Even Trump's speech writers recognize the dangers. Nice reading from his teleprompter.
Flintlock76AND there's the toilet paper shortages in some parts of the country.
Just take a band saw and cut a roll of Bounty into thirds....problem solved!!
charlie hebdoTrump said Democrats' criticism of his handling of the corona virus was their new hoax. Obviously he is sensitive to the criticism of his handling - real. So hoax obviously refers to the unfolding (at the time) corona virus.
What? It either refers to the Democrats' criticism, or it refers to the virus itself. It's fairly clear that he was refering to the Democrats' criticism.
York1 John
Overmod charlie hebdo It was what he said. I think that, in all fairness to him, what he meant was that the Democrats were trying to whip up enthusiasm for the coronavirus as economy-destroying pandemic in order to ruin more of his campaign or efforts -- that was at a time before the virus displayed its current breakouts. To the extent the threat wasn't fully real at that time (much as the current perception of swine flu and then SARS as sort of Comet Kouhouteks of infectious diseases) it would have had many attributes of at least an attempt at a hoax. The infections clone(s) have subsequently proven to be anything but a hoax -- even if we were to give credence to the somewhat ridiculous idea that Democrats are still consciously trying to wreck and impede things to make Trump look bad, a technique that worked quite nicely on Carter and the first Bush. Perhaps to Trump's credit, I believe he has not made the claim about Democratic hoaxing since the American caseload trends began to be dramatically ominous. I'm deeply concerned about how the rollout of pervasive effective testing could have been bungled so dramatically and for so long. That's surely not something that Republican tinkering could or would affect, and it does not sound much like SOP at the CDC I was familiar with 25-odd years ago. If that is a guide for how any sort of effective 'treatment' (including effective vaccines, the only real thing that can eventually halt the problem with prompt novel induction other than prophylactic mass administration of 3CLpro inhibitors) is going to be implemented, I think self-quarantine of at least the elderly and 'compromised' is highly wise. As is removing as much of the "incentive" people have to go out, or expose themselves to potential aerial spread. I've never really thought car cleaners even made a dent in actually 'sanitizing' the cars they turn, and I'm not sure either the techniques or the materials that are 'cost-effectively' used will work very well if at all. Many of the more potent agents, like higher-concentration quaternaries, have a bad smell or cause contact skin problems when used 'as required' to actually kill viral contamination on touchable surfaces or places where air circulation might spread material back into the air or to surfaces after cleaning. Note that the fine print on 'commercial' dilutions of some of the nominal 'disinfectants' instruct that all surfaces be left wet for 10 minutes, for ordinary types of expected contaminants -- this may be self-servingly extended for potentially lethal outbreak areas.
charlie hebdo It was what he said.
I think that, in all fairness to him, what he meant was that the Democrats were trying to whip up enthusiasm for the coronavirus as economy-destroying pandemic in order to ruin more of his campaign or efforts -- that was at a time before the virus displayed its current breakouts. To the extent the threat wasn't fully real at that time (much as the current perception of swine flu and then SARS as sort of Comet Kouhouteks of infectious diseases) it would have had many attributes of at least an attempt at a hoax.
The infections clone(s) have subsequently proven to be anything but a hoax -- even if we were to give credence to the somewhat ridiculous idea that Democrats are still consciously trying to wreck and impede things to make Trump look bad, a technique that worked quite nicely on Carter and the first Bush. Perhaps to Trump's credit, I believe he has not made the claim about Democratic hoaxing since the American caseload trends began to be dramatically ominous.
I'm deeply concerned about how the rollout of pervasive effective testing could have been bungled so dramatically and for so long. That's surely not something that Republican tinkering could or would affect, and it does not sound much like SOP at the CDC I was familiar with 25-odd years ago. If that is a guide for how any sort of effective 'treatment' (including effective vaccines, the only real thing that can eventually halt the problem with prompt novel induction other than prophylactic mass administration of 3CLpro inhibitors) is going to be implemented, I think self-quarantine of at least the elderly and 'compromised' is highly wise. As is removing as much of the "incentive" people have to go out, or expose themselves to potential aerial spread.
