novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,223
|
Post by novisnick on Mar 12, 2020 2:35:27 GMT -5
..............................................
The "common cold" is a coronavirus... and, yes, it's pretty common. (And we still don't have a vaccine that covers all the common versions of the common cold.)
And, yes, the sooner CoVid-19 either disappears, or we get a vaccine for it, the sooner everything can get back to normal. ................................................................................................
My wife is a doctor. She is concerned but not scared.
Correct about the common cold. Don't hold your breath for a vaccine they haven't been able to come up with one for the common cold but my homemade chicken soup works well.
I would have preferred the recipe for the soup! 😋
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 12, 2020 6:52:01 GMT -5
Triage (tree-ahzh) - noun - the process of sorting victims, as of a battle or disaster, to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors.
Is this too much hype? I sure hope it is. So why is it here?
For better or worse, a part of my professional duties to my clients is to imagine and develop worst-case scenarios. That way, should those scenarios occur, the clients will have some idea of how to respond. The fact that the scenarios are highly unlikely does not mean that they are impossible. Often, when I present such scenarios to the teams of engineers and plant operators that I work with, their initial response is "that'll never happen." But once I show them specific similar scenarios that have already happened, they become more open-minded about the possibilities. Or not...
At one small refinery, standard double-seal pumps were being used to transport very hot and highly-flammable hydrocarbons enhanced with hydrogen. I pointed out that such pumps had an industrial history of seal failures causing fires. The operations staff on the review team agreed and recommended to management that such pumps in the process be replaced with canned or magnetic-drive pump designs that have a far lower likelihoods of atmospheric leakage. The engineer on the team (who had originally designed the plant) insisted that the likelihood of such a seal failure causing an injury was so low that the additional expense wasn't warranted. And management accepted the engineer's recommendation to do nothing. Within a year, a pump seal failure caused two very serious burn injuries, and the company was very fortunate that they weren't fatalities.
I really hate it when my concerns are accurate. I'm sure hoping that I'm wrong with my concerns in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Mar 12, 2020 8:47:02 GMT -5
I would have preferred the recipe for the soup! 😋 I'll PM it to you but keep in mind its not a strict amount of goodies - It's by chef intuity.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 12, 2020 8:47:02 GMT -5
The big problem there is the relative costs... (Remember that part of "triage" is deciding "who to send home because there's simply nothing you can do about or for them".)
I'm told that, many years before 9/11, the FAA had discussed "the possibility of someone hijacking a plane and flying it into a building". Apparently, at the meeting, it was decided that "the cost of being absolutely safe was so prohibitively expensive that it wasn't even worth considering". I'm assuming that, in the situation you mentioned, the cost of the safer pumps wouldn't have bankrupted the company, or resulted in the board of directors being voted out of office. (It would be very interesting to know if the guys who run that company think they made the wrong decision... or if they consider the injuries that occurred "an acceptable cost".)
In the current situation, with coronavirus, you could probably argue that we would all be safer if all schools and businesses were closed, and everyone in the country was tested. However, if that were to actually happen, then how many companies would go bankrupt, and how many people would starve without access to food, and how many would lose their homes due to not having an income?
And, if you were to simply mandate that "banks can't foreclose on people who can't pay their bills because of the coronavirus", then how many of those banks would go out of business? Many people already consider the 20% or so of people who have decided to cancel vacations this year to constitute "a financial disaster for the travel and hotel industry". And, at another level, how many politicians who proposed such a thing would remain in office long enough to implement it? Unlike totalitarian countries, we have very few options for force people to do things... even if those things really are "for their own good".
(Just imagine how many lives we could save by outlawing "greasy fast food that's high in cholesterol" and "sugary beverages"....)
According to several articles I've read, the current belief is that CoVid-19 originated with bats... And that the bat populations involved harbor at least fifty other variants that have not made the jump to humans - so far...
