Why doesn't the Ncaa ban fans from the conf tourneys?

[mtgrizrule]

All this trouble for what the president says is a hoax, fake news, and a plot by Dems to get him.

Don't turn this into politics! I'm sick of the political games. Each side has crooks, cheats, and liars among them. No President, regardless of party, should be blamed for something like this. I'll leave it that.

As for the sickness, I'm praying for a cure, and the insanity around this sickness goes away.

 

[first11]

Nero gave a classic performance last night.

 

[cclarkblues]

Let's knock off the politics.

 

[first11]

Okie dokie

 

[GoldStandardGriz]

All this trouble for what the president says is a hoax, fake news, and a plot by Dems to get him.

Don't turn this into politics! I'm sick of the political games. Each side has crooks, cheats, and liars among them. No President, regardless of party, should be blamed for something like this. I'll leave it that.

As for the sickness, I'm praying for a cure, and the insanity around this sickness goes away.

It's not about politics, it's about leadership, and I've come to the conclusion we are being led by a total buffoon. If you think our leader holds no culpability in our nation's unpreparedness, especially with a 2-month head start, then you are a total buffoon also. Pray all you want, I'll take science every day.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... It's not about politics, it's about leadership, and I've come to the conclusion we are being led by a total buffoon. If you think our leader holds no culpability in our nation's unpreparedness, especially with a 2-month head start, then you are a total buffoon also. Pray all you want, I'll take science every day.

Where's the two-month head start?

Trump may seem "uncouth" to some, but he depends upon expert advice ... from scientists (he's not a scientist, and nor are most citizens). I just looked at a NY Times timeline to refresh my memory. Until late January, the outbreak was a Chinese thing, and I could not find any experts saying it was likely to be a credible threat in the U.S. Had the President imposed severe, or even relatively mild measures, he would have been labeled a "dictator," a "Nazi." (Not that some media wasn't already saying that anyway, for other reasons.) Had he asked for major funding to combat an unlikely -- according to the WHO -- threat, hardly anyone, if any, would have stepped up in support.

On January 30 (six weeks ago), the WHO declared a "global health emergency" ... not a "pandemic." The very next day, Trump imposed travel restrictions on a mix of people entering the U.S. after visiting China. Check out the headlines ... many commentators judged the (relatively mild) impositions to be "arbitrary" and uncalled-for. Given the scientific information available as time passed, I would consider the government's response quite reasoned and responsible. (FYI, I have a PhD in chemistry and several in-laws who work in the health-care field.)

 

[zengriz]

...a chinese disease...
...named after a Mexican beer...
...don trump catches it and gets sick...
...there will never be anything more ironic...

... :shock: ...

 

[GoldenEagle]

... It's not about politics, it's about leadership, and I've come to the conclusion we are being led by a total buffoon. If you think our leader holds no culpability in our nation's unpreparedness, especially with a 2-month head start, then you are a total buffoon also. Pray all you want, I'll take science every day.

Where's the two-month head start?

Trump may seem "uncouth" to some, but he depends upon expert advice ... from scientists (he's not a scientist, and nor are most citizens). I just looked at a NY Times timeline to refresh my memory. Until late January, the outbreak was a Chinese thing, and I could not find any experts saying it was likely to be a credible threat in the U.S. Had the President imposed severe, or even relatively mild measures, he would have been labeled a "dictator," a "Nazi." (Not that some media wasn't already saying that anyway, for other reasons.) Had he asked for major funding to combat an unlikely -- according to the WHO -- threat, hardly anyone, if any, would have stepped up in support.

On January 30 (six weeks ago), the WHO declared a "global health emergency" ... not a "pandemic." The very next day, Trump imposed travel restrictions on a mix of people entering the U.S. after visiting China. Check out the headlines ... many commentators judged the (relatively mild) impositions to be "arbitrary" and uncalled-for. Given the scientific information available as time passed, I would consider the government's response quite reasoned and responsible. (FYI, I have a PhD in chemistry and several in-laws who work in the health-care field.)