I've never really thought car cleaners even made a dent in actually 'sanitizing' the cars they turn, and I'm not sure either the techniques or the materials that are 'cost-effectively' used will work very well if at all. Many of the more potent agents, like higher-concentration quaternaries, have a bad smell or cause contact skin problems when used 'as required' to actually kill viral contamination on touchable surfaces or places where air circulation might spread material back into the air or to surfaces after cleaning. Note that the fine print on 'commercial' dilutions of some of the nominal 'disinfectants' instruct that all surfaces be left wet for 10 minutes, for ordinary types of expected contaminants -- this may be self-servingly extended for potentially lethal outbreak areas.
Minimizing this pandemic and calling it a continuation of other Democratic hoaxes or MSM fake news is simply dangerous nonsense from Trumpists and not really worth rebutting. In fact on Feb. 28, Trump said Democrats' criticism of his handling of the corona virus was their new hoax. Obviously he is sensitive to the criticism of his handling - real. So hoax obviously refers to the unfolding (at the time) corona virus.
As Truman said, "The buck stops here" which is true for a well-adjusted POTUS, not for this entitled narcissist in the WH, who is never at fault and is perfect in all his undertakings.
Paul of Covington My thought on all the closures, cancellations and lock-downs is then what? I'm reminded of the push back in the fifties to build fallout shelters.
My thought on all the closures, cancellations and lock-downs is then what?
I'm reminded of the push back in the fifties to build fallout shelters.
AND there's the toilet paper shortages in some parts of the country. The last time TP flew off the shelves like this was in 1973 when Johnny Carson joked about a toilet paper shortage. A joke became transmogrified into a panic.
Beats me. I hadn't heard a bad case of the poops was a symptom of coronavirus.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Electroliner, I'm getting confused by the above exchange.
You asked, "Did you even read what I posted that represented what he did actually say President Trump, Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”
Yes, I read that. I am not defending the current occupant for the things he said.
I attempted to discount false information.
The national news media said Trump called the virus a "hoax". He didn't.
The national news media said Trump called the virus "fake news". He didn't.
You'll notice I said nothing beyond that.
I'll post this before this entire thread gets closed.
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-white-house-told-federal-163043805.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
York1 Electroliner 1935 Before that happens, it’s worth examining the preceding trail of Trumpian blather. That has nothing to do with what was being answered by my post.
Electroliner 1935 Before that happens, it’s worth examining the preceding trail of Trumpian blather.
That has nothing to do with what was being answered by my post.
I didn't say that he said it was a hoax. What he did say was dismissive and not true, ie, HE LIED about the facts of the situation. He has no respect for the experts and can NEVER admit that he makes mistakes.
charlie hebdoIt was what he said.
Electroliner 1935Before that happens, it’s worth examining the preceding trail of Trumpian blather.
York1The current occupant's response to the virus was "fake news"? What he said: "Saudi Arabia and Russia are arguing over the price and flow of oil. That, and the Fake News, is the reason for the market drop!" https://www.politicususa.com/2020/03/09/trump-calls-wall-streets-coronavirus-concerns-fake-news-in-monday-morning-tweets.html His response to Covid-19 was not that it was a hoax. His response to Covid-19 was not that it was fake news.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Chancellor Merkel (not given to impulsive reactions, as she has a PhD in physics) stated 70% of the German population might become infected with the novel corona virus.
Fiasco with agencies leading to major delays in testing. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-delays.html
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
It was what he said.
charlie hebdonot echoing the current occupant's shifting responses to Covid-19 from hoax to fake news to a political maneuver to cause the stock market to crash and cause his reelection plans to crash and burn.
The current occupant's response to the virus was a "hoax"?
What he said: "Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus ... They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
The current occupant's response to the virus was "fake news"?
What he said: "Saudi Arabia and Russia are arguing over the price and flow of oil. That, and the Fake News, is the reason for the market drop!"
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/03/09/trump-calls-wall-streets-coronavirus-concerns-fake-news-in-monday-morning-tweets.html
His response to Covid-19 was not that it was a hoax.
His response to Covid-19 was not that it was fake news.
Fair enough, I do like to keep my true identity fairly guarded.
