The Covid-19 Thread: News, Preparation Tips, Etc
- Thread starter Black Ambrosia
- Start date
nyeredzi
Well-Known Member
We don't know the fatality rate of COVID-19 because we don't know how many people have it because we are barely testing. We are only testing the sickest people who don't have anything else. So our denominator is too small. In S. Korea where they did mass testing, greater than any country per capita, their fatality rate on closed cases is less than 1%. Still deadlier than the flu, but less so than SARS. This makes me wonder how good our estimates are for flu, too, since we don't test people for flu they way they've been testing for covid19. But we have had longer to study the flu. From business insider https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rate-south-korea-compared-to-flu-2020-3
"As of Thursday, 66 out of 7,869, or 0.84%, South Korean patients confirmed to have the coronavirus have died. Meanwhile, as of Thursday in the US, 38 out of 1,358 confirmed cases have resulted in death, a 2.8% death rate."
Everything Zen
Well-Known Member
One woman and all I see is a bunch of tool-ish looking white frat dudes up there giving each other props. 
silverbuttons
Not Impressed
Okay Pence. That’s enough brown nosing.
VinaytheMrs
Loving Life
Feels like an episode of the Apprentice. Trump seems stuffy and sniffly as well...
shelli4018
Well-Known Member
This presser is dumb.
Black Ambrosia
Well-Known Member
He might as well be on his knees.
Black Ambrosia
Well-Known Member
He keeps bringing up Obama. He literally can't keep that man's name outta his mouth.
Brwnbeauti
Well-Known Member
Frozen veggies and fruits were also well stocked in my store. That’s what I need
galleta31
Well-Known Member
I read that this year's flu killed more young people than usual. News about the flu has been placed on the backburner to coronavirus.
Black Ambrosia
Well-Known Member
Republicans Are Sneaking Abortion Restrictions into the Coronavirus Bill
Anti-choice lawmakers are stalling emergency legislation.
As lawmakers neared a deal on a coronavirus rescue package that would include paid sick leave and free virus testing, a few roadblocks emerged. Among them: Republican attempts to wedge anti-choice restrictions into the House's relief bill, turning—if momentarily—a public health crisis into an abortion debate.
The tensions reportedly revolved around the Hyde Amendment, a decades-old provision that blocks federal funds from going to abortion services, preventing millions of low-income Americans on Medicaid from accessing abortion care.
According to conservative media, some top Republicans believed a stipulation in the House bill requiring the government to reimburse private laboratories doing coronavirus testing could effectively overturn the Hyde Amendment by establishing a government funding stream not subject to the restrictions. In response, anti-choice lawmakers insisted on including language in the legislation that would reaffirm the principles of the amendment.
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Thursday that negotiations over the coronavirus response bill would go into next week, he accused House Speaker Pelosi of turning the legislation into an “ideological wish list.”
“Instead of focusing on immediate relief to affected individuals, families and businesses, the House Democrats chose to wander into various areas of policy that are barely related if at all to the issue before us,” McConnell said.
Yet it is often Republicans who use unrelated legislation as a vehicle for their anti-abortion agenda. And it’s not the first time they’ve used legislation tied to public health emergencies to do it: Amid the spread of the Zika virus in 2016, anti-choice lawmakers added a caveat blocking Planned Parenthood health care providers from accessing any of the designated emergency funds.
Conservative lawmakers also tried to wedged a sneaky anti-abortion provision into Trump’s 2017 tax plan, giving expectant parents the option of creating a savings plan before their child is even born. The measure included fetal personhood language, referring to fetuses as “unborn children,” and defining “unborn child” as any “child in utero.”
And abortion restrictions have been a sticking point in spending bills, which both parties use to push for policies they’re having trouble advancing by other means. In 2018, the White House pushed Republicans in Congress to slip measures that threatened to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood into a spending bill to prevent the third government shutdown of the year—even though government dollars never went to funding abortion services at the clinics because of the Hyde Amendment. A little less than a year later, Democrats used their new House majority to pass a spending bill that challenged the one of the Trump administration’s most wide-reaching abortion restrictions: the global gag rule, a law that bans U.S. funding from going to international organizations that provide abortion services or even discuss abortion as a form of reproductive health care. (This version of the spending bill did not make it past Senate Republicans.)