From one PhD to another, you're totally naive if you think Trump listens to scientists. So you are telling me no one from the CDC was screaming that this was an issue as soon as the reports were coming out of China?

 

[IdaGriz01]

... From one PhD to another, you're totally naive if you think Trump listens to scientists. So you are telling me no one from the CDC was screaming that this was an issue as soon as the reports were coming out of China?

From one PhD back, I know for a fact that Trump listens to scientists. They may be down the line from the political advisors, but they do get heard, and (sometimes) heeded. And yes, I am telling you that "no one from the CDC was screaming" about a major issue. On January 17, the CDC issued a long, detailed statement about what they knew (or could infer) about the outbreak. It included this:

CDC has established an Incident Management System to coordinate a domestic and international public health response.
...
Although the transmission dynamics have yet to be determined, CDC currently recommends a cautious approach to patients under investigation for 2019-nCoV ... Healthcare personnel entering the room should use standard precautions ...

"Standard precautions" with a routine response mechanism: No where in the message were they "screaming" about a major issue. In fact, based on volume of documents issued during that period, they were more concerned about a worse-than-normal "flu season" and the fact that the available flu vaccines might not be as effective as in past years.

 

[GoldenEagle]

... From one PhD to another, you're totally naive if you think Trump listens to scientists. So you are telling me no one from the CDC was screaming that this was an issue as soon as the reports were coming out of China?

From one PhD back, I know for a fact that Trump listens to scientists. They may be down the line from the political advisors, but they do get heard, and (sometimes) heeded. And yes, I am telling you that "no one from the CDC was screaming" about a major issue. On January 17, the CDC issued a long, detailed statement about what they knew (or could infer) about the outbreak. It included this:

CDC has established an Incident Management System to coordinate a domestic and international public health response.
...
Although the transmission dynamics have yet to be determined, CDC currently recommends a cautious approach to patients under investigation for 2019-nCoV ... Healthcare personnel entering the room should use standard precautions ...

"Standard precautions" with a routine response mechanism: No where in the message were they "screaming" about a major issue. In fact, based on volume of documents issued during that period, they were more concerned about a worse-than-normal "flu season" and the fact that the available flu vaccines might not be as effective as in past years.

So, your telling me a "novel" Coronavirus was detected in china and all the CDC recommended was standard precautions as SOP. Bullshit!

 

[argh!]

... From one PhD to another, you're totally naive if you think Trump listens to scientists. So you are telling me no one from the CDC was screaming that this was an issue as soon as the reports were coming out of China?

From one PhD back, I know for a fact that Trump listens to scientists. They may be down the line from the political advisors, but they do get heard, and (sometimes) heeded. And yes, I am telling you that "no one from the CDC was screaming" about a major issue. On January 17, the CDC issued a long, detailed statement about what they knew (or could infer) about the outbreak. It included this:

CDC has established an Incident Management System to coordinate a domestic and international public health response.
...
Although the transmission dynamics have yet to be determined, CDC currently recommends a cautious approach to patients under investigation for 2019-nCoV ... Healthcare personnel entering the room should use standard precautions ...

"Standard precautions" with a routine response mechanism: No where in the message were they "screaming" about a major issue. In fact, based on volume of documents issued during that period, they were more concerned about a worse-than-normal "flu season" and the fact that the available flu vaccines might not be as effective as in past years.

So, your telling me a "novel" Coronavirus was detected in china and all the CDC recommended was standard precautions as SOP. Bullshit!

the idaho guy obviously isn't a phd in a medical-related field.

 

[reinell30]

So during all the blaming of trump, why did your beloved bitch Pelosi not open her mouth 2 months ago? Oh wait, I know, Because her and the rest of the idiot Dems in DC were waiting to see what a true leader (TRUMP) would do. That way no matter what he decided, they could blame him for his decisions. You liberals make me puke!

 

[IdaGriz01]

... From one PhD to another, you're totally naive if you think Trump listens to scientists. So you are telling me no one from the CDC was screaming that this was an issue as soon as the reports were coming out of China?