I'm still in my 20s. Not quite at walker age yet, though a few of my co-workers are getting to that point. Fortunately they are full-time Engineers by now.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude What am I then Wayne, chopped penicillin?
What am I then Wayne, chopped penicillin?
'Dude, you never entered a biography man! How am I suppposed to know you don't use a walker to get out to your SD70? I mean really!
"Given that a large number of Forum members are over 60..."
Yeah, I was afraid of that. This is turning into an exclusive club for retirees and their parents.
Where's young Mr. Harrison now that we need him?
Chicken Little = overreaction in regard to perceived danger. The remark was not directed at you.
At this point, there is no treatment in the sense of a cure.
Chancellor Merkel just announced that 70% of Germans are at risk of contracting Covid-19 because it is an aging population. In Italy the mortality rate is 6.5% because it has an aging populace. I believe our population is also older than China's, so.......
Illinois cases are jumping. It's now outside Cook County and some new cases are community. Proceed with caution. Given that a large number of forum members are over 60, caution should be the byword, not echoing the current occupant's shifting responses to Covid-19 from hoax to fake news to a political maneuver to cause the stock market to crash and cause his reelection plans to crash and burn.
SAFETY FIRST!!
What I don't trust is Politicians trying to muzzle scientists in communications about what is happening and why.
charlie hebdoThere is no treatment.
Name your sources for this statement. (Do it via PM as it isn't a matter for open forum)
As to panic. When the number of cases in Massachusetts more than doubled in one day, from 41 to 92...
How many fatalities? And in what cohorts? Surely that's the criterion of interest, the measure of greatest concern, more than the nominal detection rate (which I expect to rise dramatically ... as the CDC starts getting the lead out and actually testing the thousands of people a day they promised ... starting today. That's more an artifact than proof of eruption of a terrible, unstoppable and untreatable pandemic...)
I'm not saying it isn't prudent to take measures to stay out of contact, at least until we have in fact demonstrated proper response capability. I think it is highly likely that the prediction we will all 'eventually' catch this virus (or be immunized in some way against it before infection) is accurate; I certainly agree with the experts that there is no guarantee the genetic characteristics that have caused the hypercommunicability in 2019-nCoV will 'mutate away' as the virus replicates through multiple hosts. The 'panic' is in things like buying up all the face masks at Home Depot and Lowe's, thinking that does anything at all; in running news stories that make catching the virus sound like some modern Jack London Red Plague; ... in playing up all the ways the economy sky's going to crash as an inevitable result of permanent vigilant quarantine.
... the public reaction does not depend on any push from some media. Harvard is closing Friday.
Would you stay open if parents of any undergraduate who was infected at officially sanctioned classes or events brought suit for negligence? That's almost a no-brainer even if there weren't remaining questions of lethality in improperly-treated college-age cohorts. My daughter is touring University of Chicago tomorrow morning; they don't seem to have gotten the memo at that school that this awful threat of a scourge means they should close down, although I find it hard to believe there are zero emergent cases in all the Chicago area, or that the risk of rapid emergence is at least as great in Illinois as in Massachusetts.
The idea that this is just the reaction of a bunch of chicken littles is just denial at its dangerous worst.
I thought you knew better than to use strawman arguments. The concern I expressed was with Chicken Little 'over-reaction', not that any possible response to the viral threat was automatically 'Chicken Little' activity. To me at least there is an enormous, and critical, difference between those things.
.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm
As of the week ending February 29th, estimates from the CDC.
Influenza cases in the US: 34 million.
Cases resulting in hospitalization: 350,000.
Deaths from influenza: 20,000.
Estimates from the last 10 years of flu seasons in the US.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
Yet the sky isn't falling over this. And vaccines are available, but many (most?) don't get them.
The good news is that all the precautions for coronavirus also are the precautions for the flu.
Jeff
Sorry but I trust actual experts at CDC, NIH, and top research universities elsewhere in the world. They research these topics everyday. They are specialists. There is no treatment.
As to panic. When the number of cases in Massachusetts more than doubled in one day, from 41 to 92, the public reaction does not depend on any push from some media. Harvard is closing Friday. The idea that this is just the reaction of a bunch of chicken littles is just denial at its dangerous worst.
