spurgistan wrote:I think the fact that Florida and Arizona are the new American hotspots kinda runs in the face of the "sun kills it" idea...
No, I don't think it does.
You have to look beyond the surface.
Okay, Florida first: There's been a lot of outrage about people partying on the beach in Florida, but I think it's misplaced. The problem isn't the people on the beaches, it's the fact that after the beach they go to clubs and parties. Outdoor air is inherently safer than indoor air, and sunlight makes it even safer. If only those people on the beach would go straight home afterward, they'd be fine.
Now Arizona: I remember in '78, when I was in Arizona with my parents, who were considering buying a house there. One of us said to the real estate agent, "Doesn't the heat bother you?" To which she replied quite frankly, "I go from my air-conditioned house to my air conditioned car to my air-conditioned office. I don't think I've been outdoors for more than 30 consecutive seconds since I moved to Tucson."
Again, if the people in Arizona were actually out in the hot sun most of the time, they'd be fine. The problem is that most of the time they're all bunkered in air-conditioned facilities. Indoor air is always the culprit with respiratory diseases. It's true in every case -- the common cold, the flu, SARS, even things like bronchitis and lung cancer, all correlate strongly with people spending most of their time indoors. Recirculated, air-conditioned air is the worst indoor air of all.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:34 pm
by mrswdk
lol. Heat/UV don't kill or damage COVID-19, that one's just a myth. The main benefit of being outside is that the air around you is constantly circulating and carrying people's breath away, whereas if you're indoors, on public transport etc. then you and the people near you have the same air swimming around you like a soup.. If it's hot then you also have the benefit of the air generally being more humid, which means viruses can't survive in the air as long. But given COVID-19 is capable of surviving in the air for up to 2-3 hours, it's the circulating air that's really the most important factor in making outdoors safer.
Judging by a quick Google, Arizona hasn't managed to get a lid on its COVID-19 cases yet because of its useless state government. e.g. the group of scientists advising the state government said Arizona's COVID-19 cases wouldn't reach their peak until late May and lockdown, but the state government wanted to open up again so in early May they just fired all those scientists and reopened anyway.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:41 pm
by HitRed
Your HVAC is
Helping the Virus Attack Civilization
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:51 pm
by jimboston
mrswdk wrote:lol. Heat/UV don't kill or damage COVID-19, that one's just a myth. The main benefit of being outside is that the air around you is constantly circulating and carrying people's breath away, whereas if you're indoors, on public transport etc. then you and the people near you have the same air swimming around you like a soup.. If it's hot then you also have the benefit of the air generally being more humid, which means viruses can't survive in the air as long. But given COVID-19 is capable of surviving in the air for up to 2-3 hours, it's the circulating air that's really the most important factor in making outdoors safer.
Judging by a quick Google, Arizona hasn't managed to get a lid on its COVID-19 cases yet because of its useless state government. e.g. the group of scientists advising the state government said Arizona's COVID-19 cases wouldn't reach their peak until late May and lockdown, but the state government wanted to open up again so in early May they just fired all those scientists and reopened anyway.
You’re mostly right... but surfaces that are exposed to UV are safer than surfaces that are not.
UV does play a role...
but at the same time most UV exposed surfaces are outside; most surfaces not exposed to UV are inside.
So inside vs. outside... same result.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:38 am
by mrswdk
The type of UV radiation that can be used to destroy viruses is filtered out of sunlight as it passes through the Ozone, which is just as well because if it wasn't we'd all be getting horrible sunburn every time we tried leaving the house uncovered:
As American reopens before actually getting its COVID outbreak under control, America’s top health officials warn that a ‘disturbing’ uptick in COVID cases has already begun:
Nominate that America finds extra funds to extend its new southern wall along both coasts as well as round its top border, for the good of the human race.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:57 am
by jimboston
mrswdk wrote:As American reopens before actually getting its COVID outbreak under control, America’s top health officials warn that a ‘disturbing’ uptick in COVID cases has already begun:
Nominate that America finds extra funds to extend its new southern wall along both coasts as well as round its top border, for the good of the human race.
Nominate that America finds funds to block Chinese Internet Trolls masking as residents of the UK.
