Do we get a pass from being called alcoholics since we will be drinking alone 
mands
mands
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Can touching a barbell in the gym get you sick with the coronavirus?
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
Oldschool
Member
Do we get a pass from being called alcoholics since we will be drinking alone
mands
When I start my cover band this is on the set list. Can't to wrong with George
Let me know when you starting this band....I got ample amount of time right now and I'm sure I got the bass laying around in the basement. We can Skype our practices
Skype, Teams, Zoom... I got you.Let me know when you starting this band....I got ample amount of time right now and I'm sure I got the bass laying around in the basement. We can Skype our practices
No matter where the chips fall when this is all said and done (for all the hype and talk this has created, I hope it doesn't pan out. But it will I think) a sense of humour is always needed.
Enjoy
Woman shares her 'gross' hand-washing mistake: 'I’m curious what else you’re not noticing'
Enjoy
Woman shares her 'gross' hand-washing mistake: 'I’m curious what else you’re not noticing'
I went to CostCo. . . I've never been so rudely treated in my life . . . All I did was ask for toilet paper at the Customer Service counter . . . The woman behind the counter yelled at the top of her lungs “OH MY GOD, NOOOOO!! . . .”
I politely said there's no need to make a scene and shuffled back to the bathroom with my pants around my ankles . . .
I politely said there's no need to make a scene and shuffled back to the bathroom with my pants around my ankles . . .
[OA] A Fiasco In The Making: More Data Is Not The Answer To The Coronavirus Pandemic
On March 17, John Ioannidis published a column in which he downplays descriptions of coronavirus as a “once-in-a-century pandemic", instead calling the worldwide response “a once-in-a-century data fiasco".
The main thrust of the article, which I address in points (i)-(iii) below, is that we still know very little about the disease, its fatality rate, and the overall risks it poses to public health; and that in face of this uncertainty, we should seek additional data in order to make evidence-based policy decisions. Ioannidis's call for additional evidence and study may be fully appropriate in every other research setting one could imagine.
But it is wholly inappropriate for handling dynamic and complex problems in real time. The article makes no definitive claims, but plants seeds of confusion and sheds plenty of doubt about the worldwide effort to fight the pandemic.
If the viewpoint in Ioannidis's column were shared by even a small fraction of the general public or by anyone in a position of authority-president, governor, mayor, school superintendent-its consequences could be severe.
The virus would continue to spread indefinitely, infecting tens or hundreds of thousands, further overwhelming the healthcare system, leading to unnecessary deaths and total disaster.
…
Harry Crane (2020). A fiasco in the making: More data is not the answer to the coronavirus pandemic. RESEARCHERS.ONE, https://www.researchers.one/article/2020-03-10.
On March 17, John Ioannidis published a column in which he downplays descriptions of coronavirus as a “once-in-a-century pandemic", instead calling the worldwide response “a once-in-a-century data fiasco".
The main thrust of the article, which I address in points (i)-(iii) below, is that we still know very little about the disease, its fatality rate, and the overall risks it poses to public health; and that in face of this uncertainty, we should seek additional data in order to make evidence-based policy decisions. Ioannidis's call for additional evidence and study may be fully appropriate in every other research setting one could imagine.
But it is wholly inappropriate for handling dynamic and complex problems in real time. The article makes no definitive claims, but plants seeds of confusion and sheds plenty of doubt about the worldwide effort to fight the pandemic.
If the viewpoint in Ioannidis's column were shared by even a small fraction of the general public or by anyone in a position of authority-president, governor, mayor, school superintendent-its consequences could be severe.
The virus would continue to spread indefinitely, infecting tens or hundreds of thousands, further overwhelming the healthcare system, leading to unnecessary deaths and total disaster.
…
Harry Crane (2020). A fiasco in the making: More data is not the answer to the coronavirus pandemic. RESEARCHERS.ONE, https://www.researchers.one/article/2020-03-10.
Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?
Opinion | Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?
