Glad you seem to be on the mend, from what I have seen most people who need ICU need it with the first 4-5 days of fever onset, just curious what Rx did they give you from the ER trip?
Agree on all points. Even though we are one country the way people respond varies greatly both on politics and regional differences. Some will say that the right is "anti science", this is non-sense. I know far more doctors and scientists who are Rt leaning, the are hardly anti science. Having discussions about how to treat various ailments often brings out varied responses(far more common in the "practice of Medicine"). We have differing opinions based on experiences and levels of comfort(from a liability standpoint). Most doctors are cautious by nature when it comes to missing the bad stuff and often will practice more on the safe side (mostly good). Americans seem by nature too be far more anti-authority than European counter parts. Perhaps that's from our heritage? I don't see Americans doing across the board total shut down for weeks and weeks. And I many rural areas its probably not needed. But to have prevented NY/NO/Miami that's what they would have needed to do in early Feb, also total shut down of travel from Europe/Asia. I seriously doubt that would have happened people would have revolted. Hindsight s 20-20 but I just don't see how this could have been effectively avoided.
Over the top and biased, but I do think they have some important points underneath all the rhetoric. All that bureaucracy is inefficient. This is true. But its purpose isn't to be efficient. Its purpose is to serve we the people. The myth of markets being free in the US.
And for professions like teachers (as well as all first responders) who deal with a lot of people and in this case, a lot of people (kids) who are very unlikely to keep clean, and pretty likely to become asymptomatic carriers, this virus is a real threat until there is widespread vaccination. I coach youth sports and I'm with you. When we get back to educating our kids in person, we almost certainly will get infected no matter how careful we are.
"New research indicates that the coronavirus began to circulate in the New York area by mid-February, weeks before the first confirmed case, and that travelers brought in the virus mainly from Europe, not Asia." Most New York Coronavirus Cases Came From Europe, Genomes Show
Silly logical fallacy. You are stating that most doctors and scientists are Rt leaning. That is not equivalent to more republican's are anti-science than democrats. Although not vouching for this, a better formed argument (actual surveys) would look like: Democrats and Republicans differ over role and value of scientists in policy debates
Thanks. Also went on daily walks, but like you, stayed 12 feet away from everyone so failed to mention that. If I had to guess, it would be bullet #1. Was going to CVS every other day. It’s a nice half mile walk across a (closed) golf course. Gave my wife my CC (don’t go there) so have been using my debit/credit. Auto default to debit = pressing four buttons on a screen. If I had to make a wild ass guess, that would be how I ended up positive. Good luck is my two young kids and wife don’t have it. Can deal with a (previous) fever and lingering cough...
No, I don't know it. Your retraction maybe sincere - and good on you - but the post was micharacterized and I felt it was intentional. It is the stock and trade of partisan arguments (on both sides, if that makes you feel better) to mischaracterize by omission or, in this case, by exageration to try to win a point. I didn't call you out as dishonest, as you have done me, I just called out what I saw as part of a weak partisan argument. Almost all of it, I think. That Americans were allowed back in is evidence that there was no real flight ban or travel ban as is being claimed by Trump defenders. It was posted in response to (including the quote from) a Trump defender claiming flights from China were "shut down". You opened your post (#6032) with "This is the new argument?" as if you seem to be familiar with the arguments back and forth. Are you going to claim that you were unaware that Trump defenders have been claiming that Trump instituted a travel ban or flight ban for China? That they claim this to give Trump credit for an early response to the virus, but refuse to acknowledge that the ban did not prevent infected people from returning to the U.S. and that those people were not properly isolated, screened, or even tracked? Trump defenders reject criticism of the early handling of the pandemic by saying that he instituted a travel ban with China in January. This is countered by the facts that the ban didn't prevent people from returning and that those people were not properly handled with respect to spread of the virus. Maybe you weren't backpedaling from the travel ban defense by saying a travel ban might not have been possible due to legal issues, maybe you're just clueless as to what Trump defenders have been saying for weeks. I think they were agreeing with what you wrote about legal questions and not necessarily agreeing with your interpretation of the other post. They are welcome to correct me. I disagree that it's a huge difference, but sure, you just asked some questions. You started your post with "This is the new argument? Man I hate to defend Trump, but..." and then just asked some questions. How absurd of me to think you were making a counter argument in defense of Trump when you were really just curious about possible legal precedents. Of course, that does make more sense if you are clueless about what Trump defenders have been claiming for weeks. That's some special parsing that allows you to extract context and meaning while you focus on the wording of the post exactly as written. Too bad you couldn't have done that yesterday when you mischaracterized one post and completely misread another to decide it was calling for Trump to ban flights when that is nowhere to be found in the text.
Nice charts, but I didn't say "that most doctors and scientists are rt leaning" Here is what I said....."Some will say that the right is "anti science", this is non-sense. I know far more doctors and scientists who are Rt leaning, the are hardly anti science. Having discussions about how to treat various ailments often brings out varied responses(far more common in the "practice of Medicine"). We have differing opinions based on experiences and levels of comfort(from a liability standpoint). Most doctors are cautious by nature when it comes to missing the bad stuff and often will practice more on the safe side (mostly good)". Certainly there are differences in the way political groups view "authority figures" for the sake of discussion I'll include Doctors and "scientists" (all though not very specific as to what kind of scientist). I trust a Doctor but also know they are human and are lead by their own bias, after working with hundreds of them over a 30 years time frame they fall into 3 categories… 1) over cautious (afraid they will always miss something) 2)Middle of the road look but are willing to play the numbers 3) Test less, don't practice based on fear and chasing Zebras Top decision makers are stuck they have to be extra cautious so they will keep saying how bad and that the only thing we can to is isolate.
I agree with your points here, but I think they apply to right leaning professionals and not to the Republican political leadership and right wing media, which are both strongly anti-science, and consistently deceitful in their statements regarding most topics that involve science (environment, health, energy, climate, etc). The anti-science stances are particularly evident in any cases where the science could suggest it is in the best interest of our country to make policy changes that political stakeholders for the party are against, or where the science is uncomfortable for some stakeholders (age of the earth, evolution, etc).
Okay then, mr. equivocation. You know far more Rt doctors than what? Non-Rt? If we are not to infer from your statement that more doctors/scientists are Rt, than wth are you trying to say? As far as the assertion that doctors and scientists are hardly anti-science, well no shit.
I agree, but most people make decisions based on their own well being no? Side note I don't really think there are that many people who think the earth is 6000 years old do you? There are many times where there are differing opinions from science, we see it right now with the fight about Plaquenil.....
Maybe doctors in other parts of the country are different, but I did pre-med and went to med school in Florida, did residency and stayed in for a bit in NYC, and I'm working now in Cali. I can probably count on 1 hand the number of right leaning physicians whom I've met. At least along the coasts, my experience has been that right leaning physicians are rare as an unicorn.
Perhaps I didn't express things very well, in a nut shell my point is opinions of Doctors vary across the spectrum.... putting faith in a few and then holding their words up as gospel is wrought with disaster. Doctors by nature play it safe irrespective of the costs of their decisions. They don't care if that admission for a chest pain work up costs the patient 20k, it's cheaper than them missing something and getting sued.