Oh wait... we don’t filter the Internet, that’s China’s job.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:01 am
by mrswdk
EU to start allowing tourists from around the world back into the bloc, except from high risk COVID pit countries like the US and Brazil:
Coronavirus: EU considers barring Americans from travel list
but trump has already figured it out how to control the curve: less testing, so it doesn't look that bad.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:46 am
by saxitoxin
Falkomagno wrote:but trump has already figured it out how to control the curve: less testing, so it doesn't look that bad.
REPORTED
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:10 am
by jonesthecurl
Falkomagno wrote:but trump has already figured it out how to control the curve: less testing, so it doesn't look that bad.
That's right. We'll make guns safe by not counting shootings, and in fact if we don't record deaths at all, Mr T will have made us immortal.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:42 pm
by HitRed
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:47 pm
by 2dimes
I pity the fool who doesn't cover their nose and mouth around Mr T.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:12 am
by jusplay4fun
Again, more hyperbole and obfuscation from mrswdk. His cited article says MAY and not will; it is not yet settled.
Beware of trolls bearing incomplete information.
Same for my source:
E.U. May Bar American Travelers as It Reopens Borders, Citing Failures on Virus European Union officials are racing to agree on who can visit the bloc as of July 1 based on how countries of origin are faring with new coronavirus cases. Americans, so far, are excluded, according to draft lists seen by The New York Times.
The one in the red t-shirt would still get it though tbf
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:06 pm
by mrswdk
Top disease researcher Dr Anthony Fauci has told the US Senate that he "would not be surprised" if new virus cases in the country reach 100,000 per day.
"Clearly we are not in control right now," he testified, warning that not enough Americans are wearing masks or social distancing.
Dr Fauci warned on Monday that the US is "unlikely" to develop herd immunity to the coronavirus even once a vaccine is available, which he earlier predicted could be available by early 2021.
He said this was due to the combination of a vaccine that is potentially only partially effective, and the large number of Americans who might refuse to get it.
Surprising CNN would publish an article like this to begin with (the earlier version).
Not sure why you're surprised.
When new studies come out with promising results, the media usually gives them the benefit of the doubt and publishes them uncritically. Later, when they turn out to be wrong, the articles have to be corrected or retracted to reflect the new understanding.
I remember when the Paris study first hit the news. A lot of people were excited about the possibility. But within a few days, as the refutations piled on, the excitement fell away.
What exactly surprises you about any of this?
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:11 pm
by Jdsizzleslice
Dukasaur wrote:Not sure why you're surprised.
When new studies come out with promising results, the media usually gives them the benefit of the doubt and publishes them uncritically. Later, when they turn out to be wrong, the articles have to be corrected or retracted to reflect the new understanding.
I remember when the Paris study first hit the news. A lot of people were excited about the possibility. But within a few days, as the refutations piled on, the excitement fell away.
What exactly surprises you about any of this?
My surprise is directed towards the original, unedited article that CNN posted, where they say that hydroxychloroquine may be beneficial.
Dukasaur wrote:When new studies come out with promising results, the media usually gives them the benefit of the doubt and publishes them uncritically. Later, when they turn out to be wrong, the articles have to be corrected or retracted to reflect the new understanding.
I remember when the Paris study first hit the news. A lot of people were excited about the possibility. But within a few days, as the refutations piled on, the excitement fell away.
The problem I have is multi-fold here:
The update to the article came out around 14 hours after it was originally posted. We see the current update was 1:31 PM EST, while the previous update from Tim Pool's video shows a time of 0334 GMT (11:34 PM EST). Not nearly enough time to "discredit" this study.
The update provided no evidence to prove the study incorrect, but added "other researchers" have their doubts. Changing an article to include "doubts" doesn't add any facts, but instead adds opinions that have yet to be substantiated. I see this as a case of political framing. The original article I believe was a fine article. All it stated was that there was a new study and the implications of the study. Then, the new and edited article changed that narrative to include opinion from other researchers and framed the story to make it seem as if the new study is not as impactful or important. It's pretty obvious that at this point we are still learning what we can about the Coronavirus and drugs that will help improve people at risk and help them to live. Of course (insert Cenk Uygur meme here) there will be differing studies and there is going to be a "dispute" as to why the study may or may not be correct, but why change the article to add opinion? Clear case of framing to me.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:32 am
by Dukasaur
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Not sure why you're surprised.
