Read carefully. I said limit alcohol and did not say abstain . Haven't been to the Rockies to ski for almost a decade I'd guess. Heck, haven't been much of anywhere during that time to ski. I'd have a beer with dinner or (not "and") at bedtime when we'd be in the lodge for the evening/night. I'd guess I'd easily have about 96 ounces of water during our days at elevations like that and 12-16 ounces of beer.
[redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.
Keith Richards tells the story of a show in Brazil on an absurdly scorching hot day. Jagger kept telling the band in sound check, and before the show, that they all needed to hydrate seriously.
“Dammit Mick,” Keef finally snapped, “I’ll put some bloody ice cubes in my whiskey if you’ll just STF up!”
I wouldn't do much fishing as most of my time would be hanging over the side of the boat. What little fishing I've done has been off piers on the NC coast. I'll stick to golfing with my church buddies. We have a foursome that has been playing together on Monday for around 7 or 8 years now. More story telling and how we used to play than real golf. It's all about the fellowship.
GoDuke!
Last edited by jv001; 04-08-2020 at 08:49 AM.
I don’t want to get into this too deeply since it probably belongs more in the off topic board, but regarding the vaccine timeline: the 12-18 months that keeps being reported is EXTREMELY ambitious and would be the fastest a vaccine has been produced in history by far. That’s not to say it can’t be done. But from a scientific standpoint there are elements of the “testing” that just can’t be sped up no matter how much time and money you put into the problem.
There are ways I could foresee the world starting to get back to normal before a vaccine is developed if we keep attacking the problem aggressively (some sort of effective anti-viral treatment may be more feasible in the shorter term, and if aggressive social distancing works combined with enhanced testing it’s possible to start “tracking” cases once the numbers drop). But don’t put all your hopes on a vaccine.
Testing, and maybe more importantly tracking, as you say, and all the privacy concerns that carries with it.
Good Atlantic article on test and track
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...htmare/609577/
I'm beginning to think that my nose and eyes only itch while I'm shopping.
Haven't been allowed to talk about his until now, but here at our Pharmaceutical Services Group, we're making Remdesivir using existing API's. Remdesivir has shown great promise in the battle against Covid-19. If we include what we have already produced, we have enough API to produce 1.5 million doses and we're working around the clock to get it done. Those 1.5 million doses will be donated where they are most needed.
https://www.gilead.com/stories/artic...airman-and-ceo
Let me try this just one more time.
There is a term widely used in epidemiology called “excess mortality,” sometimes called “excess deaths,” or “mortality displacement.” If you google it you will find many references. The purpose is to estimate the number of deaths caused by heat waves, bad influenza seasons, wars, etc. The concern is that death certificates may not properly list the true instrumental cause of death. The word “excess” refers to the excess number of deaths over and above the number that would have been expected during that period normally, due to all other causes. The purpose, therefore, is to determine how many people would have still been alive but for the event in question. A clear description can be found here: Observations on Excess Mortality Associated with Epidemic Influenza, which says: “The most sensitive statistical measure of the extent of an influenza epidemic is the number of deaths due to influenza and pneumonia in excess of the usual seasonal expectancy.”
Often, such a calculation will result in a total that is higher than the total calculated by adding up the death certificates listing the target cause of death. However, starting with the total number of deaths during the period in question and subtracting from it a number that includes the number of people who would have died of other diseases or of old age during that period results in a difference that is intended to exclude the number of people who would have died of other diseases or of old age during that period.
Such a death total is considered useful since it is the “but for” number, and when the current pandemic is over such a calculation will be performed and that number will be attributed to Covid-19.
I think that’s all I have to say on this topic. Thanks for the discussion.
A report by the National Academies of Science says the coronavirus is unlikely to wane in the summer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...s-panel-finds/
I've heard many people having this same discussion/argument at work and at home. When the topic comes up, I like to quote Archie Bunker when he was discussing gun control with Gloria...
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI
Yes. Excess mortality is a useful term. But it's a useful term for something else. To the point, they won't be downgrading the deaths associated with COVID. They will only upgrade that number (or in a best-case scenario hold it as the current counts). They first estimate the number of deaths associated with a condition. That's the number that you'll see on most burden sites, and it is what is presented by the CDC for flu. They can then take that information and model out the excess mortality in a given year. But that's a separate thing.
You seemed to be implying that the counts being reported could potentially be reduced "like they do with flu." They don't do that with flu. For excess deaths, they do a separate calculation using the deaths data (adjusted for underreporting) and then adjusting downward for expected natural death. But that number is not the death count (which averages ~35,000 per year over the last decade) nor the case fatality rate (~0.1%) being reported by the CDC for flu. Similarly, the deaths associated with COVID are going to be presented comparably to what we're seeing - and they'll almost certainly be higher than the currently presented counts when the CDC goes back in the next couple of years and estimates the number of missed nonhospitalized deaths.
The "excess mortality" due to COVID will be lower, just like the "excess mortality" due to flu is lower than the ~35,000 deaths associated with flu estimated currently. But, again, that is a different number, for a different purpose.
If you are meaning something different, then that's fine. Not sure what the utility is of whatever that is necessarily, but it's fine.