Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Yes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.
They may be what it seems to you. To me, it seems to be -- do whatever it takes to alert, isolate, support & protect the vulnerable, while letting the healthy herd roam free, to save the economy, & to help those at risk . Every day we're learning of more unknowing positive carriers who were asymptomatic.
Let's hope we can evolve to something close to that.
But what's the 'healthy herd" Under 25?
Under 30, under 40?...we know that under 30 do die...
The scientists are reporting that there's a surge of stroke deaths among middle aged people asymptomatic to CV-19.
The healthy herd are exactly that, the healthy ones. If we get back to work, that does not mean everyone must do it.....we are America, we have a choice.
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:48 pm
by old salt
a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:36 pm
Germans have no such cultural roadblock. Japan, too.
It's part of being American. And to be perfectly honest, part of me likes this aspect of American culture.
Bingo ! S Korea too. Plus, they're more densely populated, are more compliant societies & are not a Republic of 50 states, spanning a continent.
They've all been very prosperous since they were rebuilt & reindustrialized over the past 70 years -- enabled, financed & protected by the US,
Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Yes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.
They may be what it seems to you. To me, it seems to be -- do whatever it takes to alert, isolate, support & protect the vulnerable, while letting the healthy herd roam free, to save the economy, & to help those at risk . Every day we're learning of more unknowing positive carriers who were asymptomatic.
Let's hope we can evolve to something close to that.
But what's the 'healthy herd" Under 25?
Under 30, under 40?...we know that under 30 do die...
The scientists are reporting that there's a surge of stroke deaths among middle aged people asymptomatic to CV-19.
The healthy herd are exactly that, the healthy ones. If we get back to work, that does not mean everyone must do it.....we are America, we have a choice.
did you not understand my question?
who is 'healthy'?
asymptomatic people?
Those who haven't had a stroke yet?
Is it by age or other risk factor?
Is it based on a particular type of antibody that's proven to provide immunity (apparently there are different ones)? A particular level of such antibodies?
How long, if any, is there immunity?
when there are answers to these questions hopefully it will provide a path to such a situation until we actually have a vaccine or very effective therapies.
Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Yes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.
They may be what it seems to you. To me, it seems to be -- do whatever it takes to alert, isolate, support & protect the vulnerable, while letting the healthy herd roam free, to save the economy, & to help those at risk . Every day we're learning of more unknowing positive carriers who were asymptomatic.
Let's hope we can evolve to something close to that.
But what's the 'healthy herd" Under 25?
Under 30, under 40?...we know that under 30 do die...
The scientists are reporting that there's a surge of stroke deaths among middle aged people asymptomatic to CV-19.
The healthy herd are exactly that, the healthy ones. If we get back to work, that does not mean everyone must do it.....we are America, we have a choice.
did you not understand my question?
who is 'healthy'?
asymptomatic people?
Those who haven't had a stroke yet?
Is it by age or other risk factor?
Is it based on a particular type of antibody that's proven to provide immunity (apparently there are different ones)? A particular level of such antibodies?
How long, if any, is there immunity?
when there are answers to these questions hopefully it will provide a path to such a situation until we actually have a vaccine or very effective therapies.
I understand your question perfectly. Healthy = not sick, and not with CV-19/flu-like, symptoms. Otherwise go about your business...with CDc guidelines OR stay inside if you fear being in public. You are not getting your answers anytime soon.
Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Yes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.
They may be what it seems to you. To me, it seems to be -- do whatever it takes to alert, isolate, support & protect the vulnerable, while letting the healthy herd roam free, to save the economy, & to help those at risk . Every day we're learning of more unknowing positive carriers who were asymptomatic.
OS is your first name Sven, or Bjorn, or...
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:05 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:32 pm
Frankly, I was focused on the UV rays thru the skin or in some other way, not disinfectants like bleach...I was saying they should stick it up his -ss. That was the craziest thing I'd ever heard...but then he starts talking about the disinfectants.
so, ok not "injection"...how the heck else are you going to get them INSIDE the body?... well, ingest them? breathe them? Stick a hose into your chest to clean out your lungs?!!
I saw reports that there's been tests of UV lighting inside the ventilator plumbing that's inserted.
Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Yes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.
They may be what it seems to you. To me, it seems to be -- do whatever it takes to alert, isolate, support & protect the vulnerable, while letting the healthy herd roam free, to save the economy, & to help those at risk . Every day we're learning of more unknowing positive carriers who were asymptomatic.
Let's hope we can evolve to something close to that.
But what's the 'healthy herd" Under 25?
Under 30, under 40?...we know that under 30 do die...
The scientists are reporting that there's a surge of stroke deaths among middle aged people asymptomatic to CV-19.
The healthy herd are exactly that, the healthy ones. If we get back to work, that does not mean everyone must do it.....we are America, we have a choice.
Are we not watching Darwins theory of survival of the fittest at play? The oldest and most vulnerable among us are at the greatest risk. I am not making judgement one way or the other, that is how this virus chooses its victims. This virus has torn through nursing homes like the kiss of death. What reason is there for not taking the procedures to protect the most vulnerable from day one? That would cost the people that run these nursing homes big time money. The saddest part is that this virus most likely found its way into these nursing facilities by staff members. They dropped the ball when it came to shutting down and isolating their patients quickly. That is very sad but we can't change the mistakes that have been made. As a nation we should have learned a painful lesson. We either adapt to the threat or we do not. The threat is not going away anytime soon. The more i watch scientists talk about this virus the more they still just do not understand exactly what they are dealing with. That should scare all of us.
The new far UVC lamps, in production by Ushio America Inc. and Eden Park Illumination, are not yet approved for medical uses but could be soon.
“The two roadblocks are ramping up to high capacity production and (Food and Drug Administration) approval,” Mr. Brenner said. “A couple of weeks ago my best guess for both might be nine months but we are now trying to go faster than that.
Late last month the FDA issued an advisory that clears the way for use of sterilizer and disinfection devices, including the far-UVC lamps, in hospitals and other public health settings during the unique coronavirus pandemic and prior to formal FDA approval.
Dr. David Atcheson, a retired oral and maxillofacial surgeon in Pittsburgh, said it’s past time to accelerate the UVC approval process and utilize the technology.
“We need someone to push this technology along, someone to shine a light onUV light,” Dr. Atcheson said. “We need to get these lights out there and in use sooner than nine months from now.”
Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Yes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.
They may be what it seems to you. To me, it seems to be -- do whatever it takes to alert, isolate, support & protect the vulnerable, while letting the healthy herd roam free, to save the economy, & to help those at risk . Every day we're learning of more unknowing positive carriers who were asymptomatic.
Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Yes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.
They may be what it seems to you. To me, it seems to be -- do whatever it takes to alert, isolate, support & protect the vulnerable, while letting the healthy herd roam free, to save the economy, & to help those at risk . Every day we're learning of more unknowing positive carriers who were asymptomatic.
Let's hope we can evolve to something close to that.
But what's the 'healthy herd" Under 25?
Under 30, under 40?...we know that under 30 do die...
The scientists are reporting that there's a surge of stroke deaths among middle aged people asymptomatic to CV-19.
The healthy herd are exactly that, the healthy ones. If we get back to work, that does not mean everyone must do it.....we are America, we have a choice.
Are we not watching Darwins theory of survival of the fittest at play? The oldest and most vulnerable among us are at the greatest risk. I am not making judgement one way or the other, that is how this virus chooses its victims. This virus has torn through nursing homes like the kiss of death. What reason is there for not taking the procedures to protect the most vulnerable from day one? That would cost the people that run these nursing homes big time money. The saddest part is that this virus most likely found its way into these nursing facilities by staff members. They dropped the ball when it came to shutting down and isolating their patients quickly. That is very sad but we can't change the mistakes that have been made. As a nation we should have learned a painful lesson. We either adapt to the threat or we do not.The threat is not going away anytime soon. The more i watch scientists talk about this virus the more they still just do not understand exactly what they are dealing with. That should scare all of us.
I understand that perfectly as well, and so long as we continue to practice CDC recommended distancing we move on. The portion in red is where I am coming from...vs. the MD idea of waiting and waiting and waiting for answer upon answer upon answer.