What we know so far about the coronavirus makes it a unique case for the potential application of a “herd immunity” approach, a strategy viewed as a desirable side effect in the Netherlands, and briefly considered in the United Kingdom.
The data from South Korea, where tracking the coronavirus has been by far the best to date, indicate that as much as 99 percent of active cases in the general population are “mild” and do not require specific medical treatment. The small percentage of cases that do require such services are highly concentrated among those age 60 and older, and further so the older people are. Other things being equal, those over age 70 appear at three times the mortality risk as those age 60 to 69, and those over age 80 at nearly twice the mortality risk of those age 70 to 79.
These conclusions are corroborated by the data from Wuhan, China, which show a higher death rate, but an almost identical distribution. The higher death rate in China may be real, but is perhaps a result of less widespread testing. South Korea promptly, and uniquely, started testing the apparently healthy population at large, finding the mild and asymptomatic cases of Covid-19 other countries are overlooking. The experience of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which houses a contained, older population, proves the point. The death rate among that insular and uniformly exposed population is roughly 1 percent.
We have, to date, fewer than 200 deaths from the coronavirus in the United States — a small data set from which to draw big conclusions. Still, it is entirely aligned with the data from other countries. The deaths have been mainly clustered among the elderly, those with significant chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease, and those in both groups.
…
As the virus is already circulating widely in the United States, with many cases going undetected, this is like sending innumerable lit matches into small patches of tinder. Right now, it is harder, not easier, to keep the especially vulnerable isolated from all others — including members of their own families — who may have been exposed to the virus.
If we were to focus on the especially vulnerable, there would be resources to keep them at home, provide them with needed services and coronavirus testing, and direct our medical system to their early care. I would favor proactive rather than reactive testing in this group, and early use of the most promising anti-viral drugs. This cannot be done under current policies, as we spread our relatively few test kits across the expanse of a whole population, made all the more anxious because society has shut down.
This focus on a much smaller portion of the population would allow most of society to return to life as usual and perhaps prevent vast segments of the economy from collapsing. Healthy children could return to school and healthy adults go back to their jobs. Theaters and restaurants could reopen, though we might be wise to avoid very large social gatherings like stadium sporting events and concerts.
So long as we were protecting the truly vulnerable, a sense of calm could be restored to society. Just as important, society as a whole could develop natural herd immunity to the virus. The vast majority of people would develop mild coronavirus infections, while medical resources could focus on those who fell critically ill. Once the wider population had been exposed and, if infected, had recovered and gained natural immunity, the risk to the most vulnerable would fall dramatically.
A pivot right now from trying to protect all people to focusing on the most vulnerable remains entirely plausible. With each passing day, however, it becomes more difficult. The path we are on may well lead to uncontained viral contagion and monumental collateral damage to our society and economy. A more surgical approach is what we need.
[OA] Russell TW, Hellewell J, Jarvis CI, et al. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. medRxiv 2020:2020.03.05.20031773. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship
Adjusting for delay from confirmation-to-death, we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.3% (0.75%-5.3%) and 1.2% (0.38-2.7%). Comparing deaths onboard with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates using China data, we estimate IFR and CFR in China to be 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2-1.2%) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.3-2.4%) respectively.
Opinion | Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?
What we know so far about the coronavirus makes it a unique case for the potential application of a “herd immunity” approach, a strategy viewed as a desirable side effect in the Netherlands, and briefly considered in the United Kingdom.
The data from South Korea, where tracking the coronavirus has been by far the best to date, indicate that as much as 99 percent of active cases in the general population are “mild” and do not require specific medical treatment. The small percentage of cases that do require such services are highly concentrated among those age 60 and older, and further so the older people are. Other things being equal, those over age 70 appear at three times the mortality risk as those age 60 to 69, and those over age 80 at nearly twice the mortality risk of those age 70 to 79.