They warn that we should consider this pandemic as something we can expect to see, in one form or another, every few years from now on... So, perhaps, the appropriate solution is simply to accept that we are never going to be entirely free of "new and novel viruses", and that a certain number of people will die because of them... (Just as we already accept that we will never be rid of unhealthy foods... or ailments caused by people eating them.) I might suggest looking back on the events of 9/11 from a "risk and cost/benefit analysis" perspective. If you add up the costs of all the person-hours that the security enhancements since 9/11 have cost us (one hour of delay per person times tens of billions of flights)... (Not to mention the actual cash costs...)
You will find that, in terms of "human lifetimes", the extra security has cost us FAR more than the original tragedy... (Compare the "number of hours of life" lost by all of the victim of the attack to the "total number of hours lost by everyone who has flown since then due to the extra security".)
So, in other words, the "improvements in security" have caused more harm than the original attacks...
The "optimum response" would probably have been to reinforce cockpit doors, implement better security protocols, and just accept that occasional terrorist attacks are probably inevitable. (Remember "the shoe bomber" and the guy with the explosive money belt... there have in fact been attacks since then... and they were not prevented by the expensive new security measures... we were just lucky.)
You might convince me that allowing local quarantines to be implemented would be useful - IF THEIR IMPLEMENTATION WAS CONTROLLED BY SCIENTISTS. However, you will never convince me that allowing POLITICIANS the power to do so would be anything but dangerous and probably ineffective. Every governor would be eager to "protect his constituents by imposing a quarantine" ... but only "as long as it didn't cost his constituents their jobs or livelihoods"... or cost him votes. (Notice that, here in the US, we can't even seem to get past the objections of "anti-vaxxers" to vaccines that are clearly beneficial and safe... imagine trying to enforce a widespread quarantine.) (Flu kills many people every year, even though we have a somewhat effective vaccine for it, yet we DON'T even legally require everyone to take the vaccine... maybe that would be a good first step.)
Perhaps, given the limitations we are stuck with, the best response here is for those who are most at risk to protect themselves most rigorously. (And for the government to provide help in protecting those who are most at risk... and who actually need and want help.) (We could start by mandating restrictions on visits to nursing homes... and limiting "recreational trips" for seniors over 70 years of age.)
And,as suggested, for everyone else to go about their lives, and simply accept that this is one more minor risk to add to the already long list.
(And consider ourselves lucky that, since the middle ages, we have succeeded in making the list so very much shorter.)
Triage (tree-ahzh) - noun - the process of sorting victims, as of a battle or disaster, to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors. Is this too much hype? I sure hope it is. So why is it here? For better or worse, a part of my professional duties to my clients is to imagine and develop worst-case scenarios. That way, should those scenarios occur, the clients will have some idea of how to respond. The fact that the scenarios are highly unlikely does not mean that they are impossible. Often, when I present such scenarios to the teams of engineers and plant operators that I work with, their initial response is "that'll never happen." But once I show them specific similar scenarios that have already happened, they become more open-minded about the possibilities. Or not... At one small refinery, standard double-seal pumps were being used to transport very hot and highly-flammable hydrocarbons enhanced with hydrogen. I pointed out that such pumps had an industrial history of seal failures causing fires. The operations staff on the review team agreed and recommended to management that such pumps in the process be replaced with canned or magnetic-drive pump designs that have a far lower likelihoods of atmospheric leakage. The engineer on the team (who had originally designed the plant) insisted that the likelihood of such a seal failure causing an injury was so low that the additional expense wasn't warranted. And management accepted the engineer's recommendation to do nothing. Within a year, a pump seal failure caused two very serious burn injuries, and the company was very fortunate that they weren't fatalities. I really hate it when my concerns are accurate. I'm sure hoping that I'm wrong with my concerns in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 12, 2020 9:36:55 GMT -5