But while government shutdowns can, at a point, become national emergencies, none so far has compared to the scale of the current global coronavirus pandemic, which could leave the U.S. worse off than countries like Italy—which put a quarter of its population on emergency quarantine—the longer it delays decisive action.
The unemployment benefits and free testing that are at the core of the coronavirus rescue package mean preventing further spread of the virus, and making sure that low-wage workers can afford to pay for food, rent, and other necessities if they get sick, or if their workplaces shutter to mitigate harm, or as a result of government mandates.
Neither of those things have to do with abortion—they’re urgent health matters that require the fastest possible response from elected officials.
Anti-choice lawmakers are stalling emergency legislation.
As lawmakers neared a deal on a coronavirus rescue package that would include paid sick leave and free virus testing, a few roadblocks emerged. Among them: Republican attempts to wedge anti-choice restrictions into the House's relief bill, turning—if momentarily—a public health crisis into an abortion debate.
The tensions reportedly revolved around the Hyde Amendment, a decades-old provision that blocks federal funds from going to abortion services, preventing millions of low-income Americans on Medicaid from accessing abortion care.
According to conservative media, some top Republicans believed a stipulation in the House bill requiring the government to reimburse private laboratories doing coronavirus testing could effectively overturn the Hyde Amendment by establishing a government funding stream not subject to the restrictions. In response, anti-choice lawmakers insisted on including language in the legislation that would reaffirm the principles of the amendment.
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Thursday that negotiations over the coronavirus response bill would go into next week, he accused House Speaker Pelosi of turning the legislation into an “ideological wish list.”
“Instead of focusing on immediate relief to affected individuals, families and businesses, the House Democrats chose to wander into various areas of policy that are barely related if at all to the issue before us,” McConnell said.
Yet it is often Republicans who use unrelated legislation as a vehicle for their anti-abortion agenda. And it’s not the first time they’ve used legislation tied to public health emergencies to do it: Amid the spread of the Zika virus in 2016, anti-choice lawmakers added a caveat blocking Planned Parenthood health care providers from accessing any of the designated emergency funds.
Conservative lawmakers also tried to wedged a sneaky anti-abortion provision into Trump’s 2017 tax plan, giving expectant parents the option of creating a savings plan before their child is even born. The measure included fetal personhood language, referring to fetuses as “unborn children,” and defining “unborn child” as any “child in utero.”
And abortion restrictions have been a sticking point in spending bills, which both parties use to push for policies they’re having trouble advancing by other means. In 2018, the White House pushed Republicans in Congress to slip measures that threatened to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood into a spending bill to prevent the third government shutdown of the year—even though government dollars never went to funding abortion services at the clinics because of the Hyde Amendment. A little less than a year later, Democrats used their new House majority to pass a spending bill that challenged the one of the Trump administration’s most wide-reaching abortion restrictions: the global gag rule, a law that bans U.S. funding from going to international organizations that provide abortion services or even discuss abortion as a form of reproductive health care. (This version of the spending bill did not make it past Senate Republicans.)
But while government shutdowns can, at a point, become national emergencies, none so far has compared to the scale of the current global coronavirus pandemic, which could leave the U.S. worse off than countries like Italy—which put a quarter of its population on emergency quarantine—the longer it delays decisive action.
The unemployment benefits and free testing that are at the core of the coronavirus rescue package mean preventing further spread of the virus, and making sure that low-wage workers can afford to pay for food, rent, and other necessities if they get sick, or if their workplaces shutter to mitigate harm, or as a result of government mandates.
Neither of those things have to do with abortion—they’re urgent health matters that require the fastest possible response from elected officials.
Black Ambrosia
Well-Known Member
Is the flu worse for smokers? I'm wondering if this could be due to the numbers of people vaping and using e-cigs.
Black Ambrosia
Well-Known Member
This presser is making my blood pressure go up.
There doing that to divert the attention... and rising anger of the whole situation.
C@ssandr@
formerly known as "keyawarren"
But the issue with homeless children is not a public school issue. Services should be set up to help them outside of the school system. Period.
Sigh. It's just tough all around.