From one PhD back, I know for a fact that Trump listens to scientists. They may be down the line from the political advisors, but they do get heard, and (sometimes) heeded. And yes, I am telling you that "no one from the CDC was screaming" about a major issue. On January 17, the CDC issued a long, detailed statement about what they knew (or could infer) about the outbreak. It included this:

CDC has established an Incident Management System to coordinate a domestic and international public health response.
...
Although the transmission dynamics have yet to be determined, CDC currently recommends a cautious approach to patients under investigation for 2019-nCoV ... Healthcare personnel entering the room should use standard precautions ...

"Standard precautions" with a routine response mechanism: No where in the message were they "screaming" about a major issue. In fact, based on volume of documents issued during that period, they were more concerned about a worse-than-normal "flu season" and the fact that the available flu vaccines might not be as effective as in past years.

So, your telling me a "novel" Coronavirus was detected in china and all the CDC recommended was standard precautions as SOP. Bullshit!

the idaho guy obviously isn't a phd in a medical-related field.

NOT bullshit. Here's the link to the January 17 document: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/han00426.asp
Here's one other quote, since the article is pretty long:

Healthcare providers should obtain a detailed travel history for patients being evaluated with fever and acute respiratory illness. CDC guidance for evaluating and reporting a PUI for MERS-CoV remains unchanged.

FYI: "PUI" is Person Under Investigation.
Go read for yourself ... no "screaming" there at all.

One more thing: My degree is in chemistry. No, not directly health related ... aside from the fact that essentially all our modern medicines and vaccines were produced first by some chemist in a laboratory.

 

[tourist]

Let's knock off the politics.

On the Political BS forum. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumb:

 

[argh!]

From one PhD back, I know for a fact that Trump listens to scientists. They may be down the line from the political advisors, but they do get heard, and (sometimes) heeded. And yes, I am telling you that "no one from the CDC was screaming" about a major issue. On January 17, the CDC issued a long, detailed statement about what they knew (or could infer) about the outbreak. It included this:

"Standard precautions" with a routine response mechanism: No where in the message were they "screaming" about a major issue. In fact, based on volume of documents issued during that period, they were more concerned about a worse-than-normal "flu season" and the fact that the available flu vaccines might not be as effective as in past years.

So, your telling me a "novel" Coronavirus was detected in china and all the CDC recommended was standard precautions as SOP. Bullshit!

the idaho guy obviously isn't a phd in a medical-related field.

NOT bullshit. Here's the link to the January 17 document: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/han00426.asp
Here's one other quote, since the article is pretty long:

Healthcare providers should obtain a detailed travel history for patients being evaluated with fever and acute respiratory illness. CDC guidance for evaluating and reporting a PUI for MERS-CoV remains unchanged.

FYI: "PUI" is Person Under Investigation.
Go read for yourself ... no "screaming" there at all.

One more thing: My degree is in chemistry. No, not directly health related ... aside from the fact that essentially all our modern medicines and vaccines were produced first by some chemist in a laboratory.

no they weren't. salk, for instance, was an epidemiologist. if you were an medicinal chemist, sure, you'd know something. a wood chemist? physical chemist? lots of different types of chemistry that are only tangentially related to biochem.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... no they weren't. salk, for instance, was an epidemiologist. if you were an medicinal chemist, sure, you'd know something. a wood chemist? physical chemist? lots of different types of chemistry that are only tangentially related to biochem.

Well, "essentially all" might have been a slight exaggeration, but I'd say around 80% is close enough. Of the most-used prescription drugs in 2015-2018, twenty-one of twenty-six were discovered by chemists and/biochemists. Just one example: Bruce Roth, the discoverer of Atorvastatin -- brand-name Lipitor -- was an organic chemist who got his Ph.D. from Iowa State. Salk was the exception, not the rule.

 

[argh!]

... no they weren't. salk, for instance, was an epidemiologist. if you were an medicinal chemist, sure, you'd know something. a wood chemist? physical chemist? lots of different types of chemistry that are only tangentially related to biochem.