The new far UVC lamps, in production by Ushio America Inc. and Eden Park Illumination, are not yet approved for medical uses but could be soon.
“The two roadblocks are ramping up to high capacity production and (Food and Drug Administration) approval,” Mr. Brenner said. “A couple of weeks ago my best guess for both might be nine months but we are now trying to go faster than that.
Late last month the FDA issued an advisory that clears the way for use of sterilizer and disinfection devices, including the far-UVC lamps, in hospitals and other public health settings during the unique coronavirus pandemic and prior to formal FDA approval.
Dr. David Atcheson, a retired oral and maxillofacial surgeon in Pittsburgh, said it’s past time to accelerate the UVC approval process and utilize the technology.
“We need someone to push this technology along, someone to shine a light onUV light,” Dr. Atcheson said. “We need to get these lights out there and in use sooner than nine months from now.”
Agreed. which is why I also posted on this very topic recently about local company here in Gaithersburg Md Heraeus Noblelight that does this. They actually held the patent on UV curing lamps for quite some time.
I hope ABC's Jonathan Karl saw it, in answer to his stupid presser question.
did you bother to watch the whole thing?
Or are you buying into the total lie that Trump was just responding to a question or talking to a reporter when he initially went into his long, winding set of questions to Bryan and Birx?
The question came later.
Did you not want to ask the question too?
I was yelling at the TV for someone to ask it.
My god, they weren't really recommending that people inject disinfectants, right?
and Trump doubled down. And went back to Bryan and Birx.
How can you troll on here at this point with "stupid presser question"??
Calm down. Here's the question from ABC's Jonathan Karl, followed by Trump's immediate answer :
Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —
THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.
Everyone saw the guy. Not even Sarah Huckabee Sanders could defend it with a straight face.
# Defending Trump Is A Choice
I'm not defending him. I'm acting rationally, not hysterically.
I did not take his babble seriously, I heard his declarative answer to the question.
You have been defending him for 4 years. Who said anything about taking his babble seriously. It’s your job to clarify what he really meant versus what he said? You have a 4 year track record. You and KAC are still hanging in there. I know her excuse but what’s yours?
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:32 pm
Frankly, I was focused on the UV rays thru the skin or in some other way, not disinfectants like bleach...I was saying they should stick it up his -ss. That was the craziest thing I'd ever heard...but then he starts talking about the disinfectants.
so, ok not "injection"...how the heck else are you going to get them INSIDE the body?... well, ingest them? breathe them? Stick a hose into your chest to clean out your lungs?!!
I saw reports that there's been tests of UV lighting inside the ventilator plumbing that's inserted.
Air flow on the way in or the way out or are you actually saying bathing the lungs from the inside with UV light?...talk about advancing cancer fast...no way a doctor would sign off on that one. Again, just stupid on its face.
I did comment to my wife that, just as we put a light in the pond next to water being pumped through and up to come down the rocks, killing the algae as it flows past the light, I could imagine hospital rooms with powerful exhaust pulling air quickly through, with UV killing the virus before passing back into the room. Reduce the total amount of aerosolized virus in such rooms, which may be a significant factor in medical staff risk.
I hope ABC's Jonathan Karl saw it, in answer to his stupid presser question.
did you bother to watch the whole thing?
Or are you buying into the total lie that Trump was just responding to a question or talking to a reporter when he initially went into his long, winding set of questions to Bryan and Birx?
The question came later.
Did you not want to ask the question too?
I was yelling at the TV for someone to ask it.
My god, they weren't really recommending that people inject disinfectants, right?
and Trump doubled down. And went back to Bryan and Birx.
How can you troll on here at this point with "stupid presser question"??
Calm down. Here's the question from ABC's Jonathan Karl, followed by Trump's immediate answer :
Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —
THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.
Everyone saw the guy. Not even Sarah Huckabee Sanders could defend it with a straight face.
# Defending Trump Is A Choice
I'm not defending him. I'm acting rationally, not hysterically.
I did not take his babble seriously, I heard his declarative answer to the question.
You have been defending him for 4 years. Who said anything about taking his babble seriously. It’s your job to clarify what he really meant versus what he said? You have a 4 year track record. You and KAC are still hanging in there. I know her excuse but what’s yours?