TrulyBlessed
Well-Known Member
I’m just in awe at people who think hand sanitizer is the only way to keep your hands clean. “Oh my gosh no more Purell Mr. President what are we supposed to do?!” Soap and water fools! Purell should not be the main source for hand cleansing. I’m convinced a lot of people are now washing their hands for the first time in years.
vevster
Well-Known Member
I’m so happy for you.
I don’t currently need, but I wanted to buy more.
But you cannot really wash your hands when you are out and about. Hence the reason you want a hand sanitizer. I prefer to use a hand sanitizer when I am outside my home/work, except when using the toilet of course. Then I wash AND sanitize.
Crackers Phinn
Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
As an employer this *$#(%*%!!! bug has cost me so much time, money and aggravation. A week ago, all employees had their own container of Clorox wipes and we had our regular stock of six 6 packs ( in the supply closet. Whycome every single one of them are gone? When the cleaning people came last night I had to give them my container to use. I called my vendor in my most pitiful voice and he let me know that he had a few packs left that he was rationing out 1 pack per customer with emergencies. I think people have been stealing toilet paper too.
The kicker is I'm pretty sure the biggest thieves are my relatives. Keep this pooh up tho.
Everything is a mess. People have to take time off or work remotely because the schools and daycare have closed. BOOOOOO!
The kicker is I'm pretty sure the biggest thieves are my relatives. Keep this pooh up tho.
Everything is a mess. People have to take time off or work remotely because the schools and daycare have closed. BOOOOOO!
shelli4018
Well-Known Member
He shook Dr. Fauci’s hand and breathed all over the microphone. Then Dr. Fauci rested his hand on in cheek.
But hey, stocks rose. Somehow I think Monday will look completely different.
He has it... i think he probably contracted during the PAC meetings. When one of the attendees who also had it shook his hand.
Last edited:
Black Ambrosia
Well-Known Member
I think it was a valid question. Too many places don't have soap. Different cities are restoring water service. It's not as straightforward as it seems despite the number of lazy people we see everyday.
Black Ambrosia
Well-Known Member
Now you know you should've locked that stuff up two weeks ago. ijsAs an employer this *$#(%*%!!! bug has cost me so much time, money and aggravation. A week ago, all employees had their own container of Clorox wipes and we had our regular stock of six 6 packs ( in the supply closet. Whycome every single one of them are gone? When the cleaning people came last night I had to give them my container to use. I called my vendor in my most pitiful voice and he let me know that he had a few packs left that he was rationing out 1 pack per customer with emergencies. I think people have been stealing toilet paper too.
The kicker is I'm pretty sure the biggest thieves are my relatives. Keep this pooh up tho.
Everything is a mess. People have to take time off or work remotely because the schools and daycare have closed. BOOOOOO!
rayne
Well-Known Member
To those of you making your own hand sanitizers, stick to 70% alcohol.
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/is...isinfecting-36723904?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Why 70 Percent Alcohol Disinfects Better Than 91 Percent, According to a Microbiologist
by Ashley Abramson
Published: Mar 9, 2020
When you’re worried about getting sick, it’s natural to bring out the big guns, like bleach or rubbing alcohol. Both of these products are effective at disinfecting your surfaces, but did you know there’s a counter-intuitive rule of thumb to follow when you clean with alcohol? It has to do with the percentage of alcohol by volume.
You would think alcohol solutions with a higher percentage would be more powerful at killing germs on your high-touch items like phones and doorknobs, right? A lower percent-alcohol means there’s more water diluting the mix in the bottle. But according to microbiology, 70 percent alcohol is probably more effective than 91 percent for disinfecting—depending on what kind of germs you’re trying to kill.
Here’s why a lower-percentage alcohol might be a better weapon against germs:
According to Dr. Elizabeth Scott, professor of microbiology at Simmons Center for Hygiene and Health in Home and Community at Simmons University in Boston, higher-percentage alcohols are more concentrated. That means lower percentages, like 70 percent, have more water in them. Turns out, the water is actually an important ingredient here.
See More Images
Credit: Heather McClees
Basically, a 90 or 91 percent alcohol solution is too powerful in some cases: It fries the outside of the cell before it can get into the inside and kill the actual germ. 70 percent alcohol is just the right proportion of water and alcohol to zap the entire cell.