Hi KeithL - Absolute safety is never attainable. Most companies have an "acceptable fatality rate" of somewhere between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 years. If the risk of a fatality exceeds those numbers, then money is spent to reduce the risk. But management DOES have the option to deal with risk in any of three ways - 1. Spend money to reduce or eliminate the risk 2. Insure the risk 3. Live with the risk as-is The critical factor in intelligently dealing with risk is to first know what the risks are. Risk, as always, consists of two non-related factors - severity and likelihood. For example, my wife has never learned to put her purse in the same place when she returns to the house. Therefore, every time we need to go somewhere, there will be a few minutes wasted while she looks for her purse. We know the purse is in the house, otherwise she couldn't have gotten in when she came home last time, so this is an example of a low-severity / high-likelihood scenario. On the other end of the spectrum is the flooding of New Orleans. It happens seldom (we hope) but when it does happen, it's catastrophic. So that's the example for a high-severity / low-likelihood scenario. Fortunately, in the industries where I work, the politics are (usually) minimal, and scientific decisions are more common. But economic costs are always a factor. One client decided to scrap an entire multi-million-dollar polypropylene plant project after considering the hazards that they would have to address due to the location that they'd chosen. But in the public domain, science is often victim to politics, and ever will be.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Mar 12, 2020 9:42:35 GMT -5
There is one conclusion that seems easy for me to make. It definitely is a pandemic.
Oh sure. Are you one of those nuts trying to exaggerate a little virus, blow it all out of proportion and scare the sh_t out of us all? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Besides your post didn't get one single like, so there! Chuckie - don't argue with that Nut guy- he has a Mensa-level IQ and isn't afraid to use it.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 12, 2020 9:53:50 GMT -5
Absolutely...
And, especially in the US, politics often ends up being some combination of entertainment and marketing...
At least, in business, the cost is usually literal cost... whereas, in politics, it's very often merely some form of "political capital".
Hi KeithL - Absolute safety is never attainable. Most companies have an "acceptable fatality rate" of somewhere between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 years. If the risk of a fatality exceeds those numbers, then money is spent to reduce the risk. But management DOES have the option to deal with risk in any of three ways - 1. Spend money to reduce or eliminate the risk 2. Insure the risk 3. Live with the risk as-is The critical factor in intelligently dealing with risk is to first know what the risks are. Risk, as always, consists of two non-related factors - severity and likelihood. For example, my wife has never learned to put her purse in the same place when she returns to the house. Therefore, every time we need to go somewhere, there will be a few minutes wasted while she looks for her purse. We know the purse is in the house, otherwise she couldn't have gotten in when she came home last time, so this is an example of a low-severity / high-likelihood scenario. On the other end of the spectrum is the flooding of New Orleans. It happens seldom (we hope) but when it does happen, it's catastrophic. So that's the example for a high-severity / low-likelihood scenario. Fortunately, in the industries where I work, the politics are (usually) minimal, and scientific decisions are more common. But economic costs are always a factor. One client decided to scrap an entire multi-million-dollar polypropylene plant project after considering the hazards that they would have to address due to the location that they'd chosen. But in the public domain, science is often victim to politics, and ever will be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 10:11:31 GMT -5
Limiting "recreational trips" for seniors over 70 years of age while letting everyone else go about their lives, as Keith suggested, ignores that the virus would still be spread by carriers of all ages at an undiminished rate, which would not achieve the epidemiological goal of "flattening the curve". In fact, it would increase the total cumulative number of fatalities in the 70+ age group since the attempt to slow down the spread of the virus by restricting the movement of people of all ages would be abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 12, 2020 10:34:00 GMT -5
