Shortness of breath is a constant thing for me. I don't fear dying all that much but rather it's the way you die from the virus.
Hell no. There are people in this country right now who are ANTI-VACCINE. The anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown movements are converging, refusing to be 'enslaved'
That flies in the face of what I have seen. Most the anti vaccers I know are the opposite of conservative. Either way, stupid is stupid. Right or Left.
The main one I use twice daily is Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate. I know nothing about them I just use them as told. My daughter keeps up with the rest.
Panic can quickly turn into terror. It's just the way the body and mind react to oxygen being shut off. It's why a drowning person will drown the person trying to save them. There's no rational thought for anything but survival.
an that is just wrong. covid positive patients should not go back to nursing homes. I hope we learn from that rapidly.
The study that "I wanted to be true"? You mean the one that is similar to what LA and NYC have found in their own studies since, and Boston found in their poop study? The studies that say massive percentages may have antibodies already? Go back and read what I wrote. I never took it as gospel and was pretty intentional with the word "if". No, what I wasn't happy about was how many were screaming at Fever and a couple others about the "Science", but the Stanford science was quickly dismissed on this board because it did not say something that made sense to them, but when NYC studies show maybe a 4x higher % than the Stanford study, what then? What is becoming clear is that even if not perfect, the Stanford study found what others are now finding. Huge numbers...maybe in the millions in NY alone...may have already had this thing and that will make the death rate absolutely plummet.
The New York study, which is imperfect still due to issues of false positives but at least is professionally conducted, showed about 10x multiple on tested cases. The Stanford study showed 50-80x. Those aren't comparable numbers. The baseline is higher in New York, but those aren't similar numbers at all. And, as I pointed out, if it had a spread rate like the Stanford study suggested, you wouldn't see hot spots and relatively spared areas. Look at about any model of disease spread with about a 4 R0 and see how fast it spreads.
I am actually not frustrated. I am getting paid to stay home. Getting all kinds of projects done on this fixer-upper that we bought 3 years ago. Spending great time with my wife and kids and dreaming of 20 years from now when I can do this every day. I am a homebody. I am enjoying and making the most of this, while still hurting from those losing business and worse. I do miss sports badly. Especially as a Lightning fan who watches all 82 games, the NHL playoffs, which should be happening now. But I mean, you understand that the alternative under these scenarios is to shut down until a vaccine? All of the things you mentioned will still be at play with one single infection remaining. At some point we will have to trust citizens to stay home and quarantine when sick. Not travel when sick etc. There will never be a perfect time until we have a clean vaccine. But many areas are seeing very little danger. They need to be given the freedom. I mean our local government was proactive enough to not become a hotbed. I trust them enough to keep it that way. No one here is asking for a wide open city.
By inflated I mean that the stats show us that there are other things killing and making sick that are similar to covid. My point is that counting them all is an inflated number from actual. I also understand why they do this and often adjust later. My suggestion all along has to been to see how many pneumonia deaths in NYC (for instance) had a +/- result when tested, then extrapolate that same number to the untested with those COD's. That number would make more sense to most people i think.
So you are suggesting what? Shut down until a vaccine exists? Outside of that, we will always have the threat of spread.
I guess you could argue that you were just claiming "often" doesn't mean the majority of the time, but the fact that you focused only on "over calculated" does seem to indicate that you are saying initial readings are biased upward.