When new studies come out with promising results, the media usually gives them the benefit of the doubt and publishes them uncritically. Later, when they turn out to be wrong, the articles have to be corrected or retracted to reflect the new understanding.
I remember when the Paris study first hit the news. A lot of people were excited about the possibility. But within a few days, as the refutations piled on, the excitement fell away.
What exactly surprises you about any of this?
My surprise is directed towards the original, unedited article that CNN posted, where they say that hydroxychloroquine may be beneficial.
Dukasaur wrote:When new studies come out with promising results, the media usually gives them the benefit of the doubt and publishes them uncritically. Later, when they turn out to be wrong, the articles have to be corrected or retracted to reflect the new understanding.
I remember when the Paris study first hit the news. A lot of people were excited about the possibility. But within a few days, as the refutations piled on, the excitement fell away.
The problem I have is multi-fold here:
The update to the article came out around 14 hours after it was originally posted. We see the current update was 1:31 PM EST, while the previous update from Tim Pool's video shows a time of 0334 GMT (11:34 PM EST). Not nearly enough time to "discredit" this study.
The update provided no evidence to prove the study incorrect, but added "other researchers" have their doubts. Changing an article to include "doubts" doesn't add any facts, but instead adds opinions that have yet to be substantiated. I see this as a case of political framing. The original article I believe was a fine article. All it stated was that there was a new study and the implications of the study. Then, the new and edited article changed that narrative to include opinion from other researchers and framed the story to make it seem as if the new study is not as impactful or important. It's pretty obvious that at this point we are still learning what we can about the Coronavirus and drugs that will help improve people at risk and help them to live. Of course (insert Cenk Uygur meme here) there will be differing studies and there is going to be a "dispute" as to why the study may or may not be correct, but why change the article to add opinion? Clear case of framing to me.
Well, I can see your point.
Political spin is a plausible explanation for the change. Whether it is the explanation or not, I can't say. I can certainly see an alternative theory which seems more likely to me, but without being a mind-reader or having inside information, I can't say that for sure.
My first thought was that the backtracking was purely a liability decision. I'm sure you've heard about how after chloraquine was first publicly discussed, there were quite a number of cases of people taking the drug without medical supervision, at least two of whom died. I can certainly see an internal debate at CNN, with someone there saying, "Guys! You're going to start a new round of people taking this shit without a doctor's advice! Best tone it down a bit." We live in a very risk-averse society, and liability is king. In a world where chain-saws have to carry a warning label "do not attempt to stop chain by hand", I can see an editor being very sensitive to accusations that his site encouraged people to take an unproven drug which killed them.
We may indeed find that, in specific circumstances and in conjunction with other therapies, chloraquine can be useful in treating some cases of Covid. That will never mean that it's a good idea for people to start self-medicating with it in the absence of medical supervision. It's a powerful drug with serious and potentially fatal cardiac side effects.
So, to me, liability seems like a more likely explanation for the backtrack than does political spin. But without real evidence, I'm not going to tell you that your theory is wrong.
It's true that 14 hours is not enough time for a formal refutation to emerge, but it is enough time (in the Internet Age) for a great many comments to come pouring in, at least some of which would have been from experts, which may have tipped the balance in the editor's mind.
Here's an example of something that an expert raised.
"Finally, concomitant steroid use in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was more than double the non-treated group. This is relevant considering the recent RECOVERY trial that showed a mortality benefit with dexamethasone." The steroid dexamethasone can reduce inflammation in seriously ill patients.
The authors of the Detroit study apparently did not attempt to filter the use of steroid therapies in their published results. They did with azythromicin, showing results for 'hydroxychloroquine alone, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, and azithromycin alone'. Why did they not do the same with the steroid therapies they were apparently using with these patients? At the very least, I would have expected a comparison of 'steroids alone, hydroxychorolquine plus steroids, and hydroxychloroquine alone'. At best, the patient groups should have been controlled for approximately equal steroid use. I find this a very strong criticism, one that calls the results of the study into question. I agree with whomever made the decision to reopen the article that they would have been remiss not to mention such red flags.
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:56 pm
by DoomYoshi
Re: coronavirus - is this real or hype?
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:44 pm
by mrswdk
A picture truly does paint a thousand words. Very poignant, DY, thanks for sharing.
