outbreak! (ebola, sars, coronavirus, etc)

uncle (who is at risk) is now back to going to the pub but still gets my mum to buy his shopping. and they all went out for a meal (inside) yesterday (only people in there, fortunately)

I wonder how Vale is doing. He's up there in years.

We have coronavirus vaccines already. We already know it is safe enough to test in 30k people. Thousands are dying. So, after thinking lately, I agree w/@StevenSalzberg1—people deserve early access if they choose. Continue Phase 3 trials, but allow for compassionate use. #covid19 https://t.co/kwfFGV9uaZ

— Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) August 2, 2020

I think I hate this guy more than anyone who isn't a republican politician

Feigl-Ding is worthy of the abysmal names thread.

I want a smug-ass photomontage of myself looking smart in a newsy environment for my Twitter header so bad now

just hear those sleigh bells feigl-ding

would there even be a situation that would legitimately warrant giving out doses for compassionate use prior to the trials being completed?

I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to do that, but just wondering if there would ever be a feasible situation where you'd have no other choice - like a pandemic with similar R number but higher mortality rate?

I don't check the COVID threads much anymore--did this get posted about face shields?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/07/31/coronavirus-mask-safety-questions-todd-pkg-tsr-vpx.cnn

I hate the way the headline ("experts now question if masks are enough") suggests one level of urgency and the piece another. Something new to be uncertain about.

My takeaway from that piece is that most people probably don't need the face shield, but if you're teacher or someone else would will be around a lot of people who are not complying, the face shield wouldn't be a bad idea. Also that such PPE is a lot cheaper and easier to get now than it was at the start.

would there even be a situation that would legitimately warrant giving out doses for compassionate use prior to the trials being completed?

I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to do that, but just wondering if there would ever be a feasible situation where you'd have no other choice - like a pandemic with similar R number but higher mortality rate?

― XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Sunday, August 2, 2020 7:23 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

lots of people used essentially this reasoning (with some important differences) advocating HCQ use outside trials early on. the most likely scenario would be the vaccine is perfectly safe but ineffective, in which case a lot of money is spent eroding public trust at a time where we can’t really afford it. there are also obviously disaster scenarios where the vaccine is unsafe and then no one ever wants to take a vaccine again

I normally wouldn’t signal boost guys like eric dingleberry or whatever his name is, he’s like the krassenstein of public health, but a couple of people who should know better are substantively engaging

I've been seeing a lot of adverts for face shield as fashion accessory coming out of china. I do wonder how this sort of thing will become part of every day life in different parts of the world. Mask wearing was already pretty common in East Asian countries before the pandemic. I could see it persisting in certain contexts longs after this pandemic subsides, and maybe face shields will become part of that.

This was one of the more fashion forward face shields I've had pointed at me.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001274903185.html?spm=a2g0o.cart.0.0.4c413c00XmWgUs&mp=1

Uhhh re that story about the ASU prof, jfc:

so tl;dr on the sciencing_bi thing for people that aren't scientists or do not care:
it seems like Bethann, famous for botching MeTooStem, ran an account where she cosplayed an indigenous anthro prof at ASU, but incredibly was only exposed after having the account die of covid-19

— aspiring leftist academic (@endlesswario) August 2, 2020

holy shit

Airplane look today ✈️ stay safe 🌸 pic.twitter.com/yOSkFDIJCq

— Pamela Anderson (@pamfoundation) July 22, 2020

Short of a family member falling seriously ill there's no way I'm going anywhere near an aeroplane any time soon. (and no guarantee that the Australian government would let me out even if I did have a reason) However a plane is definitely a context where I would wear a face shield.

morbidly fascinated on the ASU-professor hoax upthread

we live in hell

what’s the latest on advil + covid

I haven’t seen anything that has convinced me I should think any differently about them

does . . . that mean they’re okay to take or not?

(thanks)

it’s probably fine but tylenol/acetominophen/paracetemol works, is better on your stomach and doesn’t have any question marks around it, is how i look at it

That’s the advil + covid cavil covered

uk tv has adverts saying that the nhs has said it's fine to continue to use ibuprofen (advil) and paracetamol.

and then you look closer and the advert is a nurofen advert, a british enhanced ibuprofen brand...

(ibuprofen has *slightly* different uses to paracetamol - it's better for muscle aches, swelling as it's an Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID))

ime paracetemol worked brilliantly. however you do have to be strategic with the timing. it works very well until it doesn’t, and then you really want a re-up. the most important one really is the one right before bed. there were a few nights where it was bad enough that i actually took one again in the middle of the night, counting that as my “morning” one.

i spent way too long reading about that sciencing_bi thing and then fell down the worm Twitter, er, wormhole

what the hell is wrong with people?!?!

we live in hell

― k3vin k., Monday, August 3, 2020 12:13 AM (nine hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

it’s probably fine but tylenol/acetominophen/paracetemol works, is better on your stomach and doesn’t have any question marks around it, is how i look at it

does . . . that mean they’re okay to take or not?