Well you do add credibility by listing your sources but then you put a dent in it with that snarky comment about Fox News... Hi monkumonku - I think you're ignoring an important word in my statement. I said that if one was getting their news exclusively from Fox news, etc. I'd be just as dismissive if one was getting their news exclusively from MSNBC. Times being what they are, none of us can rely on a single trusted source to deliver unbiased, honest, and complete news reporting. So it's up to US to sample a variety of sources to determine what is credible and what isn't. However, if nine news sources claim that the truth is "A," and only one claims that "B" is true, then the nine are more likely to be right than the one. Not always, but as a general rule... TV news sources that I routinely watch: ABC NBC CBS Fox MSNBC Internet news sources that I routinely skim: CNN News Google News BBC News NPR News And I'd stand by my statement that anyone who is getting their news from a single source is probably foolish. And if this makes me "snarky" or an "A-hole," then I'm sorry that y'all feel that way, but I can live with it. Agreed, every outlet seems to exhibit a bias one way or the other and checking with multiple sources promotes a more balanced view. I think what is more important than watching/listening to a variety of sources is that each person critically evaluate what he or she is hearing. It is so easy to hear a statement and then just assume it is true (or, if we don't agree, then dismiss it) without questioning whether it makes sense, how valid is it, etc. In the context in which you explained it, then you weren't being "snarky." You mentioned Anthony Fauci yesterday and he is the one who said the Corona Virus is “10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu,” But what exactly does that mean? From what I gather from trying to take this in context, he is saying the mortality rate is 10x higher than the flu. But upon reading that statement by itself (and here, I fault the MSM because they put that in large letters while ignoring the rest of it), it is sensationalist. Combining "10 times" with "lethal" is fear-inducing. Also, the mortality rate of the flu is .1% so 10x that is 1%. When talking about 10x anything, you also have to take into account what the original number is, to evaluate how significant is a 10x multiplier. In context, from what I have read from those who should be credible sources (scientists specializing in diseases), those most affected are elderly people. Young and healthy people will be less affected and those who contract it seem to have mild suffering. But isn't that the case with most any disease? Certainly it is with the flu. To me, the huge dip in the market, the suspension of the NBA, playing NCAA games in empty stadiums, etc., is overreaction. But human nature is panic begets more panic. Next step: zombies will begin roaming the earth.
|
|
|
Post by Percussionista on Mar 12, 2020 10:43:46 GMT -5
As long as going to the supermarket is not considered "recreational" I wouldn't be in trouble. As the cook and food shopper I would otherwise be in trouble. I suppose it would be wise to start considering longer planning, once a week shopping, rather than twice a week. I don't want to have to consider getting food delivered, although other folks seem to think this is terrific.Going to the occasional restaurant I suppose would be considered recreational ;-( Well, we're really at the tip of the iceberg here in the U.S., we'll see how it goes. The Feds really need to get their rumps in gear getting out testing everywhere.
... (We could start ... limiting "recreational trips" for seniors over 70 years of age.)
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 12, 2020 10:57:31 GMT -5
...In the context in which you explained it, then you weren't being "snarky." You're overly generous, monkumonku - I'm human too and, like most everyone else, I stoop to snarkiness from time to time. But I DO at least try to avoid it... I have great respect for the folks on the Lounge, many of whom are endless fonts of great information, and I try to treat y'all as I'd want to be treated. And although I don't say it often enough, THANKS to you and all the other Lounge members who have been so helpful over the years. Boomzilla
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by cawgijoe on Mar 12, 2020 11:42:18 GMT -5
I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. The reaction and fear are incredible. The world economy is in the toilet. Not much I can do about it. Wash my hands and keep my distance from people.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 12, 2020 11:46:36 GMT -5
I think you may be somewhat misinterpreting what I meant by "recreational trips".
I was referring to cruises, vacation flights, and group outings.
An article I read suggested that cruise ships are seemingly especially prone to serious disease outbreaks for two reasons...
First, because they place a large group of people in close proximity for an extended period of time, and in a situation where contagion is more likely than normal. (Cruise patrons interact with each other, and the same limited number of staff, in the same limited areas and facilities, for an extended period of time.) Second, because the demographic for people who go on ocean cruises is slanted towards the elderly. (Elderly people seem to like cruises, and have the time required to attend them, more than young people.)