These conclusions are corroborated by the data from Wuhan, China, which show a higher death rate, but an almost identical distribution. The higher death rate in China may be real, but is perhaps a result of less widespread testing. South Korea promptly, and uniquely, started testing the apparently healthy population at large, finding the mild and asymptomatic cases of Covid-19 other countries are overlooking. The experience of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which houses a contained, older population, proves the point. The death rate among that insular and uniformly exposed population is roughly 1 percent.
We have, to date, fewer than 200 deaths from the coronavirus in the United States — a small data set from which to draw big conclusions. Still, it is entirely aligned with the data from other countries. The deaths have been mainly clustered among the elderly, those with significant chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease, and those in both groups.
…
As the virus is already circulating widely in the United States, with many cases going undetected, this is like sending innumerable lit matches into small patches of tinder. Right now, it is harder, not easier, to keep the especially vulnerable isolated from all others — including members of their own families — who may have been exposed to the virus.
If we were to focus on the especially vulnerable, there would be resources to keep them at home, provide them with needed services and coronavirus testing, and direct our medical system to their early care. I would favor proactive rather than reactive testing in this group, and early use of the most promising anti-viral drugs. This cannot be done under current policies, as we spread our relatively few test kits across the expanse of a whole population, made all the more anxious because society has shut down.
This focus on a much smaller portion of the population would allow most of society to return to life as usual and perhaps prevent vast segments of the economy from collapsing. Healthy children could return to school and healthy adults go back to their jobs. Theaters and restaurants could reopen, though we might be wise to avoid very large social gatherings like stadium sporting events and concerts.
So long as we were protecting the truly vulnerable, a sense of calm could be restored to society. Just as important, society as a whole could develop natural herd immunity to the virus. The vast majority of people would develop mild coronavirus infections, while medical resources could focus on those who fell critically ill. Once the wider population had been exposed and, if infected, had recovered and gained natural immunity, the risk to the most vulnerable would fall dramatically.
A pivot right now from trying to protect all people to focusing on the most vulnerable remains entirely plausible. With each passing day, however, it becomes more difficult. The path we are on may well lead to uncontained viral contagion and monumental collateral damage to our society and economy. A more surgical approach is what we need.
[OA] Russell TW, Hellewell J, Jarvis CI, et al. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. medRxiv 2020:2020.03.05.20031773. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship
Adjusting for delay from confirmation-to-death, we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.3% (0.75%-5.3%) and 1.2% (0.38-2.7%). Comparing deaths onboard with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates using China data, we estimate IFR and CFR in China to be 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2-1.2%) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.3-2.4%) respectively.
LARRY BRILLIANT SAYS he doesn’t have a crystal ball. But 14 years ago, Brilliant, the epidemiologist who helped eradicate smallpox, spoke to a TED audience and described what the next pandemic would look like. At the time, it sounded almost too horrible to take seriously. “A billion people would get sick," he said. “As many as 165 million people would die.
There would be a global recession and depression, and the cost to our economy of $1 to $3 trillion would be far worse for everyone than merely 100 million people dying, because so many more people would lose their jobs and their health care benefits, that the consequences are almost unthinkable.”
Now the unthinkable is here, and Brilliant, the Chairman of the board of Ending Pandemics, is sharing expertise with those on the front lines. We are a long way from 100 million deaths due to the novel coronavirus, but it has turned our world upside down. Brilliant is trying not to say “I told you so” too often.
But he did tell us so, not only in talks and writings, but as the senior technical advisor for the pandemic horror film Contagion, now a top streaming selection for the homebound. Besides working with the World Health Organization in the effort to end smallpox, Brilliant, who is now 75, has fought flu, polio, and blindness; once led Google’s nonprofit wing, Google.org; co-founded the conferencing system the Well; and has traveled with the Grateful Dead.
We talked by phone on Tuesday. At the time, President Donald Trump’s response to the crisis had started to change from “no worries at all” to finally taking more significant steps to stem the pandemic. Brilliant lives in one of the six Bay Area counties where residents were ordered to shelter in place.
