EXCELLENT CLARITY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4sG2-Ma_Y
Ventilator = pressurizes lungs. Defeated by virus attacking red blood cells.
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy = pressurizes the air the patient breathes. Circumvents the effect of the virus attacking red blood cells.
EuclidIt means that all of the fatalities may have been actually caused by the incorrect treatment with ventilators.
A child of 6 who read up on the actual mechanisms involved in ARDS would have understood this nearly immediately. People in the preservation industry posting on RyPN effectively pointed this out more than a month ago. The existing statistics richly illustrate the point -- when correctly framed and interpreted.
Meanwhile, to get a better appreciation for the true flavor of most of the various 'bridge' and homebuilt respirator "attempts", it pays to go to their various Web sites and look at the assumptions made in the designs, and some of the correspondence in their design processes. Very few of them aren't inherent death machines for anyone with ARDS ... to the point anyone with ARDS needed to be placed on a full intrusive ventilator in the first place.
It also means that none of the fatalities may have occurred had the proper treatment been administered.
But you're the one who keeps 'concluding' that there aren't any effective treatments for COVID-19 yet. What are your specific conclusions at present regarding how to keep people from progressing to ARDS and, once showing significant symptoms of it, from degrading into morbidity?
It also means that the behavior of this virus effect is something that has never been seen before, and is thus unknown and unanticipated.
That is utter rubbish; the observance of specific cytokine storm was well documented as early as 2012, and effective palliative therapy for the condition (when specifically induced via interleukin-6) worked out by mid-2017. The condition itself, of course, was well known in the 1918-20 pandemic waves, even if its operative causes were little comprehended then. Specifically, the degenerative changes in lung tissue are, or ought to be, very well recognized (they were covered in a multiple-tape review series on pulmonary conditions as far back as the 1990s, so I can't expect they're unfamiliar even to pulmonologists who haven't been fully diligent in continuing education) as have the specific design of respirator equipment to work with various compromised lung tissue.
Where the controversy is in the 'behavior of the virus' is how SARS-CoV-2 specifically produces ARDS in patients at greater risk -- it does not appear identical to mechanisms in H1N1, for instance. Personally I think the 'cause' is triggering of some pathway signaled secondarily by ACE2 either when invaded or surface-degraded by viral binding and specialized subsequent infection ... but I have to wait for actual scientific work to be done, properly reviewed, and published to see. It was certainly 'unanticipated' that a novel virus that in effect targeted a major part of the RAAS would prove highly infectious, just as it was unanticipated before AIDS that a virus might selectively infect specific response cells in the immune system that proliferate upon "viral" infection effects. That does not extend to the part of COVID-19 that is a hyperimmune response to viral infection, specifically including treatment problems related principally to ARDS.
If this doctor is correct in his observations and conclusions, the implications could not be more profound. It means that all of the fatalities may have been actually caused by the incorrect treatment with ventilators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elgct0nOcKY&feature=emb_logo
Overmod Euclid It just seems like something is missing in this story. Part of what is 'missing' is that, for testing to be of much practical value in any currently-relevant sense, it has to be conducted before the usual presenting symptoms manifest and then become serious enough to warrant 'hospitalization' (or being seen by "a doctor" instead of the usual feed-a-cold-starve-a-fever activity until things get worrisome. And the testing has to be done progressively, perhaps no more than days apart, and carefully tracked ... but not in ways that violate the spirit of HIPAA or that could have data diverted or hijacked for private purposes. As long as we have serological testing that requires serious phlebotomy, and swab tests that may be less than 2/3 specific, highly unpleasant to receive, and potentially dangerous to administer for proof of genomic presence, it isn't terrifically likely that large numbers of relatively asymptomatic will flock to ad hoc testing centers to fill out interminable paperwork. One of the characteristics of the evolved human immune system is that it 'works' against a variety of pathogens, and the evolution of effective response to one given type does not necessarily address, or even work positively, against others. Development of fever (hyperthermia) is well-established to work against certain microorganisms that only thrive in a limited temperature range; development of malignant hyperthermia may be a conserved response, or an uncontrolled response to stimuli that aren't resolved in simple feedback. But fever is not a response that is meaningful in viral infection; neither is much of the immune response observed in progressive ARDS. This is part of the reason why "waiting" until fever is observed is both wrong and shortsighted in determining when to start testing for COVID-19; many of those at risk are severely, perhaps even irrecoverably compromised before they even present. Basing a relaxation of SIP/SD on testing conducted only on the frankly symptomatic is almost a recipe for disaster down the line. (Meanwhile there is some evidence that by the time frank symptoms of immune modulation are present, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility may already be reduced, while on the other hand the likelihood of earlier spread sometime in the preceding 5 days or so may have been high.) As noted earlier, one of the 'correct' approaches to restarting the economy is to continue SIP for the cohorts most at risk for ARDS, combined with reasonable and correct social distancing and transmission reduction in areas those cohorts may 'frequent'. This is going to be no fun at all for a large number of nursing homes and similar "assisted care" facilities that have traditionally run cheap and slipshod hospice-lite kinds of operations. Other social operations, involving mass gatherings or large groups, will have similar safeguards inherent in their 'new normal' operating models, for at least the duration of the initial 'opening' of the economy. Since treatment is such a lethal joke so much of the time, and so many effective therapies appear to be just like power production from contained nuclear fusion or thorium, effective prevention of those at greatest risk while permitting acquired immunity in those less at risk in a reasonably short time is the only real strategy that does not involve the risk of extensive, and publicized, outbreaks of suffering and death. Hopefully we learn for the next time.
