• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jaxbuck said:
I'm going full Grizzly Adams

dan-haggerty-dead1.jpg
Click to expand...


my beard is already there. however that mane on top would be a challenge without some medical help. damn thinning hair

that or I roll as Ernie McCracken on top and Grizzly on the bottom
 
Upvote 0
shetuck said:
Yeah... same from my wife... "trials...", "we don't really know...", "it doesn't work in all cases...", "this is a new virus...", blah blah blah.
My answers, same as yours: "umm... compared to a couple million people (that some other people are going to miss) dying over the next 6 months... why the f* not?"
These people act like if the make a mistake that gets somebody killed (who willingly tried something in the face of imminent death) that somehow it excuses the fact that in the meantime we lost 100x or 1000x more. I guess it's better to be "right" than to be "effective". It's why in business we say "perfect is the enemy of good."
Click to expand...
Most businesses don't swear to do no harm first.

In fact, one could argue most of them aim for it.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
Most businesses don't swear to do no harm first.

In fact, one could argue most of them aim for it.
Click to expand...
@Jaxbuck beat me to it, but... yeah... really? Does your business aim for it?

Not trying to get this split off into the poli board, but that statement is just gaslighting.

My point in my post was that in some cases, it's better to take the calculated risk, even though the results won't be perfect.
 
Upvote 0
shetuck said:
@Jaxbuck beat me to it, but... yeah... really? Does your business aim for it?

Not trying to get this split off into the poli board, but that statement is just gaslighting.

My point in my post was that in some cases, it's better to take the calculated risk, even though the results won't be perfect.
Click to expand...
obviously that was a bad exaggeration. Without getting into a long winded argument about a sloppy comment (and a very diverse workforce full of harm + good, with different tendencies towards one side), let's go back to the actual squabble:

The doctor seeks to do no harm first.
The pharmacies behind the doctors want him to try as many experimental drugs as possible, without the pandemic exponentially increasing their interest in such.
The economy needs the doctor to bury his concerns and race forward with any possible cure, even if it costs lives, because of the implosion everywhere else.

Selfishly I am willing to gamble on the latter, but that's not my call.


A week ago I saw some epidemiologists ripping apart the extrapolation of the early hydroxy results. Not that they were faulty or not worth exploring, but that the numbers didn't tell as much as people wanted them to (yet). No idea where things are now nor am I smart to analyze the numbers myself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
obviously that was a bad exaggeration. Without getting into a long winded argument about a sloppy comment (and a very diverse workforce full of harm + good), let's go back to the actual squabble:

The doctor seeks to do no harm first.
The pharmacies behind the doctors want him to try as many experimental drugs as possible, without the pandemic exponentially increasing their interest in such.
The economy needs the doctor to bury his concerns and race forward with any possible cure, even if it costs lives, because of the implosion everywhere else.

Selfishly I am willing to gamble on the latter, but that's not my call.


A week ago I saw some epidemiologists ripping apart the extrapolation of the early hydroxy results. Not that they were faulty or not worth exploring, but that the numbers didn't tell as much as people wanted them to (yet). No idea where things are now nor am I smart to analyze the numbers myself.
Click to expand...

That I can completely agree with. This is beyond the pale of conventional medicine/science

This is real world/business and hope to fuck world.

"It's 4th and 1. We're going to put this sumbitch up in the air and Mike Jenkins is going to catch it, we're going to fucking win and we're going home to bang whomever"

That is the reality and, yes, I understand the limitations of that method.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
obviously that was a bad exaggeration. Without getting into a long winded argument about a sloppy comment (and a very diverse workforce full of harm + good), let's go back to the actual squabble:

The doctor seeks to do no harm first.
The pharmacies behind the doctors want him to try as many experimental drugs as possible, without the pandemic exponentially increasing their interest in such.
The economy needs the doctor to bury his concerns and race forward with any possible cure, even if it costs lives, because of the implosion everywhere else.

Selfishly I am willing to gamble on the latter, but that's not my call.


A week ago I saw some epidemiologists ripping apart the extrapolation of the early hydroxy results. Not that they were faulty or not worth exploring, but that the numbers didn't tell as much as people wanted them to (yet). No idea where things are now nor am I smart to analyze the numbers myself.
Click to expand...
Let me try and come at this from a different direction because I certainly didn't intend to set off a doctor-vs-pharma debate.

Here's an example that illustrates what I'm kinda bristling about: A person gets rushed to an ER with severe trauma and is bleeding out. What do we do automatically? We give them a blood transfusion (and, before @Jake points it out... transfusion of the same blood type). A bunch of university public health and epi professors, and gaggles of bureaucrats in Atlanta and Geneva don't say "WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! We need to run some trials people!!!"

Something I read somewhere comes to mind about needing both "peace-time Generals" AND "war-time Generals"...

Is there a chance of some sort of adverse reaction in the person getting the transfusion? Yes.
Is there a guarantee that the donor's blood is pure as the driven snow? No.

In this situation (an emergency with no time to act and no clear and guaranteed and available alternatives and a very high probability of death - as high as something like 20-30% in some), do we make the transfusion? Heck yes.

So, that's what's got me scratching my head. That's why I can't figure out if people have a choice between getting red-tagged in a triage situation and getting a donation of plasma from somebody who has recovered, getting the transfusion is a no brainer. For me, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
buckeyebri said:
How come folks can congregate at church, but I can’t play golf? Isn’t going golfing like going to a park or out running/walking? You don’t have to get close to people, you can raise the cups up so you don’t have to touch the flags. I’m about to go stir crazy...
Click to expand...

Probably one of the safest things you can do and distance. We have courses open and with the precautions in place (clubhouse is closed, pay over the phone, one person per cart, no pulling pins, etc.), it is one of the safest things you can do to get outside.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top