What he said wuz.....
# Defending Trump is a Choicr
.. ...& you've been nit picking everything he says for 4 years.
Don't drink Lysol or eat the aquarium cleaner, dummy.
I hope ABC's Jonathan Karl saw it, in answer to his stupid presser question.
did you bother to watch the whole thing?
Or are you buying into the total lie that Trump was just responding to a question or talking to a reporter when he initially went into his long, winding set of questions to Bryan and Birx?
The question came later.
Did you not want to ask the question too?
I was yelling at the TV for someone to ask it.
My god, they weren't really recommending that people inject disinfectants, right?
and Trump doubled down. And went back to Bryan and Birx.
How can you troll on here at this point with "stupid presser question"??
Calm down. Here's the question from ABC's Jonathan Karl, followed by Trump's immediate answer :
Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —
THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.
Everyone saw the guy. Not even Sarah Huckabee Sanders could defend it with a straight face.
# Defending Trump Is A Choice
I'm not defending him. I'm acting rationally, not hysterically.
I did not take his babble seriously, I heard his declarative answer to the question.
You have been defending him for 4 years. Who said anything about taking his babble seriously. It’s your job to clarify what he really meant versus what he said? You have a 4 year track record. You and KAC are still hanging in there. I know her excuse but what’s yours?
What he said wuz.....
# Defending Trump is a Choice
I posted the text, since Salty keeps wanting to ignore it, but actually watching Trump say this nonsense is far more powerful. You get his tone, you get who he's actually looking at as he speaks.
There's really no way that he wasn't talking about getting light (meaning the rays that actually kill the virus) inside the body in some way and likewise disinfectants...how that would be done was not particularly important to him, just that it could possibly actually 'cure' you of the virus...but he's not a doctor, just someone with a good, you know what it is...
After all, his uncle was a professor at MIT...and he has a natural talent for this...
I hope ABC's Jonathan Karl saw it, in answer to his stupid presser question.
did you bother to watch the whole thing?
Or are you buying into the total lie that Trump was just responding to a question or talking to a reporter when he initially went into his long, winding set of questions to Bryan and Birx?
The question came later.
Did you not want to ask the question too?
I was yelling at the TV for someone to ask it.
My god, they weren't really recommending that people inject disinfectants, right?
and Trump doubled down. And went back to Bryan and Birx.
How can you troll on here at this point with "stupid presser question"??
Calm down. Here's the question from ABC's Jonathan Karl, followed by Trump's immediate answer :
Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —
THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.
Everyone saw the guy. Not even Sarah Huckabee Sanders could defend it with a straight face.
# Defending Trump Is A Choice
I'm not defending him. I'm acting rationally, not hysterically.
I did not take his babble seriously, I heard his declarative answer to the question.
You have been defending him for 4 years. Who said anything about taking his babble seriously. It’s your job to clarify what he really meant versus what he said? You have a 4 year track record. You and KAC are still hanging in there. I know her excuse but what’s yours?
What he said wuz.....
# Defending Trump is a Choicr
.. ...& you've been nit picking everything he says for 4 years.
Don't drink Lysol or eat the aquarium cleaner, dummy.
Looks like you agree now that you've been indeed defending him...from the nitpicking.
After all, who cares what the IDIOTS in the world think he means?
It's not dangerous is it? ohhh...
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:32 pm
Frankly, I was focused on the UV rays thru the skin or in some other way, not disinfectants like bleach...I was saying they should stick it up his -ss. That was the craziest thing I'd ever heard...but then he starts talking about the disinfectants.
so, ok not "injection"...how the heck else are you going to get them INSIDE the body?... well, ingest them? breathe them? Stick a hose into your chest to clean out your lungs?!!
I saw reports that there's been tests of UV lighting inside the ventilator plumbing that's inserted.
Air flow on the way in or the way out or are you actually saying bathing the lungs from the inside with UV light?...talk about advancing cancer fast...no way a doctor would sign off on that one. Again, just stupid on its face.