When we began the conversation, he’d just gotten off the phone with someone he described as high government official, who asked Brilliant “How the fuck did we get here?” I wanted to hear how we’ll get out of here. The conversation has been edited and condensed.
...
As patient self reported case report who didnt even get tests results
If that isnt strong evidence i dont know what is
Last edited:
On March 15, a group of students at Harvard Medical School created a Response Team to organize their efforts against the COVID-19 pandemic. They identified two main opportunities for impact: education and activism. Education efforts have resulted in this curriculum intended for the medical community and a public-facing social media campaign (see @FutureMDvsCOVID). Activism work has involved coordinating ways that students can provide on-the-ground help in both the community and clinical settings.
For inquiries about the HMS COVID-19 Student Response Team’s efforts, please contact: hmscovid19studentresponse@gmail.com.
This curriculum was entirely written and compiled by Harvard Medical School students. This document is not an official publication of the institution. It is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.
While our primary audience is our classmates, we suspect the curriculum will be of use to other medical students and health professionals across the country. We encourage you to share these materials with anyone whom you believe may benefit from them. If you are from outside the HMS community, welcome. We invite you to sign the guest book so we can track this material’s reach.
The contents in each module were reviewed for accuracy by expert faculty members at the time of initial publication. We thank them for their attention during this particularly demanding time. However, given our constantly changing understanding of SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic’s spread in society, the material in this curriculum will need to be updated frequently, and we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information at any given time. A date stamp is included at the bottom right of each page to indicate how recently the material was revisited. We plan to update content every Friday.
Module 1: From Bench to Bedside
Evaluate how the emerging understanding of COVID-19 pathophysiology translates to evolving diagnosis, treatment, and prevention efforts.
Module 2: Epidemiology Principles
Introduce epidemiological principles underlying the current public health interventions regarding COVID-19, and evaluate how these interventions could influence the impact of the pandemic.
Module 3: Current Situation and Healthcare Response, in Massachusetts and Beyond
Appreciate the complex and rapidly changing landscape of the COVID-19 pandemic as it stands in Massachusetts, as well as the adapting responses of the healthcare system and society as a whole.
Module 4: Communicating Information about COVID-19
Now that you’ve bolstered your COVID-19 knowledge, prepare to productively communicate that information, especially with a non-medical audience who may have varying attitudes towards the pandemic.
[Module 5: Clinical Role-Specific Skills]
This forthcoming module will address some of the practical skills that students may require as they are called upon to fill new clinical roles.
[NYC Health Department] Sex and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-sex-guidance.pdf
All New Yorkers should stay home and minimize contact with others to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
But can you have sex?
Here are some tips for how to enjoy sex and to avoid spreading COVID-19.
2. Have sex with people close to you.
· You are your safest sex partner. Masturbation will not spread COVID-19, especially if you wash your hands (and any sex toys) with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before and after sex.
· The next safest partner is someone you live with. Having close contact — including sex — with only a small circle of people helps prevent spreading COVID-19.
· You should avoid close contact — including sex — with anyone outside your household. If you do have sex with others, have as few partners as possible.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-sex-guidance.pdf
All New Yorkers should stay home and minimize contact with others to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
But can you have sex?
Here are some tips for how to enjoy sex and to avoid spreading COVID-19.
2. Have sex with people close to you.
· You are your safest sex partner. Masturbation will not spread COVID-19, especially if you wash your hands (and any sex toys) with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before and after sex.
· The next safest partner is someone you live with. Having close contact — including sex — with only a small circle of people helps prevent spreading COVID-19.
· You should avoid close contact — including sex — with anyone outside your household. If you do have sex with others, have as few partners as possible.
Sage advice doc haha
“I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know...
You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying!
If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan".
But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds.
Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!”
― Christopher Nolan The Dark Knight
You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying!
If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan".
But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds.
Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!”
― Christopher Nolan The Dark Knight
Similar threads
