Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
"Coincide" is putting it lightly. The trajectory magically changes direction the day they made the reporting change.stessier wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:53 pm So nationwide, it seems like we've reached another peak and curves seem to be flattening.
I don't know if I believe it as this change coincides with the switch from reporting to the CDC to reporting to HHS.
It may also be they the face shielders were all working in the same area. It would kind of ruin the study but if a particular job or location was assigned sheilds, rather than a random distribution, there could be issues.Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:15 pm I didn't think the face shields were as good as a mask (as pointed out, how could they be - they hover above your face), but I was a bit surprised to see that all the people that tested positive were wearing them (and only them). That suggests to me that the micro-air currents that occur around your head during social interaction are crafty enough to allow the virus to go around and under. It could also mean that the virus is way more virulent (few viral particles are needed) than we realize.
Info has been changing weekly. Wearing masks (anecdotally) seems to help lower transmission rates, yes. There's also anecdotal evidence that there might be protective benefits to wearing one as well. However, the main reason they're now promoted is to stop accidental spread.LordMortis wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:29 pm I was under the impression mask were to keep you from infecting others not so much to keep you from getting infected. It would seem to me the a face shield *should* limit your sending particulates all over the place, not as effectively as a mask but loads better than nothing.
Is this the beginning of changing what we think we know?
Also wouldn't the non-face shield masks probably be N95 masks, since this is in a medical setting? My understanding is that those masks both protect the wearer and the people around them, unlike regular 'civilian' masks, which only protect the people around them (though I would assume that 'regular' masks would have *some* protective effect on the wearer, even if it's minimal).Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:43 pmInfo has been changing weekly. Wearing masks (anecdotally) seems to help lower transmission rates, yes. There's also anecdotal evidence that there might be protective benefits to wearing one as well. However, the main reason they're now promoted is to stop accidental spread.LordMortis wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:29 pm I was under the impression mask were to keep you from infecting others not so much to keep you from getting infected. It would seem to me the a face shield *should* limit your sending particulates all over the place, not as effectively as a mask but loads better than nothing.
Is this the beginning of changing what we think we know?
With a face shield my assumption was that they're not effective in helping to keep the virus out of the air; it's just redirecting particles down and to the side. Face shields should protect you from the savages that can't cover their faces during a sneeze or cough, but the fact that it seemingly doesn't protect from just being around COVID floating in the air is interesting - mainly because (to me) it suggests the virus has potential to hang out in the air and not just drop to the ground (airborne vs droplet spread). Again, this is also being debated and our overall understanding of those two modes of transmission might completely change in the coming months or years.
I'm still going to use the terms how I was taught until I'm told otherwise. But as Lawbeef also noted, I want to know more about these people. Did they have the same jobs? Did they work in the same area? Lots of questions.
My issue for this week is the insane amount of resources and energy going into trying to create or maintain professional (college?) sport programs right now. If but a fraction of that effort (daily testing for NFL players, really?) went into K-12 schooling, what a difference that could make. But instead, we're focused on making sure sportsball makes money. It makes me feel gross.
Fun fact - there are two types of N95s: one protects the wearer only (filters incoming air) and one protects both (filters both incoming and outgoing).El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:19 pm Also wouldn't the non-face shield masks probably be N95 masks, since this is in a medical setting? My understanding is that those masks both protect the wearer and the people around them, unlike regular 'civilian' masks, which only protect the people around them (though I would assume that 'regular' masks would have *some* protective effect on the wearer, even if it's minimal).
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Ok, that's helpful. But if the mask people here were wearing either type of N95, then you would expect this difference between them and the face shield people, right?stessier wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:21 pmFun fact - there are two types of N95s: one protects the wearer only (filters incoming air) and one protects both (filters both incoming and outgoing).El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:19 pm Also wouldn't the non-face shield masks probably be N95 masks, since this is in a medical setting? My understanding is that those masks both protect the wearer and the people around them, unlike regular 'civilian' masks, which only protect the people around them (though I would assume that 'regular' masks would have *some* protective effect on the wearer, even if it's minimal).
This was a non-medical setting. It doesn't say they were wearing N95 masks, and I'm going to guess they weren't. What I suspect is that they were using clear face shields for servers/waitstaff - people that had direct interactions with customers.El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:19 pmAlso wouldn't the non-face shield masks probably be N95 masks, since this is in a medical setting? My understanding is that those masks both protect the wearer and the people around them, unlike regular 'civilian' masks, which only protect the people around them (though I would assume that 'regular' masks would have *some* protective effect on the wearer, even if it's minimal).
This is what happens when you allow for uncontrolled spread. I genuinely feel for FL residents at this point; your state is on fire.On July 16, the state had a total of 23,170 children ages 17 and under who had tested positive since the beginning of the pandemic, according to the Florida Department of Health. By July 24, that number jumped to 31,150.
That's a 34% increase in new cases among children in eight days.
And more children in Florida are requiring hospitalization. As of July 16, 246 children had been hospitalized with coronavirus. By July 24, that number had jumped to 303.
That's a 23% increase in child Covid-19 hospitalizations in eight days.
