OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[MrSparkle]

Read on Twitter

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Federal government is bidding on large supplies of masks, and then supplying them to retailers to sell at whatever price they please to the states? This, after Trump said "states are on their own." ???

Are they are creating 'middle men' for a chain of profit shares during a national shortage and crisis?

[Dresden]

Are you feeling ok now, Mr. Sparkle?

[dougthonus]

except that i didn't ask why you used the correct terminology. i asked why your daughter INSISTED on it, which i had not heard anyone do before. as such, i assumed that i was missing something and wanted to educate myself and others. because if calling it coronavirus does harm in some small way, i don't want to be using that term

For my daughter, I'd say it's generally two reasons.
1: Teenagers are remarkably stubborn and will argue you to death over technicalities.
2: She's a nursing student and is super into medical things.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Good interview with Bill Gates on the pandemic:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=bill+gates+interview+Trevor+noah#id=1&vid=513457751497e12bde6004905b53d62a&action=click

Imagine how much better off we'd all be if we had someone like Bill Gates running the country? Why can't we elect people who are really smart, really knowledgeable, and really forward thinking as our leaders, rather than chosing people because they're famous, or have been on TV a lot, or have been in politics forever? It just doesn't make sense why we wouldn't want the brightest people running our country. Instead of celebrities, or people with "recognizable names" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with how we chose our leaders.

Then they should run for president. When this country was founded, people ran for office to serve their country instead of doing it to get rich.

[Wingy]

I am a registered nurse in a west Chicago suburb and our hospital is now at 25 confirmed cases. 9 of whom are hospital employees. We are using face masks for multiple days with the exception of patients with an active cough. It is ridiculous. We expect our numbers to climb significantly in the near future.

A month ago i decided to order my own personal stash of PPE online but i don't expect any of it to arrive until late April, early May.

This may not be ideal for hospital use (or maybe it gets to the point where who cares) but if you do need PPE I think a good place to look is tools and hardware equipment they have good eye and breathing protection for painting etc and it seems like this stuff is still available. P100 would be better than the P95 masks and you could just clean the mask or replace the filters when needed.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/HALF-Facepiece-3-M-6200-W-2091-FILTERS-Reusable-Respirator-Medium-Free-Shipping/153887027822?hash=item23d461b26e:g:qnwAAOSwmP5eh92Q

I'm a painting contractor, and yes, you're right, you can get some of the equipment at paint stores or hardware stores. I recently got my sister, who is a primary care physician, a respirator through Sherwin Williams paint store. It took about 2 weeks though, and they are also out of many things like the N95's. Tyvek suits are available on line from construction supply companies, or at least were last time I checked. So are goggles and face shields, although the latter is harder to find. The N95's are definitely an item that's almost impossible to get though. I have one of my paint reps on the lookout for a box for me, which I'll send to my sister if he finds me any. And many of the big box stores, like Home Depot, and Lowe's, are out of a lot of these things. You're better off going to a small paint or hardware store- they may still have some in stock. Or searching on line from supply companies.

This is just one piece of the missing PPE, but every bit helps. The small company I work at is directly involved in this, so it's legit:

gogglesfordocs.com

Sad as hell...to be honest...it @$#@% enrages me...that our medical professionals are out there lacking equipment, and we have to resort to things like this since it's better than nothing. All the supposed power...all the riches...everything....and we're flailing terribly, and embarrassingly all over the place.

Anyway - please share that site on social media, etc. if you're willing to do so. Please PM me if you have any doubts/questions.

[Wingy]

Read on Twitter

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Federal government is bidding on large supplies of masks, and then supplying them to retailers to sell at whatever price they please to the states? This, after Trump said "states are on their own." ???

Are they are creating 'middle men' for a chain of profit shares during a national shortage and crisis?

I don't see how this isn't the top, or at least one of the top stories. What in the all actual @#$%! ?!?!?

[dice]

Good interview with Bill Gates on the pandemic:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=bill+gates+interview+Trevor+noah#id=1&vid=513457751497e12bde6004905b53d62a&action=click

Imagine how much better off we'd all be if we had someone like Bill Gates running the country? Why can't we elect people who are really smart, really knowledgeable, and really forward thinking as our leaders, rather than chosing people because they're famous, or have been on TV a lot, or have been in politics forever? It just doesn't make sense why we wouldn't want the brightest people running our country. Instead of celebrities, or people with "recognizable names" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with how we chose our leaders.