Well, "essentially all" might have been a slight exaggeration, but I'd say around 80% is close enough. Of the most-used prescription drugs in 2015-2018, twenty-one of twenty-six were discovered by chemists and/biochemists. Just one example: Bruce Roth, the discoverer of Atorvastatin -- brand-name Lipitor -- was an organic chemist who got his Ph.D. from Iowa State. Salk was the exception, not the rule.

again, there are many types of chemists, including biochemists and medicinal chemists, who frequently synthesize an agent that works at a previously discovered site. just let us know what type of chemist you are, that will shut me up.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... Again, there are many types of chemists, including biochemists and medicinal chemists, who frequently synthesize an agent that works at a previously discovered site. just let us know what type of chemist you are, that will shut me up.

Have no desire to shut you up ... I'm interested in the core problem of the outbreak. So as I see it, the main issue here is not my competence to comment on issues related to the virus outbreak. Right along, I have simply copied here information that had been posted by the CDC, or was based on data from that body (i.e., the NY Times article). Anyone, scientifically trained or not, could have done that if they were interested and knew where to look. Goldeneagle chose to attack the messenger and discount the message. The message: Experts -- the CDC -- did not issue what any reasonable person would consider an "alarm" about the problem, right up to the point, and beyond, where the WHO declared the "global health emergency" on January 30.

(Aside: No, my specialty is not health-related. However, as a college instructor (with my Ph.D.), I taught many -- several hundred -- students pursuing pre-med and pharmaceutical degrees, with lectures including the development background of many health-related advances.)

To continue the prime message, BTW: According to the CDC postings, new guidelines were issued right after the China travel ban ... but the document has since been updated, so one cannot tell exactly what it said originally. Here's that link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html

The CDC issued another document about the virus on February 7, posting it online “as an MMWR Early Release”: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6906e1.htm?s_cid=mm6906e1_x

The release included the following in its summary:

What are the implications for public health practice?
Health care providers should remain vigilant regarding possible 2019-nCoV exposure not only among returning travelers, but also among persons in close contact with 2019-nCoV patients in the United States.

I'd call advice to "remain vigilant" pretty low key, suggesting (my opinion) that they still didn't have a good handle on what they were dealing with.

The CDC issued another MMWR update on February 25: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6908e1.htm

Here’s a quote from that posting:

Discussion
COVID-19 is a serious public health threat. Cases of COVID-19 have been diagnosed in the United States, primarily in travelers from China and quarantined repatriates, and also in two close contacts of COVID-19 patients. Currently, COVID-19 is not recognized to be spreading in U.S. communities. If sustained transmission in U.S. communities is identified, the U.S. response strategy will enhance implementation of actions to slow spread in communities (2,6). Implementation of basic precautions of infection control and prevention, including staying home when ill and practicing respiratory and hand hygiene will become increasingly important.

You can make what you want of this CDC-provided information. To repeat, this is not about my expertise in health related matters. This is what any interested citizen could learn by actually following what the experts with the prime responsibility were saying and doing … less than three weeks ago.

 

[argh!]

... Again, there are many types of chemists, including biochemists and medicinal chemists, who frequently synthesize an agent that works at a previously discovered site. just let us know what type of chemist you are, that will shut me up.

Have no desire to shut you up ... I'm interested in the core problem of the outbreak. So as I see it, the main issue here is not my competence to comment on issues related to the virus outbreak. Right along, I have simply copied here information that had been posted by the CDC, or was based on data from that body (i.e., the NY Times article). Anyone, scientifically trained or not, could have done that if they were interested and knew where to look. Goldeneagle chose to attack the messenger and discount the message. The message: Experts -- the CDC -- did not issue what any reasonable person would consider an "alarm" about the problem, right up to the point, and beyond, where the WHO declared the "global health emergency" on January 30.

(Aside: No, my specialty is not health-related. However, as a college instructor (with my Ph.D.), I taught many -- several hundred -- students pursuing pre-med and pharmaceutical degrees, with lectures including the development background of many health-related advances.)