During that same time period, the death toll among children in Florida went from 4 to 5.
I wonder how much of the plateau is due to limitations in testing capability.wonderpug wrote:
"Coincide" is putting it lightly. The trajectory magically changes direction the day they made the reporting change.
It is in the mix - Florida's positivity rate is up over last week but they ran 14% less tests as an example. Insights here.Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:10 pmI wonder how much of the plateau is due to limitations in testing capability.
One of the more vocal teachers my wife works with who opposes school opening posted a pic of herself with the whole family at Disney World yesterday.Smoove_B wrote:This is what happens when you allow for uncontrolled spread. I genuinely feel for FL residents at this point; your state is on fire.
Yeah, ok. No way anyone in their right mind would submit to that kind of fishing expedition. But say no and he's on the stuff.
Too much demon/witch sex there?LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:58 am Her primary practice address as listed on NPPES is the church address. Is conducting a private business out of a church legal?
Anyway. She's a family medicine practitioner. Not exactly infectious disease or epidemiology. Or pharmacy.
*do not look her up in NPDB, do not look her up in NPDB*
Nah, just telling myself to be strong. Not ethical to use NPDB for idle curiosity.pr0ner wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:18 amToo much demon/witch sex there?LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:58 am Her primary practice address as listed on NPPES is the church address. Is conducting a private business out of a church legal?
Anyway. She's a family medicine practitioner. Not exactly infectious disease or epidemiology. Or pharmacy.
*do not look her up in NPDB, do not look her up in NPDB*
Now that she's blown up, how long will that last?
Say yes he is on the stuff too probably.
You don't have to be board certified to practice medicine. It helps but it isn't required. You just need a degree and state license.Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:31 amNow that she's blown up, how long will that last?
Surely whatever board certified and approved her isn't going to let her stay certified and approved when she's publicly risking people's health.
I had no idea the bar was that low for doctors. /shudder
The licensing requirements are a pretty high bar. Board certification is an add-on to an already rigorous process.
True. But it varies by state.
Fair enough. That is a problem with almost every professional license/certification system with continuing education requirements since it's hard to track decline in competency over time. However, the system mostly works so I don't think anyone should get the impression it is inadequate or even needs a serious tune up. We have bigger problems than a few quack doctors. This type of quackery should however invite a review of *their* license.LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:44 amTrue. But it varies by state.
And renewals aren't difficult so someone could get steadily less competent over time. Mostly you just have to complete continuing medical education. CME credits are a business unto themselves. I qualify for several a year and I'm not an MD and don't even try to get them. Granted, doctors need a lot but they're fairly easy to get.
Yep totally agree.LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:56 am Agreed, see my edit. There isn't a problem with too many unqualified doctors. The problem, in fact, is that most are qualified and held to very high standards so thus we automatically assume that someone being a doctor gives them credibility.
I've seen some bad doctors keep their license when I investigated MLMs. Or they can reapply in like 2 years even if they surrender their license.Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:31 amNow that she's blown up, how long will that last?
Surely whatever board certified and approved her isn't going to let her stay certified and approved when she's publicly risking people's health.
Sure but those are most likely ethical violations. It is important to address them but it doesn't mean they directly harmed or would harm a patient which is the most important concern to the licensing board.Kasey Chang wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:55 amI've seen some bad doctors keep their license when I investigated MLMs. Or they can reapply in like 2 years even if they surrender their license.Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:31 amNow that she's blown up, how long will that last?
Surely whatever board certified and approved her isn't going to let her stay certified and approved when she's publicly risking people's health.
Daryl M See used his position as an MD to promote his wife's MLM business, including claiming research that he was not involved in, AND not keeping records on his own patients. He was finally accused by the Medical Board of California in 2006... for something he did in 2003. And it wasn't a YEAR later (in 2007) that he signed a stipulated agreement where he surrendered his license in California with possible reinstatement in 2 years.
Not sure where she passed her residency in the US (since her medical degree is from Nigeria) - might have been in Bronx, NY, from what I read in another article; but I'm sure they'd like their name off of her medical license.Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.
She alleges alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments, and that scientists are cooking up a vaccine to prevent people from being religious. And, despite appearing in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress on Monday, she has said that the government is run in part not by humans but by “reptilians” and other aliens.
I can't wait to hear what position she'll be given in the Trump Administration because she sounds super qualified.In the sermon, Immanuel preserved special vitriol for the Magic 8-Ball, a toy that can be shaken up to “reveal” any answer. Immanuel claims the otherwise innocuous Magic 8-Ball was in fact a scheme to get children used to witchcraft.
I don't know, but her judgement seems bad enough that she'd take it.Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:44 pmI can't wait to hear what position she'll be given in the Trump Administration because she sounds super qualified.In the sermon, Immanuel preserved special vitriol for the Magic 8-Ball, a toy that can be shaken up to “reveal” any answer. Immanuel claims the otherwise innocuous Magic 8-Ball was in fact a scheme to get children used to witchcraft.
No one ever listens to the school nurses; they are the unsung heroes of community/public health as far as I'm concerned. When they're saying there's a problem, believe them.
