. She’s a nurse practitioner and head of infection control at a Chicago Hospital. https://www.practiceupdate.com/c/b5bf643b-c8c2-4989-a214-ba428701ad73?elsca1=soc_share-this-email&elsca2=social&elsca3=email Published in Gastroenterology and 11 other channels Expert Opinion / Commentary · April 21, 2020 COVID-19 – A Glimpse Into the Future Written by Jonathan Temte MD, PhD How can we see into the future? The simple answer is that we can’t. We are left only with guesses as to what may be. Some of these are educated and informed; others are wild speculation. It is the former that I will focus on today; informed predictions of what may happen with the global pandemic of COVID-19 in the coming weeks and months. At present, we have no vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and no evidence-based therapeutics for COVID-19. What we do have are public health measures, such as “social distancing,” for prevention and medical interventions consisting of supportive care. Leveraging our public health tools, however, buys time for the development and testing of vaccines and therapeutics. A very thoughtful and thorough projection is available, based on sophisticated modelling by Kissler and colleagues.1 Their efforts take into account the possible contributions of seasonality, duration of immunity, and cross-protection imparted by prior infection with the two other betacoronaviruses in common circulation (HKU1 and OC43). Then, they provide a variety of scenarios that simultaneously assess the effects of the length (4 weeks to indefinite) and strength (0–60% reductions in Ro) of social distancing. First some basics: Seasonal coronaviruses are seasonal; they circulated primarily in the late autumn, winter and early spring months in temperate regions; Immunity to HKU1 and OC43 wanes fairly rapidly, over the course of about a year; Some cross-protection exists between these two viruses, and perhaps, extends to SARS-CoV-2; Both of these seasonal coronaviruses are less infectious than SARS-CoV-2. The modeling efforts lead to some interesting and some uncomfortable conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 can proliferate at any time of the year (as we are seeing now across the globe); If immunity is not permanent, SARS-CoV-2 will eventually enter into regular circulation as our fifth seasonal coronavirus; If immunity is permanent (or very long-lasting), SARS-CoV-2 could disappear after a few years; High levels of seasonality will lead to a smaller initial peak, but larger wintertime outbreaks; Low levels of cross-protection from OC43 and HKU1 might allow resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 following a period of low activity lasting a few years. When social distancing is added without seasonality, the following scenarios emerge: Short durations of social distancing do little more than displace the cases into the near future; Longer durations of higher-intensity social distancing effectively reduce case burden in the near term, but result in significant outbreaks during autumn and winter; Permanent social distancing of moderate to high intensity works well to keep SARS-CoV-2 at bay (but would be unpalatable to almost all of us). Finally, and what I think are the most likely projections, are of those with social distancing added into a seasonal world: Short durations of social distancing slightly delay the peaks of COVID-19, but result in high overall infection rates; Longer durations of social distancing push the peaks into the winter months and increase the overall infection rate; Intermittent social distancing, based on good surveillance, may be needed to keep case load in check until vaccines are available or a sufficient percentage of the population has been infected, become immune, and herd effects take over. I suspect our best choices here require a Faustian deal, buying time now at the expense of a future catastrophe, in the hope that effective therapeutics and vaccines become available and that critical data emerge regarding the extent of population immunity, duration of immunity, and its rate of decline. Perhaps the last and best words for COVID-19 predictions are those of Ebenezer Scrooge, “Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be?”2 Only time will tell.

I have no doubt your thought process is a well-considered one. It just doesn’t come off that way sometimes due to the phraseology. When you use all those catch phrases, it’s just too easy to assume you’re the conservative equivalent of a “libtard,” and dismiss your point of view without considering it.

Here’s some well-intentioned free advice. Like most free advice, it may be worth no more than what you paid for it.😜 You have a legitimate point of view on these and other issues, and it adds to the open discussion that makes the GID worthwhile. But when your posts are continually laced with Limbaugh/Hannity/FoxNews conservative-speak, e.g., “libtards,” “liberal mainstream media,” “fake news,” it makes it way too easy for those of an opposing viewpoint to dismiss your points as being made by a “right-wing nut.” If you actually want people to take your views seriously, consider making the points without the meaningless rhetoric as a side-dressing. Of course, if being taken seriously is not one of your objectives, as opposed to just venting after a few beers without actually saying anything of substance, have at it. As I said, just some well-intentioned advice.

😂🤣😅 How naive! Everyone knows that it’s the Trilateral Commission - secretly headed by the Pope - that runs things.

We’d rather be the boss of the astronauts. And we won’t be satisfied with the moon. We’re shooting for Mars. https://www.nd.edu/stories/mission-to-mars/

We also do not know what the re-infection profile is like. It is far from certain that having contracted the disease will confer immunity, or how much, or for how long.

Let’s assume we do have a Fall sports season, and it is scheduled to start at the usual time. 3 days before the first game, the coach is notified that one of his players has symptoms and has tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. What do you do?

Actually, the Irish bookended UCLA’s 88 game winning streak. After that game in Jan. 1971, the Bruins didn’t lose again until the Walton-led team was upset at ND 81-80 in Jan. 1974. Irish scored the last 11 points of the game.