(thanks)

― mookieproof, Monday, August 3, 2020 1:24 AM (nine hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

ha, this was me weaseling out of giving medical advice. COVID has not changed how I look at NSAIDs, was what I was trying to say

That Sciencing Bi thing is further evidence that the world we live in is absolute shit.

very bold to create a fake LGBTQ female Native American anthro professor and assume your creation will get lost in the giant sea of that demographic

ed yong has been the best writer about this, and this excerpt seems basically otm.

smug rich home-office liberals scolding people about masks and going to the beach is like focusing on other people's seatbelts while everyone's driving 100mph, if we're all driving 100mph because of government failures. (this metaphor needs work.)

https://t.co/7QMIhKaYyJ pic.twitter.com/UxpIrQhqqf

— Wesley (@WesleyLowery) August 3, 2020

to continue the metaphor, and that's why we need to ban cars

went to the beach 3x last week, has to be one of the safest outdoor activities imo

have that article queued up, looking forward to reading it

yup. beaches have fairly constant ocean breezes and the replacement air coming off the ocean will be infection-free. but some of the hyper-crowded beaches I've seen in photos seem a lot less than ideally safe to me.

yeah risk certainly goes up with more crowding. the beaches around us in boston are pretty well-distanced, hasn't been a problem to sit 100 feet from the nearest person. going in the evening helps too

We have some non-crowded beaches locally that we've been swimming at. Social distancing hasn't been an issue at all. But over the weekend we were chased out of our regular spots by jellyfish, so we decided to try a larger local beach on the Chesapeake. We got there and it was packed to the gills with people. We rolled up there masked anyway, but we did a quick turnaround and left.

It was just like, oh shit I haven't been in a teeming mass of unmasked people in a LONG time.

i think i posted on another thread that there have been no confirmed transmissions at beaches worldwide (which is not true of parks btw). it appears to be very low risk.

it's given me the kick up the arse to do more beach trips - I've probably been more since lockdown started than last summer, excluding actual holiday. miles easier than parks etc imo.

just got tested in nyc; was told that under normal circumstances results can take up to two weeks, but if 'a rush is put on it' it might only take three days

so that's where we are, five months in, in a place that is actually trending decently

(unless you play baseball)

tbf it probably doesn't matter -- i can't really isolate any more than i've already been doing

Beaches and parks and bikepaths have been open here the whole time, and we didn't have a spike in cases until they reopened bars, then they closed the bars, I know science is hard but is this particular part of it actually that hard???

*then they closed the bars and the spike went away

It's been incredibly disappointing how many of the articles on failures in social/physical distancing have been illustrated with photos of sparsely populated beaches. Even if socializing, transmission risks at a beach is probably a small fraction of that at in a crowded bar/restaurant interiors.

Recent anecdotal (not physical) contact with anti-mask people is making me feel the U.S. is truly fucked:

The idea of being an anti-masker and also being extremely invested in your local food co-op is funny to me pic.twitter.com/gEkHwgyoHf

— CHANTS (@ChantsWI) August 3, 2020

From a bandmate:

Some fucking fat redneck loser in Walworth Country with "Obama Lies" stickers on his pickup truck tried to run us into oncoming traffic tonight, because he saw that we were from Madison. "Where's your masks??" he yelled

— Jung Millenial (@whothecanuck) August 3, 2020

Fauci going back and forth on schools reopening is annoying and unhelpful and the amount of conflicting or weird information coming out of the CDC is pissing me off

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/03/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html

"The default position with K-12 schools should be to reopen them, said Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
There are two big reasons schools should go back to in-person learning, Fauci said Monday. Students need the psychological and nutritional benefits of being in school, and parents may have to "dramatically modify their work schedule."
"The primary consideration should always be the safety, the health of the welfare of the children, as well as the teachers and the secondary effects for spreading (to) the parents and other family members," he said.

and yet:

"If Americans want schools to safely reopen and the economy to improve, they must get more serious about personal responsibility, health experts say.
"You have to do more than just wear masks and keep social distancing. You have to minimize your contact with as many people as possible," ACCESS Health's Haseltine said.
"It's not that complicated. But it is hard to do psychologically. It's hard to do sociologically. And it's extremely hard to do for young people."
"And if you do have to work," he said, "you have to assure that the workplace is safe and you can work safely at a distance."

you have to assure that the workplace is safe and you can work safely at a distance.

schools are workplaces. there's no way I can conceive of maintaining safe distancing in classrooms, unless students are divided into several shifts so the number in a classroom at any one time is very limited. this doesn't solve the problem of:

parents may have to "dramatically modify their work schedule."

Especially for parents with multiple children in school, who might each be taught on a different shift. the whole set of guidelines given do not combine into a coherent whole.