BaltACDThe panic is about what IS NOT KNOWN about the virus. The Flu and its various strains we know about and have treatments that are known to work against it.
That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the Chicken Little responses.
We DO know about this virus. We DO have expedient forms of treatment, and in fact we have seen over and over in the fatality rates that this is so. The initial clone of the virus in the Wuhan outbreak was sequenced within three days of the outbreak, compared against known infectious (and immune-provoking) similarly-sequenced clones of coronavirus, and the various point differences influencing the high transmissivity discussed, in full academic papers, not long thereafter.
The only thing that is 'not known' about the virus is how to retard its high rate of transmission and induction -- and it should not be surprising that we "accomplish" this no better than we have found any effective treatment for common colds.
As far as the initial actual fear in this outbreak -- really, the only real reason for terror -- that it was provoking the kinds of prompt immune-system overreaction that were so deadly in the waves of 'Spanish' influenza at the end of WWI: it was predicted, and the predictions have so far been borne out perfectly, that none of the 'deadly' clones including 2019-nCoV were in any way "resistant" to 3C-like protease inhibition, in fact to the agents the Chinese themselves were ramping up production of for veterinary practice, and therefore that an expedient combination of the 'right' kinds of immunomodulation combined with 3CLpro treatment would shut down any immune-induction deaths relative to an erupting incidence of 'new' infections within days.
Now, it's possible that bacterial coinfections were the source of the spate of deaths at the beginning of the "COVID-19" scare ... and they surely do remain troublesome in the elderly and very young who don't have the ability to form a proper response either to the primary coronavirus or opportunistic things like pneumonia organisms. But these aren't amenable to primary treatment other than some enhanced vaccination program, which has its own sets of potential and real drawbacks, or use of what may be powerful antibiotics (on organisms thought susceptible to them) in precisely the sort of excessive use that breeds additional resistance.
The present problem is that the 2019-nCoV clone is particularly communicable and its induction appears to be fairly short, so anywhere a case is identified it is highly likely there will be 'others' soon -- and these will be similarly likely to infect many others. Therefore, the current problem comes down to preventing initial spread, which is where all the fun with isolation and cutting down on travel of various kinds is concerned. It is something of a red herring to blame the utter failure to provide even critical-at-risk patient testing before now, as the value in widespread testing is comparatively small; I'm concerned that relatively little appears to have been done in augmenting directed immune-system response as a 'national priority' (ideally of the sort conducted for polio after the Sabin vaccine was developed) before, as is likely, "everyone" in this country, and in the developed world as a whole, eventually is infected and the disease 'runs its course'.
Now of course, if we fully trust our credentialed host of scientists at CDC and NIH, we'll have a thorough 'treatment protocol' that's as good a response as our science can make it. You'll pardon me if I'm not terrribly sanguine that their response, in the timeframe that matters, is a bit reminiscent of the first law of consulting.
On the other hand, it might just be that something that was effective against primary induction would also represent a fundamental basis for a "cure" for (or more precisely, a prevention or preclusion of) for the 'common cold.' Wouldn't that be nifty if it were covered by insurance?
Flintlock76 Remember AIDS? A doctor told me "If they come up with cure for the AIDS virus, it's be the first cure for a virus in history." I haven't heard that anything's changed in that respect. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Remember AIDS? A doctor told me "If they come up with cure for the AIDS virus, it's be the first cure for a virus in history."
I haven't heard that anything's changed in that respect. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
While there is still no cure for HIV/AIDS, modern antiretroviral drugs have made it possible for those with the virus to live normal lives, and have a life expectancy approaching that of a uninfected person. Over time, the patient's viral load can be supressed to the point where transmission to another person is unlikely.
Of course, that's if one has access to the drugs. Which is not the case in so many parts of the world.
In my travels during my 43 working years I've met a number of medical professionals. When the subject came up they all told me the same, there is no cure for a virus. The common cold, for example, is caused by a virus, that's why there's no cure for it. Not that people aren't working on it.
The typical method of treatment for a virus is to prescribe various medications to relieve the symptoms and let the disease run its course. If the weakened state of the patient leads to a bacterial infection that can be treated with antibiotics, but the virus itself, no.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.