Then they should run for president. When this country was founded, people ran for office to serve their country instead of doing it to get rich.

donald trump is the only president in the history of the nation that i can think of that has blatantly run for personal financial benefit (other than the ego component, which certainly has played a part in a lot of them choosing the path that they did). which is not to say that many presidents haven't financially benefited as a byproduct of their presidency. you'd have to try pretty hard NOT to benefit financially from it, frankly...ironically, trump could have been one of them had he actually divested from his financial interests as prior presidents have done

[musiqsoulchild]

Trump has mismanaged this in so many ways

[dougthonus]

Read on Twitter

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Federal government is bidding on large supplies of masks, and then supplying them to retailers to sell at whatever price they please to the states? This, after Trump said "states are on their own." ???

Are they are creating 'middle men' for a chain of profit shares during a national shortage and crisis?

Without knowing a whole ton about it, it seems pretty reasonable that you would deliver product to people that have a supply chain directly to hospitals already and are managing this type of thing already rather than trying to tackle the logistics of that yourself.

It's also reasonable that the company that does all of that would still get paid. The only thing that is unreasonable about that is if they are allowed to price gauge and aren't distributing fairly. Looks like the interview was cut right at a point where the guy was going to talk about that, so maybe the next news bit didn't line up with the author's viewpoint and decided not to include it.

[moorhosj]

Instead of celebrities, or people with "recognizable names" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with how we chose our leaders.

Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton are "recognizable names" because of the years they spent in public office. Here you are comparing someone who was a Senator and Vice President and someone who was a Senator and Secretary of State with someone who became famous for a lavish lifestyle, going bankrupt and hosting a reality TV show. That those three people can be placed on the same level is the problem with our politics.

Is politics the only profession where experience is considered bad?

[Dresden]

Good interview with Bill Gates on the pandemic:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=bill+gates+interview+Trevor+noah#id=1&vid=513457751497e12bde6004905b53d62a&action=click

Imagine how much better off we'd all be if we had someone like Bill Gates running the country? Why can't we elect people who are really smart, really knowledgeable, and really forward thinking as our leaders, rather than chosing people because they're famous, or have been on TV a lot, or have been in politics forever? It just doesn't make sense why we wouldn't want the brightest people running our country. Instead of celebrities, or people with "recognizable names" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with how we chose our leaders.

Then they should run for president. When this country was founded, people ran for office to serve their country instead of doing it to get rich.

donald trump is the only president in the history of the nation that i can think of that has blatantly run for personal financial benefit (other than the ego component, which certainly has played a part in a lot of them choosing the path that they did). which is not to say that many presidents haven't financially benefited as a byproduct of their presidency. you'd have to try pretty hard NOT to benefit financially from it, frankly...ironically, trump could have been one of them had he actually divested from his financial interests as prior presidents have done

My whole point was- and I know this is probably off topic- we make it too damn difficult to be elected president in this country, and that discourages many good people from running. All the fund raising you have to do, the massive organization you have to create and direct, the endless rounds of campaign rallies, fund raising events, etc. that you have to undertake for about a full year, the mud slinging that goes on, it makes sense why a guy like Bill Gates would just say "no thanks, I don't need that".

Maybe if we made some sensible reforms- limit the campaign season, limit the amount of money you can spend, give free and equal air time to all candidates- then we might get better candidates.

[Dresden]

Instead of celebrities, or people with "recognizable names" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with how we chose our leaders.

Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton are "recognizable names" because of the years they spent in public office. Here you are comparing someone who was a Senator and Vice President and someone who was a Senator and Secretary of State with someone who became famous for a lavish lifestyle, going bankrupt and hosting a reality TV show. That those three people can be placed on the same level is the problem with our politics.

Is politics the only profession where experience is considered bad?

I"m a democrat, but I don't happen to think Joe Biden is the best candidate for our party, not by a long shot. But he's winning the nomination because he's the most "electable". And that's the whole problem right there. Just to be clear, I'd take either Biden or Hillary over Trump any day of the week.

[Taikuri]

I know that Americans made this conclusion few weeks ago already that covid-19 can last in the air (especially indoors) for quite some time but now Finnish University studied this as well and unfortunately they came into the same conclusion that aerosol can last in the air for many minutes after speaking, coughing or sneezing and they didn't really talk about the droplets or liquid that might stay there for hours as well. Covid-19 particles are so light that they can stay still for a long time indoors.