Euclid It just seems like something is missing in this story.
Part of what is 'missing' is that, for testing to be of much practical value in any currently-relevant sense, it has to be conducted before the usual presenting symptoms manifest and then become serious enough to warrant 'hospitalization' (or being seen by "a doctor" instead of the usual feed-a-cold-starve-a-fever activity until things get worrisome.
And the testing has to be done progressively, perhaps no more than days apart, and carefully tracked ... but not in ways that violate the spirit of HIPAA or that could have data diverted or hijacked for private purposes.
As long as we have serological testing that requires serious phlebotomy, and swab tests that may be less than 2/3 specific, highly unpleasant to receive, and potentially dangerous to administer for proof of genomic presence, it isn't terrifically likely that large numbers of relatively asymptomatic will flock to ad hoc testing centers to fill out interminable paperwork.
One of the characteristics of the evolved human immune system is that it 'works' against a variety of pathogens, and the evolution of effective response to one given type does not necessarily address, or even work positively, against others. Development of fever (hyperthermia) is well-established to work against certain microorganisms that only thrive in a limited temperature range; development of malignant hyperthermia may be a conserved response, or an uncontrolled response to stimuli that aren't resolved in simple feedback. But fever is not a response that is meaningful in viral infection; neither is much of the immune response observed in progressive ARDS. This is part of the reason why "waiting" until fever is observed is both wrong and shortsighted in determining when to start testing for COVID-19; many of those at risk are severely, perhaps even irrecoverably compromised before they even present. Basing a relaxation of SIP/SD on testing conducted only on the frankly symptomatic is almost a recipe for disaster down the line. (Meanwhile there is some evidence that by the time frank symptoms of immune modulation are present, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility may already be reduced, while on the other hand the likelihood of earlier spread sometime in the preceding 5 days or so may have been high.)
As noted earlier, one of the 'correct' approaches to restarting the economy is to continue SIP for the cohorts most at risk for ARDS, combined with reasonable and correct social distancing and transmission reduction in areas those cohorts may 'frequent'. This is going to be no fun at all for a large number of nursing homes and similar "assisted care" facilities that have traditionally run cheap and slipshod hospice-lite kinds of operations. Other social operations, involving mass gatherings or large groups, will have similar safeguards inherent in their 'new normal' operating models, for at least the duration of the initial 'opening' of the economy.
Since treatment is such a lethal joke so much of the time, and so many effective therapies appear to be just like power production from contained nuclear fusion or thorium, effective prevention of those at greatest risk while permitting acquired immunity in those less at risk in a reasonably short time is the only real strategy that does not involve the risk of extensive, and publicized, outbreaks of suffering and death.
Hopefully we learn for the next time.
The more testing the better. Look at nations that have an aggressive, coordinated national testing program and their death rates. Those are far better than our inadequate, incoherent program because of incompetent leadership from the WH which trusts fads and pals more than actual experts.
EuclidThis is stunning if true. This doctor says we are treating COVID-19 incorrectly. It correlates with why the death rate is so high for people on ventilators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elgct0nOcKY&feature=emb_logo
Totally highlights how little we know and understand about Covid-19 and how to successfully treat it.