Likewise, in many areas, there are regularly sponsored "senior trips", where groups of seniors travel by bus to various entertainment spots, often at discounted prices. (For example, when I lived on Long Island, there were a lot of "senior trips" to nearby Atlantic City.)
This, yet again, places large groups of at-risk seniors in close proximity to each other, for an extended period of time, and so increases the chance of many becoming infected by a single source.
Somewhat similarly, an airline flight, and the requisite trips through the airport to and from the plane, place us in proximity to a large number of other people.
It seems obvious to me that these types of situations are especially risky for seniors - who already fall into a high risk category.
Therefore they would be well advised to avoid these situations whenever possible.
And, yes, when my mother was alive, she and other seniors often went to our local mall, not to shop for needed supplies, but as a form of entertainment. And, again, that seems like a bad idea right now - especially for seniors who are more at risk.
We currently have a situation where it seems almost inevitable that everyone will eventually be exposed. With a virus that is highly contagious, for a long period, but where people often show no symptoms, it seems inevitable that we will all eventually be exposed.
However, by at least limiting the exposure of large groups of the most at-risk individuals, I believe that we will at least "flatten the curve" somewhat. (We may not prevent exposure at a certain local nursing home... but we can at least reduce the odds of a spread to a dozen more nursing homes during a shared outing.) (And perhaps we should extend restrictions to nursing home employees... and others who routinely interact with large groups of the most at-risk individuals.)
Also bear in mind that it's not just a matter of delaying inevitable deaths and serious illnesses... Even by just slowing down exposures, we increase the chance that a vaccine, or at least effective treatments for the sickest individuals, will become available before some of those exposures occur... (For example, we may have a vaccine, at least in sufficient quantities for the most at-risk groups, in a few months.)
All I'm suggesting is restricting measures that help protect the most at-risk among us... And, at the same time, measures that limit the most inconvenience to those they actually protect... (The latter makes them both the most useful... and the most palatable to those not especially at risk.)
Limiting "recreational trips" for seniors over 70 years of age while letting everyone else go about their lives, as Keith suggested, ignores that the virus would still be spread by carriers of all ages at an undiminished rate, which would not achieve the epidemiological goal of "flattening the curve". In fact, it would increase the total cumulative number of fatalities in the 70+ age group since the attempt to slow down the spread of the virus by restricting the movement of people of all ages would be abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Mar 12, 2020 11:49:11 GMT -5
The facility I work at today is barring visitors and limiting entrance to only medically necessary personnel. As a psychologist, I think I am at risk for being denied entrance if things get worse. The shame is how the patients suffer from not seeing their loved ones. It is more important that they live, but they suffer from the lost visits.
And everyone I have seen today has wanted to shake my hand. I think they are just grateful someone can get in to spend time with them.
Every one.
Time to was my hands again.
Trey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 12, 2020 11:54:28 GMT -5
I'm thinking the same thing....
Many people caught, and died from, the Flu before we developed the vaccine... Yet I don't recall entire countries being placed in quarantine... Or drug stores selling out of rubbing alcohol... When the recent yearly seasonal pandemic of the Flu started occurring...
I suspect that the reasons are twofold... - first off too many of us have grown accustomed to expecting to be absolutely protected from virtually everything - the media that benefit from whipping everyone into a frenzy have become both more pervasive and more enthusiastic
I would point out that, even with the most pessimistic estimates, there are at least a dozen things that are more likely to result in my death over the next year than the coronavirus. Yet, amazingly, they aren't in the headlines very often, and I don't lose sleep over most of them.
I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. The reaction and fear are incredible. The world economy is in the toilet. Not much I can do about it. Wash my hands and keep my distance from people.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Mar 12, 2020 12:17:59 GMT -5
I'm not concerned for myself anymore than in any other cold and flu season. But I am even more hygiene cautious than I normally am simply in deference to others.
We're all in this fish tank together.