They used a super computer to calculate it and it took the super computer about a week to get the result out and they made a video about it that was just released. Pretty scary stuff I must say:

Watch on YouTube

[Dresden]

I know that Americans made this conclusion few weeks ago already that covid-19 can last in the air (especially indoors) for quite some time but now Finnish University studied this as well and unfortunately they came into the same conclusion that aerosol can last in the air for many minutes after speaking, coughing or sneezing and they didn't really talk about the droplets or liquid that might stay there for hours as well. Covid-19 particles are so light that they can stay still for a long time indoors.

They used a super computer to calculate it and it took the super computer about a week to get the result out and they made a video about it that was just released. Pretty scary stuff I must say:

Watch on YouTube

It would be nice to see same simulation if person who sneezes or coughs is wearing a mask, or coughs into their elbow. Also, your chances of infection are modified by how much of the virus you inhale, from what I understand. Even if a few droplets of aerosol infected with the virus should be inhaled, it might not be enough for the virus to take hold, or overcome your bodies immune response. On the other hand, if someone coughs right into your face, it's much worse.

[TheStig]

Good interview with Bill Gates on the pandemic:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=bill+gates+interview+Trevor+noah#id=1&vid=513457751497e12bde6004905b53d62a&action=click

Imagine how much better off we'd all be if we had someone like Bill Gates running the country? Why can't we elect people who are really smart, really knowledgeable, and really forward thinking as our leaders, rather than chosing people because they're famous, or have been on TV a lot, or have been in politics forever? It just doesn't make sense why we wouldn't want the brightest people running our country. Instead of celebrities, or people with "recognizable names" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with how we chose our leaders.

Then they should run for president. When this country was founded, people ran for office to serve their country instead of doing it to get rich.

donald trump is the only president in the history of the nation that i can think of that has blatantly run for personal financial benefit (other than the ego component, which certainly has played a part in a lot of them choosing the path that they did). which is not to say that many presidents haven't financially benefited as a byproduct of their presidency. you'd have to try pretty hard NOT to benefit financially from it, frankly...ironically, trump could have been one of them had he actually divested from his financial interests as prior presidents have done

To be fair, they all do it and enrich themselves. The Clinton's left the white house nearly broke and emerged worth over 100 million two decades later despite mainly running a foundation.

Most however are more tactful and not as distasteful about it like charging the SS exorbinate rates for their hotels and food or letting foreign countries book whole empty floors at his hotel.

[Ccwatercraft]

Then they should run for president. When this country was founded, people ran for office to serve their country instead of doing it to get rich.

donald trump is the only president in the history of the nation that i can think of that has blatantly run for personal financial benefit (other than the ego component, which certainly has played a part in a lot of them choosing the path that they did). which is not to say that many presidents haven't financially benefited as a byproduct of their presidency. you'd have to try pretty hard NOT to benefit financially from it, frankly...ironically, trump could have been one of them had he actually divested from his financial interests as prior presidents have done

My whole point was- and I know this is probably off topic- we make it too damn difficult to be elected president in this country, and that discourages many good people from running. All the fund raising you have to do, the massive organization you have to create and direct, the endless rounds of campaign rallies, fund raising events, etc. that you have to undertake for about a full year, the mud slinging that goes on, it makes sense why a guy like Bill Gates would just say "no thanks, I don't need that".

Maybe if we made some sensible reforms- limit the campaign season, limit the amount of money you can spend, give free and equal air time to all candidates- then we might get better candidates.

the dems had how many candidates this year, 22?

And the Powers that he wanted Biden, the voters wanted Biden, the other candidates (most) endorsed Biden. Yes, Joe Biden, who has great ideas on how to solve the Lohan Virus. It's almost like the dems are trying to lose.

Sadly the only candidate that was worse than Joe Biden is the one you're nominated 3 years ago

Be thankful you have Trump, hes sober and awake and hes thriving in this environment.

[Dresden]

Then they should run for president. When this country was founded, people ran for office to serve their country instead of doing it to get rich.

donald trump is the only president in the history of the nation that i can think of that has blatantly run for personal financial benefit (other than the ego component, which certainly has played a part in a lot of them choosing the path that they did). which is not to say that many presidents haven't financially benefited as a byproduct of their presidency. you'd have to try pretty hard NOT to benefit financially from it, frankly...ironically, trump could have been one of them had he actually divested from his financial interests as prior presidents have done

To be fair, they all do it and enrich themselves. The Clinton's left the white house nearly broke and emerged worth over 100 million two decades later despite mainly running a foundation.