The lack of a acknowledged and scientifically tested treatment protocol is the real problem at this point in time.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This is stunning if true. This doctor says we are treating COVID-19 incorrectly. It correlates with why the death rate is so high for people on ventilators.
EuclidIt just seems like something is missing in this story.
.
The California antibody tests were random within their area of interest.
If they are turning out thousands per day, it might make sense that they would blanket an area, even if it were to show that a given area is comparatively past being a major concern.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD Euclid I keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing? In my state - they are being referred by their personal doctors after the individuals have reported symptoms consistent with those that have been identified as being a indication of Covid-19
Euclid I keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing?
In my state - they are being referred by their personal doctors after the individuals have reported symptoms consistent with those that have been identified as being a indication of Covid-19
Is there really hundreds of thousands of people who have reported sypmtoms to their doctors and are waiting to get tested in order to find out if they have virus? When they say a testing entity is testing 80,000 people per day, it would seem like they must just be vacuuming them up off the street.
It just seems like something is missing in this story.
EuclidHow are they selected for testing?
I suspect they are targeting vulnerable groups first. As they do, the picture will be rapidly changing. If and when they reach to point of near universal testing, I suspect that we'll end up with a "it was bad for those for whom it was bad, but for everyone else, meh."
If the results of 100% testing in a couple of specific cases are any indication, they'll find that ~50% of those now testing positive are asymptomatic. This finding on the USS Roosevelt has confounded researchers, as it is twice the normal number.
Increased antibody testing may well show that ~15% of the population (or more) already possesses the antibody for the virus. This finding tends to confirm the rapid spread of the virus, but also means that the bulk of those people were either asymptomatic, or did not suffer debilitating illness. Many people have related that they experienced the lesser of the symptoms - cough, etc. - some even before the virus was officially recognized here. In fact, that there was no testing done for that specific virus in the early days kind of reinforces that.
EuclidI keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing?
I keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing?
One difference between the 1918 pandemic and the current pandemic is that fewer people are taking public transit and much more are driving to work leaving fewer mass interactions to spread virus. A lot more is known about how to deal with viral pandemics than back then. Finally the worst effects of the current pandemic are on the oldest and not the young adults in the 1918 pandemic - more focus should have been placed on protecting the elderly.
Most of the talk about re-opening the country is along the lines of of a gradual process with emphasis on minimizing viral transmission (e.g. face masks). My guess is that we may see a slight uptick in case loads, but not likely to return to 3 day doubling times.
With respect to public transit: I wonder if anyone involved with public transit will be taking a good look at ventilation and climate control in their cars. Two things come to mind, first is keeping temperatures at 70F an second is to arrange airflow from ceiling to floor.
OvermodWe already have an example of the kind of recovery a 'let the pandemic happen' would produce, at the end of WWI. The difference was that the megadeaths were perceived as 'unpreventable' -- and those who survived grieved their dead, and eventually got back to 'business'.
In the 1918-20 pandemic, they shut down schools, theaters, etc., and then opened them up again, causing up to 4 waves of infections. Cities that reopened too soon not only saw more deaths, but poorer economic recovery. One of the differences in that pandemic was that the 20 to 40 year olds were a hard hit group.
Paul_D_North_JrRemarkably, no one here* (that I remember, which could be wrong) has expressly commented on the 'value-of-a-human life' tradeoff that's implicitly occurring in the debate over shutdown vs. reopening.
How quickly we forget
Convicted OneConvicted One wrote the following post 10 days ago: For years I have quite honestly been in disbelief with the way western culture has come to exaggerate the value of human life. Just think of the standard narrative for a typical wrongful death lawsuit for an example of what I am saying. The recriminations of the plaintiff and the cost inflicted by their "wanton disregard" etc etc etc. But now, we are seeing a quantum shift where the worshipers of the high church of Capitalism are now trying to convince us that their priorities merit a "plan B" where certain segments of society be regarded as "expendable" towards some greater common good? Really?