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Mar 12, 2020 12:33:00 GMT -5
I'm thinking the same thing.... Many people caught, and died from, the Flu before we developed the vaccine... Yet I don't recall entire countries being placed in quarantine... Or drug stores selling out of rubbing alcohol... When the recent yearly seasonal pandemic of the Flu started occurring... I suspect that the reasons are twofold... - first off too many of us have grown accustomed to expecting to be absolutely protected from virtually everything - the media that benefit from whipping everyone into a frenzy have become both more pervasive and more enthusiastic
I would point out that, even with the most pessimistic estimates, there are at least a dozen things that are more likely to result in my death over the next year than the coronavirus. Yet, amazingly, they aren't in the headlines very often, and I don't lose sleep over most of them. I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. The reaction and fear are incredible. The world economy is in the toilet. Not much I can do about it. Wash my hands and keep my distance from people. I really strongly disagree with most of your posts on this topic. - Everyone going on with their life as usual is a pretty bad idea. - We got the first cases of Corona now in my town. In the large majority of cases those people just returned from a vacation to Austria for skiing and got the infection there. - Corona and Corvid-19 are from the same type of virus but quite different regarding their lethality. The reports from actual doctors from Italy are not a joke, they are bitter reality. Comparing Corvid-19 and a normal flu / corona is just an apples to oranges comparison imo. - It´s just common sense if you do not want to spread anything fast, stay away from large crowds, keep your personal distance, be more thorough in your personal hygiene and be smart and plan ahead in what you do and where you go.
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on Mar 12, 2020 13:23:32 GMT -5
Well I look at it like this. I could go lock myself and family in the Safe Room or go out and lick the hand rails at the Nursing Home. I will do neither. I will continue to live my life as I did before Covid-19 with maybe some minor precautions.
Mark
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 12, 2020 13:34:25 GMT -5
My point was not that everyone should just ignore CoVid-19 (which is a coronavirus)... But merely that we should only do what makes sense to avoid it... and not get carried away...
My point about the Flu was rather the opposite of what you seem to think... The flu was responsible for one of the most deadly pandemics ever... the Flu pandemic of 1918... And, since the current Flu vaccine every year only protects us against the strains it is targeted to, it does not ensure that this cannot possibly happen again... However, because we have grown accustomed to the risk of the Flu, it no longer rates headlines...
(Much as, in the 1800's, people accepted the fact that they might well die of Typhoid or Scarlet Fever, and people in third world countries today accept the risk of dying from Malaria.)
Here is the latest briefing from the CDC.....
Note that it urges caution... but not panic... And it suggests further that those in the highest risk categories should be extra careful...
I'm thinking the same thing.... Many people caught, and died from, the Flu before we developed the vaccine... Yet I don't recall entire countries being placed in quarantine... Or drug stores selling out of rubbing alcohol... When the recent yearly seasonal pandemic of the Flu started occurring... I suspect that the reasons are twofold... - first off too many of us have grown accustomed to expecting to be absolutely protected from virtually everything - the media that benefit from whipping everyone into a frenzy have become both more pervasive and more enthusiastic
I would point out that, even with the most pessimistic estimates, there are at least a dozen things that are more likely to result in my death over the next year than the coronavirus. Yet, amazingly, they aren't in the headlines very often, and I don't lose sleep over most of them. I really strongly disagree with most of your posts on this topic. - Everyone going on with their life as usual is a pretty bad idea. - We got the first cases of Corona now in my town. In the large majority of cases those people just returned from a vacation to Austria for skiing and got the infection there. - Corona and Corvid-19 are from the same type of virus but quite different regarding their lethality. The reports from actual doctors from Italy are not a joke, they are bitter reality. Comparing Corvid-19 and a normal flu / corona is just an apples to oranges comparison imo. - It´s just common sense if you do not want to spread anything fast, stay away from large crowds, keep your personal distance, be more thorough in your personal hygiene and be smart and plan ahead in what you do and where you go.
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Mar 12, 2020 13:58:00 GMT -5
|
|