Most however are more tactful and not as distasteful about it like charging the SS exorbinate rates for their hotels and food or letting foreign countries book whole empty floors at his hotel.

I don't think anyone runs for president to get rich. Some may do it because they crave the power and spotlight and to satisfy their egos (Trump), others genuinely want to make a difference. For most it's probably a combination of the two. It does seem to make you rich as a by product, although I think that only really started with Clinton or Reagan. I don't think Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon or many before that really made the kind of money after leaving office that Clinton has, and everyone after him. I could be wrong about that though.

[dice]

Then they should run for president. When this country was founded, people ran for office to serve their country instead of doing it to get rich.

donald trump is the only president in the history of the nation that i can think of that has blatantly run for personal financial benefit (other than the ego component, which certainly has played a part in a lot of them choosing the path that they did). which is not to say that many presidents haven't financially benefited as a byproduct of their presidency. you'd have to try pretty hard NOT to benefit financially from it, frankly...ironically, trump could have been one of them had he actually divested from his financial interests as prior presidents have done

To be fair, they all do it and enrich themselves. The Clinton's left the white house nearly broke and emerged worth over 100 million two decades later despite mainly running a foundation.

i happen to find giving big paying speeches to corporate organizations distasteful, which is how the clintons have made a lot of their money. but making countless millions off of writing a book after leaving the presidency, for example, is pretty much par for the course. and there's nothing wrong with that (though giving much of the money to charity would be nice). then you have the bush family profiting off of the iraq war, which is distasteful on multiple levels, and the trump family directly benefiting off of policy decisions made while in office. and steering business to their hotels. and blatantly cozying up to putin. that **** is on a whole other level

[dice]

donald trump is the only president in the history of the nation that i can think of that has blatantly run for personal financial benefit (other than the ego component, which certainly has played a part in a lot of them choosing the path that they did). which is not to say that many presidents haven't financially benefited as a byproduct of their presidency. you'd have to try pretty hard NOT to benefit financially from it, frankly...ironically, trump could have been one of them had he actually divested from his financial interests as prior presidents have done

My whole point was- and I know this is probably off topic- we make it too damn difficult to be elected president in this country, and that discourages many good people from running. All the fund raising you have to do, the massive organization you have to create and direct, the endless rounds of campaign rallies, fund raising events, etc. that you have to undertake for about a full year, the mud slinging that goes on, it makes sense why a guy like Bill Gates would just say "no thanks, I don't need that".

Maybe if we made some sensible reforms- limit the campaign season, limit the amount of money you can spend, give free and equal air time to all candidates- then we might get better candidates.

the dems had how many candidates this year, 22? And the Powers that he wanted Biden

that's blatantly false. as evidenced by his poor fundraising. the party coalesced around biden only after it was down to him and bernie

the voters wanted Biden, the other candidates (most) endorsed Biden.

the voters clearly wanted biden. and the reason is pretty obvious: the obama connection. the black vote went very heavily to biden for that reason. just as it went heavily to clinton last time around. and that became evident at about the same time the other candidates threw their support to biden

Yes, Joe Biden, who has great ideas on how to solve the Lohan Virus

wtf does "lohan virus" even refer to? lindsay lohan? that's neither clever, nor does it make any sense

Be thankful you have Trump, hes sober and awake and hes thriving in this environment.

boy do i hope that's sarcasm. because it couldn't be farther from the truth

[dice]

Instead of celebrities, or people with "recognizable names" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with how we chose our leaders.

Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton are "recognizable names" because of the years they spent in public office. Here you are comparing someone who was a Senator and Vice President and someone who was a Senator and Secretary of State with someone who became famous for a lavish lifestyle, going bankrupt and hosting a reality TV show. That those three people can be placed on the same level is the problem with our politics.

Is politics the only profession where experience is considered bad?

being an "washington insider" is considered bad. and being a senator is generally a negative because long-serving senators have to defend every controversial vote they ever made. and they all have them. which is why being a state governor (executive experience, washington outsider, lack of a vote trail) has typically been considered the ideal situation for running for president. carter, reagan and clinton were all governors. dubya tried to run as an outsider as texas governor (a position which has comparatively little power in the state), which was pretty hilarious given that his grandfather was a US senator and his father had the keys to the white house

it's also interesting that conservatives constantly bash hollywood and the "elite", but nobody loves to elect a famous 3rd rate entertainer as much as they do (reagan, trump, schwarzenegger...)

by the way, here's hoping that jimmy carter is being well taken care of right now. not to mention RBG