Paul_D_North_Jr Off-trains topic, but worthy of discussion by some of the more analytical members: Remarkably, no one here* (that I remember, which could be wrong) has expressly commented on the 'value-of-a-human life' tradeoff that's implicitly occurring in the debate over shutdown vs. reopening. I'm not sharp enough to do the math, but the qualitiative equation is, A. "How many net lives are being saved by the shutdown that would be lost if the country were reopened?" vs. B. "How much economic damage ['delta' in GDP?] is being lost by the shutdown?" Once those are quantified then just divide B by A and there's a possible implied value of a human life.
Off-trains topic, but worthy of discussion by some of the more analytical members: Remarkably, no one here* (that I remember, which could be wrong) has expressly commented on the 'value-of-a-human life' tradeoff that's implicitly occurring in the debate over shutdown vs. reopening. I'm not sharp enough to do the math, but the qualitiative equation is, A. "How many net lives are being saved by the shutdown that would be lost if the country were reopened?" vs. B. "How much economic damage ['delta' in GDP?] is being lost by the shutdown?" Once those are quantified then just divide B by A and there's a possible implied value of a human life.
While not having directly discussed the "money vs human life trade", I have brought up the tradeoff of the lives saved from dying of COVID caused by the shutdown versus the lives lost from other causes resulting from the shutdown (e.g. people dying from cancer due to ban on elective surgeries). There is a correlation between unemployment rates and deaths from suicide and overdoses.
The disheartening aspect of the COVID response is the large fraction of deaths occurring in nursing homes and other assisted living facilities. Keep in mind that many such facilities are making an effort to protect their residents, but several states (e.g. CA, NJ and NY) have requiring such facilities to accept COVID patients discharged from hospitals before said patients have been shown to be virus free. We knew from Italy and Kirkland in Washington that this was going to be a problem.
Getting back to rail traffic - my guess is that traffic is going to be depressed for a while and passenger traffic will be depressed to an even greater extent.
EuclidNot so fast. Going back to work will require companies and government to determine who will bear the legal liability of employees catching coronavirus in the workplace.
Who bore the responsibility when someone brought the flu to work? We had a couple of schools here that closed for several days this past winter because of the number of students and teachers out sick - with the flu.
Many businesses felt the pain as well.
Nobody pointed fingers, because, well, it was "just the flu."
It's funny that every time someone comes up with a potential treatment or information that lessens the impact of COVID-19, there seems to be a reason why it's not useful.
Found a medicine that may be useful in treating some patients? OMG, it might cause heart problems! A significant number of people may already have the antibodies? People who have had the virus may get it again!
It's almost like someone needs to keep us scared...
ISTR quite a bit of the 'ethics' discussion in bits and pieces in posts here. And quite a bit more of the 'operational' concerns ... particularly those reminiscent of the Summertime Blues line turned on its head about old folks voting ... in outside discussions.
It's not difficult to start working on Herman Kahn math with its 'megadeaths' and lives becoming statistics ... as easy and facile now as it was then, and just as nifti tacitly shifting 'blame' for the megadeaths away from the ops planners in the 'defense' industry. Perhaps we are, now, in a culture where the young are more willing to throw the old under the bus if it means better life (or economic survival or whatever) for their perceived cohort. Perhaps we are in a culture that values the chance to stick a big proportion of the elderly on increasingly expensive intrusive treatments that handily result in over 80% of them dying happily distant from any risk of malpractice suits that would make the Malbone St. wreck settlement terms look like chicken feed. Perhaps we can gin up a much better and effective 'war of all against all' in the USA that once again blinds the marks from recognizing the '1-percenter' efforts to make effective slaves of 'the new 70%' in effective poverty conditions.
Of course, it might be that common decency protects the old and infirm outside considerations of expediency, too. That highly shapes what a fair society will and won't do when it HAS to start relaxing measures that are, even in the relatively short term, patently unsustainable 'as they are' if we are to see 'American society' recover as we recognized it.
We already have an example of the kind of recovery a 'let the pandemic happen' would produce, at the end of WWI. The difference was that the megadeaths were perceived as 'unpreventable' -- and those who survived grieved their dead, and eventually got back to 'business'. We could easily do that with the elderly 4% ... especially if most everyone 'else' either has their bad, bad cold or just doesn't show up in a definable part of the death statistics. The problem this time is that we have ways to palliate the dying, and don't have the 'act of God' excuse to justify all the dying any more.
So, as I keep saying by tossing the word salads, the response we take has to balance inherent reasonable protection against ARDS risk with letting the 'rest' of the people back to normal and sustainable life.