“Seventy percent alcohol has some water in it that allows it to cross a cell membrane, to really get into the bacteria to kill them,” Scott says.
Interestingly, Scott explains this rule of thumb only applies when you’re attempting to fend off bacteria. Alcohol’s effectiveness against viruses depends on the unique virus. Viruses with an envelope structure—including the flu virus, the common cold, HIV, and the new coronavirus—can be can be deactivated by alcohol solutions (like hand sanitizer) of 60 percent or more, while others like norovirus won’t be effectively targeted by any concentration of alcohol. (Hand-washing helps to physically remove every type or virus and bacteria from your hands, and is an important part of any hygiene routine.)
Practically, how does this rule-of-thumb apply to home hygiene? If you’re cutting raw chicken on the counter and want to effectively disinfect the surface to prevent cross-contamination of E. coli and salmonella bacteria, you’d want to opt for 70 percent alcohol. But if you’re trying to disinfect a surface that might have viruses lingering on it—for example, if someone in your house has the flu—any dilution of alcohol will work as long as it’s above the recommended 60 percent.
In any case, it’s important to focus on hygiene practices like thorough hand washing (20 seconds of scrubbing each time!) and targeted hygiene (regularly disinfecting high-traffic hand-contact areas in your home, especially if someone sick has touched them). Stay healthy!
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/is...isinfecting-36723904?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Why 70 Percent Alcohol Disinfects Better Than 91 Percent, According to a Microbiologist
by Ashley Abramson
Published: Mar 9, 2020
When you’re worried about getting sick, it’s natural to bring out the big guns, like bleach or rubbing alcohol. Both of these products are effective at disinfecting your surfaces, but did you know there’s a counter-intuitive rule of thumb to follow when you clean with alcohol? It has to do with the percentage of alcohol by volume.
You would think alcohol solutions with a higher percentage would be more powerful at killing germs on your high-touch items like phones and doorknobs, right? A lower percent-alcohol means there’s more water diluting the mix in the bottle. But according to microbiology, 70 percent alcohol is probably more effective than 91 percent for disinfecting—depending on what kind of germs you’re trying to kill.
Here’s why a lower-percentage alcohol might be a better weapon against germs:
According to Dr. Elizabeth Scott, professor of microbiology at Simmons Center for Hygiene and Health in Home and Community at Simmons University in Boston, higher-percentage alcohols are more concentrated. That means lower percentages, like 70 percent, have more water in them. Turns out, the water is actually an important ingredient here.
See More ImagesCredit: Heather McClees
Basically, a 90 or 91 percent alcohol solution is too powerful in some cases: It fries the outside of the cell before it can get into the inside and kill the actual germ. 70 percent alcohol is just the right proportion of water and alcohol to zap the entire cell.
“Seventy percent alcohol has some water in it that allows it to cross a cell membrane, to really get into the bacteria to kill them,” Scott says.
Interestingly, Scott explains this rule of thumb only applies when you’re attempting to fend off bacteria. Alcohol’s effectiveness against viruses depends on the unique virus. Viruses with an envelope structure—including the flu virus, the common cold, HIV, and the new coronavirus—can be can be deactivated by alcohol solutions (like hand sanitizer) of 60 percent or more, while others like norovirus won’t be effectively targeted by any concentration of alcohol. (Hand-washing helps to physically remove every type or virus and bacteria from your hands, and is an important part of any hygiene routine.)
Practically, how does this rule-of-thumb apply to home hygiene? If you’re cutting raw chicken on the counter and want to effectively disinfect the surface to prevent cross-contamination of E. coli and salmonella bacteria, you’d want to opt for 70 percent alcohol. But if you’re trying to disinfect a surface that might have viruses lingering on it—for example, if someone in your house has the flu—any dilution of alcohol will work as long as it’s above the recommended 60 percent.
In any case, it’s important to focus on hygiene practices like thorough hand washing (20 seconds of scrubbing each time!) and targeted hygiene (regularly disinfecting high-traffic hand-contact areas in your home, especially if someone sick has touched them). Stay healthy!
Similar threads