I did comment to my wife that, just as we put a light in the pond next to water being pumped through and up to come down the rocks, killing the algae as it flows past the light, I could imagine hospital rooms with powerful exhaust pulling air quickly through, with UV killing the virus before passing back into the room. Reduce the total amount of aerosolized virus in such rooms, which may be a significant factor in medical staff risk.
This reminds me MD of one of those situations where you throw everything against the wall and hope that something sticks. I had a teacher in HS, and I know you have heard this before, he would tell us there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers. Our POTUS is the exception to that because he is getting really good at asking really dumb questions.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:32 pm
Frankly, I was focused on the UV rays thru the skin or in some other way, not disinfectants like bleach...I was saying they should stick it up his -ss. That was the craziest thing I'd ever heard...but then he starts talking about the disinfectants.
so, ok not "injection"...how the heck else are you going to get them INSIDE the body?... well, ingest them? breathe them? Stick a hose into your chest to clean out your lungs?!!
I saw reports that there's been tests of UV lighting inside the ventilator plumbing that's inserted.
Air flow on the way in or the way out or are you actually saying bathing the lungs from the inside with UV light?...talk about advancing cancer fast...no way a doctor would sign off on that one. Again, just stupid on its face.
I did comment to my wife that, just as we put a light in the pond next to water being pumped through and up to come down the rocks, killing the algae as it flows past the light, I could imagine hospital rooms with powerful exhaust pulling air quickly through, with UV killing the virus before passing back into the room. Reduce the total amount of aerosolized virus in such rooms, which may be a significant factor in medical staff risk.
I think you are missing the point. Because coronavirus latches its spiky surface proteins to receptors on healthy cells, especially those in your lungs, the UV lamps/light can focus only on the lungs. Think of it like an endoscopy or colonoscopy scan. HEck....even when you have dental work they use UV light to cure the fillings.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:32 pm
Frankly, I was focused on the UV rays thru the skin or in some other way, not disinfectants like bleach...I was saying they should stick it up his -ss. That was the craziest thing I'd ever heard...but then he starts talking about the disinfectants.
so, ok not "injection"...how the heck else are you going to get them INSIDE the body?... well, ingest them? breathe them? Stick a hose into your chest to clean out your lungs?!!
I saw reports that there's been tests of UV lighting inside the ventilator plumbing that's inserted.
Air flow on the way in or the way out or are you actually saying bathing the lungs from the inside with UV light?...talk about advancing cancer fast...no way a doctor would sign off on that one. Again, just stupid on its face.
I did comment to my wife that, just as we put a light in the pond next to water being pumped through and up to come down the rocks, killing the algae as it flows past the light, I could imagine hospital rooms with powerful exhaust pulling air quickly through, with UV killing the virus before passing back into the room. Reduce the total amount of aerosolized virus in such rooms, which may be a significant factor in medical staff risk.
I think you are missing the point. Because coronavirus latches its spiky surface proteins to receptors on healthy cells, especially those in your lungs, the UV lamps/light can focus only on the lungs. Think of it like an endoscopy or colonoscopy scan. HEck....even when you have dental work they use UV light to cure the fillings.
ENGLEWOOD, CO / ACCESSWIRE / April 20, 2020 / Aytu BioScience, Inc. (NASDAQ:AYTU) (the “Company”), a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on commercializing novel products that address significant patient needs announced today that it has signed an exclusive worldwide license from Cedars-Sinai to develop and commercialize the Healight Platform Technology (“Healight”). This medical device technology platform, discovered and developed by scientists at Cedars-Sinai, is being studied as a potential first-in-class treatment for coronavirus and other respiratory infections.
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:50 pm
by cradleandshoot
This is one of those gross topics, but I think its bizarre nature is relevant today. My wife had to explain to me in horrific details when she was being trained to work in the rooms during fecal transplant procedures. I could describe it to you all but none of you would ever enjoy a chocolate milkshake again. The theory among some gastroenterologists was the bacteria in these shakes could help some issues with the colon they had no other good options for. Yes the tool of choice was your good old fashioned blender. One of course you would never use again. The point is, a doctor will do just about anything to help a patient. If that means whipping up a poop shake then that is what you try and do.
. ...& you've been nit picking everything he says for 4 years.