Railroad-related: WSJ article in the last day or two about meat production dropping 10 - 20% as a result of the closures of some industrial-scale processing plants due to COVID-19 infections of several hundred of the employees - and especially the effects on grocery stores who can't get enough meat to meet their needs. Someplace else I saw that this is backing up to the 'growers" who have noplace to sell their animals - hog farmers are getting hit the worst with drastic price decreases and no markets. All that said: What effect on feed grain movements on the rails? Is there even much of that anymore? Chicken feed to the East Coast I suppose, but isn't Midwestern corn consumed by nearby hogs and cattle who are then slaughtered at nearby plants? Is there even any rail participation in that supply chain?
(*And only the Texas Lieutenant Governor in public life, who a week or two ago said something to the effect of "Older people should be willing to take the risk of dying if we reopen to get the economy going again".)
But wait, not so fast. A subsidiary question is, to be brutally direct: Is the value of an 80-year old's life saved the same as saving a 30-year old's life? That is usually the subject of medical ethics on such topics, about which I know next to nothing. However, I did hear an interesting discussion on the radio while heading to the grocery store last weekend, which addressed "How do doctors ration scarce treatments?". Examples were penicillin, polio vaccine, AIDS therapies, etc. A method apparently now in use (and by committees - no one person wants to be responsible for the decision) to allocate/ prioritize such things - today it's ventilators - is the "Quality-Adjusted Life Year" - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year "In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises on the use of health technologies within the National Health Service, has since at least 2013 used "£ per QALY" to evaluate their utility." (emphasis added) That "L" is British pounds, analogous to our dollars - essentially dollars per year. You can find out more with a Google search. Sobering stuff for those who are vulnerable - think hard about putting your affairs in order.
And if you can do so 'safely' (risk-adjusted, of course, however you can figure that out), going to visit that railroading 'hot spot' or landmark that's on your personal 'bucket list'.
- PDN.
Not so fast. Going back to work will require companies and government to determine who will bear the legal liability of employees catching coronavirus in the workplace. This is related to the government requirement for employers to provide a safe workplace. Companies do not want to be responsible for this risk, and work is underway in government to review and address this risk and come up with a solution. In the video, President Trump says that they have not looked into this yet, but will start by asking for a legal opinion right now.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/can-companies-be-liable-for-coronavirus-when-employees-return-to-work
From the link:
She warned that the threat of the exposure-related lawsuits may deter some businesses from reopening "even after it is determined that they could safely operate by following the guidance of appropriate health authorities."
In the event that an employee contracts the virus through exposure at work, global law firm Seyfarth-Shaw says employees are entitled to receive "temporary total disability benefits in lieu of wages, reasonable and necessary medical treatment and an award for any resulting permanent disability."
tree68The big question is how long are we going to hide? How long can we afford to hide?
One big point is that we HAVE to start going back. And within weeks, not months.
But another thing is that the kinetics of outbreaks are little changed by the infection and recovery numbers, even if there are huge numbers of 'silent' or asymptomatic cases 'yet to be discovered'. Until we have direct therapy for all the B-cell compromised people they may all be at leveraged-out risk for ARDS... and 2% is an awful lot of boomers ... and, unlike the flu, this is something that lawyers can target.
A very big part of the response HAS to be enhanced 'generally accepted' reduction of infection -- the really big thing that will likely produce this is proper 'breath masking'. Much of which is actually hampered by poor mask design or ignorance of how and where infected people shed virus. While some masks do provide a certain protection against airborne droplets, they don't get small particles at all -- very fortunately coronavirus itself, in a size range around .11 micron, can't spread like influenza, but even so, much exhaled wet breath or coughing goes through or around most of the ad hoc stuff you see people parading around in.
Then we have to work out the practical distancing from the path of breath that should be observed: no talking at people, no looking straight at people as you shoulder past to get the bargains, no yelling into your phone in the store. I have my doubts that much of this can be 'enforced' on the worst culprits I see, but it may be there are ways to influence behavior 'enough' ... well, to keep the outbreaks preferentially in the 'culprit' social communities, until they too 'get the message'.
