Search results

Yep. More succinctly, there's no clear right answer, period. All options involve very serious trade-offs.

Thanks. Sounds like it is looking for both the side effect profile and effectiveness at the same time. Interesting and rather aggressive approach, but relying on community transmission rather than deliberate exposure. The irony here is that the very measures being taken to reduce community...

Of even more interest here is the fact that human trials have begun. However, if this is a Phase 1 trial, I would guess that its purpose is not to test effectiveness but rather to determine safety and the side effect profile. (The article does not say, I am only surmising here, and I could be...

Not exactly the meaning I was taught. As used in my family, it meant having an aggressive attitude, running roughshod over people. Often without any insight into one's own behavior or the effect it had on others. I never asked for your "help" with anything. You did point me to a very useful...

Could be. I learned it from my parents, who lived nearly all their lives in Michigan.

I probably shouldn't say this, but I have somewhere around 180. But NOT because of the current crisis... because the nearest Costco is over 50 miles away and I only go there every 2 or 3 months, I got in the habit of buying a 30-roll brick nearly every time I went, and my stash has just piled up...

Well, you quoted my post, so what was I to think? Your post didn't strike a "cord" (chord?), but in view of your last reply to me last night, it seemed possible that you might be directing that statement at me. Some misinterpretation is normal. What is not normal is thinking another person...

I don't know anyone who is in danger of getting "swallowed up by the situation". Do you? And if your post was meant to point a finger at me (because I admitted to being under stress), then I would suggest you review our exchange. I did, and I still can't see how you misinterpreted what I wrote...

Well, I tried to make exactly that point earlier in the thread, and was answered by @Bell206 with a link to the CDC guidelines. That cleared things up for me (modulo the fact that human errors in attributing deaths will still occur, as always), yet I still got into an unpleasant exchange with...

Of course not. What did I write that made you think that? I said that if someone is DYING of a condition, and then contracts COVID-19 and dies of the original condition (but maybe somewhat earlier than they otherwise would), they shouldn't (and according to my reading of the guidelines...

Of course. I've heard about the same reports - not read them though, so thanks for the links. But again, this is mostly based on anecdotal "evidence", and many of the anecdotes are of cases from early in the pandemic when the disease wasn't yet on everyone's radar screen. What I'm wondering...

Source? I've certainly heard anecdotal cases of COVID deaths being attributed to something else, but I haven't seen a good argument that we are systematically under-counting them. Humans are fallible, and I would expect those errors to be counterbalanced by the ones @Doc Holliday is worried about.

No problem with comprehension here, at least not as regards technical writing. What SGOTI says in a forum post, sure I can misread. So can you. And you did. 'Nuff said.

Wow. That has to be one of the most glaring non sequiturs I've seen in a long time. Either that, or you think that professionals are looking for excuses to inflate the COVID-19 death count. You see, to me "Compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty" means just that. It doesn't mean that...

Apparently we are not communicating for some reason. I took your reply to me to be saying that the guidance confirmed that his concern was valid. I was arguing that the guidance did no such thing. I could get snarky like you did, and say NOW you agree also that the guidance does properly cull...

I'm not specifically trained in medicine but I am a scientist. Unless I totally misread Shawn's statement, he was saying that if someone dies of a cause unrelated to COVID-19 and would have died anyway from it, COVID-19 is still listed as the cause of death if they were diagnosed with it. It...

Thanks, it's good to know there are guidelines for certifying a death as due to COVID-19. And it is definitely NOT very simple - that guidance is extremely detailed and seems designed to avoid both missing COVID-19 as the UCOD, and reporting it as such when it is not. In other words, I don't...

Yes but it's not that simple, since catastrophic illness strains all the body's systems. I agree that if someone with end-stage renal failure contracts COVID-19 and dies of kidney failure, they shouldn't be listed as a COVID-19 fatality. But where do you draw the line? Someone with, say, stage 2...

So if someone has, say diabetes, or kidney failure, but they contract COVID-19 and die of respiratory failure, are you going to say they died of their pre-existing condition? That's essentially what Sweden seems to be doing (though I'm taking @Datadriver 's word for it here, I havem't checked...

Mexican, at Julio's in Montpelier, VT. (Probably my weekly or bi-weekly usual at Panera, as well.) Of course, all this assumes these restaurants survive the lockdown. Panera is nationwide so they probably will; but Julio's might not. :(