To continue the prime message, BTW: According to the CDC postings, new guidelines were issued right after the China travel ban ... but the document has since been updated, so one cannot tell exactly what it said originally. Here's that link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html

The CDC issued another document about the virus on February 7, posting it online “as an MMWR Early Release”: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6906e1.htm?s_cid=mm6906e1_x

The release included the following in its summary:

What are the implications for public health practice?
Health care providers should remain vigilant regarding possible 2019-nCoV exposure not only among returning travelers, but also among persons in close contact with 2019-nCoV patients in the United States.

I'd call advice to "remain vigilant" pretty low key, suggesting (my opinion) that they still didn't have a good handle on what they were dealing with.

The CDC issued another MMWR update on February 25: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6908e1.htm

Here’s a quote from that posting:

Discussion
COVID-19 is a serious public health threat. Cases of COVID-19 have been diagnosed in the United States, primarily in travelers from China and quarantined repatriates, and also in two close contacts of COVID-19 patients. Currently, COVID-19 is not recognized to be spreading in U.S. communities. If sustained transmission in U.S. communities is identified, the U.S. response strategy will enhance implementation of actions to slow spread in communities (2,6). Implementation of basic precautions of infection control and prevention, including staying home when ill and practicing respiratory and hand hygiene will become increasingly important.

You can make what you want of this CDC-provided information. To repeat, this is not about my expertise in health related matters. This is what any interested citizen could learn by actually following what the experts with the prime responsibility were saying and doing … less than three weeks ago.

appreciate your candor, here's my take on what you don't seem to think is alarm-ringing language:
they are scientists at the cdc, who use, and expect to hear, rational scientific language like 'remain vigilant' (or else we're fucked). i would guess they didn't need the ''or we're fucked" part to understand what was being said. scientific communications aren't meant for fox news.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... appreciate your candor, here's my take on what you don't seem to
think is alarm-ringing language: they are scientists at the cdc, who use, and expect to hear, rational scientific language like 'remain vigilant' (or else we're f***[*]). i would guess they didn't need the ''or we're f***[*]" part to understand what was being said. scientific communications aren't meant for fox news.

Actually, I don’t think (hope) you and I are all that far apart on this issue … and I almost sent you a PM with a response I thought you might find informative/amusing. But then I decided it was worth sharing.

First, I totally agree that scientific writing out of the CDC will always be relatively low key and definitely not “meant for Fox news” (or CNN, MSNBC, etc.). I spent nearly thirty years in the close proximity to that environment, as a research scientist and supervisor/manager at the DOE national lab here in Idaho Falls. The documents out of the CDC that I quoted and linked fall strictly into the CYA (“Cover Your Ass”) category, IMO. Recall this segment from the February 25 release:

Implementation of basic precautions of infection control and prevention, including staying home when ill and practicing respiratory and hand hygiene will become increasingly important.

You read the complete documents and they can all be viewed like that. Any criticism that those “basic precautions” should have been implemented sooner can be deflected with: “Well, we told you back in February they’d be 'increasingly important'." And I suspect you would agree that no top-level appointee (even one with a scientific background) is going to shout “fire” when the situation was so fluid and uncertain. The prez wouldn’t know how to interpret all that cautious “tech speak,” and neither would any of his closest advisors.

Actually, I have a strong sense of deju vu with all this. My lab (I’m was a mass spectroscopist, BTW) received samples related to a number of fairly famous radiation emergencies/disasters – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Rocky Flats – as well as some I probably should still not mention, even now. Of course, the mechanisms for the spread of radioactive substances are generally (but not entirely) different from biological entities. But the public’s (and media’s) reaction to radioactive “events” is, if anything, more paranoid and panicky than the response to anything short of a bone fide bioweapon (think “sarin” on the subways in Japan). So the panic attacks that some people had with those radiation releases -– think the movie China Syndrome –- seem all too familiar. No doubt that plays a role in my interpretation of the CDC documents -- I see more CYA than any attempt to be frankly informative. (FWIW: My wife, also a chemist, performed bioassay analyses to detect potential personnel contamination at Three Mile Island and several other somewhat similar events. So while we were not in the "health fields," we do know a little something around the periphery.)