I can't think of too many areas of work that can't be breath-controlled 'enough' to make conscientious wipe down sanitation an effective 'other half' at least for that asymptomatic initial phase; incentivized workplace testing of things like temperature and, when available, nonintrusive testing or voluntary serological monitoring will add to the required sense of trust -- there may even be ways to provide positive pressure to sheeting-sealed cubicles for reasonable HVAC protection in those 'open' environments ... especially for those more at 'actual' risk in a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Those are essentially just tools in restarting the necessary framework to sustain subsequent restart of a balanced economy, though. And we'd better start learning a lot quicker and a lot better about how to do that fairly than we did about this pandemic...
Electroliner 1935... but what about products that come in cardboard boxes like cereal or salt?
You don't wash them, you wipe them with sanitizer. Some of this depends on whether the box uses coated stock or overprinting or is more porous -- the virus can be less infectious on some surfaces and the envelope can get adhered to where contact won't transfer it as easily. You can use better or stronger denaturants on boxes that contain 'stay-fresh' bags around the actual contents, like cereal.
Fresh produce can be washed with a mild soap or 'veggie wash' -- again, the micelles and lots of rinse water do the work. Note that you can always be wiping down 'impermeable' packaging too; it's just that washing is cheaper and a bit more positive. Remember that 'antimicrobial' products may or may not be active against viruses - know your chemical actions! I suspect it will not be long before we are peddled the equivalent of those dispose-all cleaning 'pearls' that you drop in each grocery bag to 'fumigate' it on the ride home or during its little FDA tabletop quarantine. Some will work, some will work on the wrong stuff, some will be snake oil. As with most else in life, you'll have to learn enough to spot the mistakes and lies...
RKFarmsOn the other hand, it seems that some flexibility with the restrictions night be in order. Indianapolis had many cases and many deaths, while here in our county of 188K people there have been 2 deaths so far and a very slow change in number of infected, and out here in the rural areas it hasn't made much difference at all-farming still has to be done. PR
PR
Farming for the most part is a socially distancing occupation - man, tractor, field. Or man, machinery, animals. Unless you have a Amish barn or house raising.
Around here (WC Indiana) train traffic seems down quite a bit on the old Wabash line through Lafayette and maybe down a little on the Monon. Auto production here has been stopped for several weeks, and I believe other plants served by NS are shut down also. Grain is still moving into processors by rail and truck, but the local ethanol plant has been shut down for several weeks. I am not sure what Cargill is doing with the corn they normal convey over to the ethanol plant.
There seems to have been a lot of "politicization" done by those who disagree with the restrictions that have been put in place, to the point where it seems if you wear a mask and try to maintain a decent amount of personal space that makes you a liberal socialist "sheeple". I have a wife with another condition that makes her very nervous about getting sick and two parents who are in their 90's so I wear a mask and I want people to give me space. (Diatribe deleted.)
On the other hand, it seems that some flexibility with the restrictions night be in order. Indianapolis had many cases and many deaths, while here in our county of 188K people there have been 2 deaths so far and a very slow change in number of infected, and out here in the rural areas it hasn't made much difference at all-farming still has to be done.
Perhaps I have a twinge of Aspergers in me, but as I shop I have specific areas in the shopping cart were I always place certain regular purchases.....with the intent being that as I check out, the items I customarily bag together are always conveniently grouped on the bagging platform.
That way it's automatic when I unload at home...which bag gets routed to it's intended destination. I was surprised when I discovered that not all people are that way.
OvermodWashing involves both the use of a proper surfactant or soap AND both adequate rinse volume and good drainage away from sink surfaces to work, unless some sanitizing agent capable of prompt genomic denaturation is also present. I would not assume that 'germicidal' soaps necessarily can accomplish this, so 'use lots of water and be sure the runoff goes down the drain'... S
That is fine for items in cans or plastic bottles but what about products that come in cardboard boxes like cereal or salt?
I would imagine OH&S reps are going to have their hands full with complaints and demands. Laws will have to be amended. Trial lawyers will have a field day beyond even their wildest dreams.
You're at the theatre and someone sneezes, or coughs ( very common)...bingo! , that person is a leper. Someone will sue the theatre, you and the cast of the movie!
Same anywhere else. What a mess!
Plenty of ' snowflakes ' out there and opportunists.
MiningmanThis last cluster of comments are hilarious to read.
I actually thought about you when that kid came walking out of the store "whooping" on everything around her. You had made comments earlier about cruiselines and mass transit not being able to go back to the old ways,..lest everyone would go into a fit the first time someone coughed.....and I definitely saw your point.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.