Hatin Since 87
Bacon Hater
Well said! I still have a lot of growing up to do. Hopefully I’m in the protected class that we don’t wanna let die off.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Coronavirus II
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Well said! I still have a lot of growing up to do. Hopefully I’m in the protected class that we don’t wanna let die off.
Assuming you were born in '87, and cameramonkey is currently running the ovens, I think you're good.
Not sure how he feels about mid-lifers...
We can always overthrow the 'monkey regime by force...
(and... I'm mostly just breakin' balls here guys. Relax with the generational stuff. I can wait for Alpo's guns to come up at auction like a civilized person)
Some of you know I hiked the Appalachian Trail in 2019 in 5 months and 12 days,I am also apparently on the email list and received this today.
From the Appalachian trail conservatory.
In these unprecedented times, I am making an unprecedented request: please stay away from the Appalachian Trail (A.T.). Whether your hike is for a couple of hours or a couple of days, staying away from the Trail minimizes the spread or contraction of COVID-19.
In a time when social distancing is necessary to minimize the spread and contraction of a dangerous virus, many have escaped to nature seeking isolation and unpopulated spaces. On the A.T., however, what they’ve found are trailhead parking lots exceeding their maximum capacities, shelters full of overnight hikers, day hikers using picnic tables and privies, and group trips continuing as planned. Popular spots along the Trail like Blood Mountain in Georgia, the McAfee Knob area in Virginia, and Annapolis Rocks in Maryland have seen day use reach record-breaking levels. Cars line the highways leading to popular day-hiking spots on the Trail. Hiking the A.T. has become, in other words, the opposite of social distancing.
These same crowds accessing the A.T. may not know how a simple half-day hike can spread COVID-19. While hiking, they may have eaten lunch at a picnic table, taken a break in a shelter, used a privy, or shared a map or food with someone unknowingly infected with COVID-19 and carried this highly contagious virus back to their communities at the end of the day. They may not have realized that ATC staff and Trail volunteers have been recalled from the A.T. and cannot maintain the footpath, trailheads, shelters and privies that may be heavily (or permanently) impacted by increased visitor use. And, they may not be aware of the rural communities adjacent to the Trail that may not have the healthcare resources to help a sick hiker or volunteer or manage a COVID-19 outbreak should a hiker transport the virus in from the Trail.
Many day hikers see the outdoors as an escape from the stresses of these difficult times. But with crowding from day hikers reaching unmanageable levels and the lack of any staff or volunteers to manage this traffic, it is necessary that all hikers avoid accessing the Trail. The A.T. is not a separate reality from the communities in which hikers live – so, until the risk of spreading COVID-19 has reduced significantly, hiking on a heavily-trafficked trail like the A.T. potentially increases rather than reduces harm.
The ATC does not want to do too little, too late. We cannot close the Trail. We cannot physically bar access to trailheads or connecting trails. We can and do, however, urge everyone to please stay away from the Appalachian Trail until further notice.
From the Appalachian trail conservatory.
In these unprecedented times, I am making an unprecedented request: please stay away from the Appalachian Trail (A.T.). Whether your hike is for a couple of hours or a couple of days, staying away from the Trail minimizes the spread or contraction of COVID-19.
In a time when social distancing is necessary to minimize the spread and contraction of a dangerous virus, many have escaped to nature seeking isolation and unpopulated spaces. On the A.T., however, what they’ve found are trailhead parking lots exceeding their maximum capacities, shelters full of overnight hikers, day hikers using picnic tables and privies, and group trips continuing as planned. Popular spots along the Trail like Blood Mountain in Georgia, the McAfee Knob area in Virginia, and Annapolis Rocks in Maryland have seen day use reach record-breaking levels. Cars line the highways leading to popular day-hiking spots on the Trail. Hiking the A.T. has become, in other words, the opposite of social distancing.
These same crowds accessing the A.T. may not know how a simple half-day hike can spread COVID-19. While hiking, they may have eaten lunch at a picnic table, taken a break in a shelter, used a privy, or shared a map or food with someone unknowingly infected with COVID-19 and carried this highly contagious virus back to their communities at the end of the day. They may not have realized that ATC staff and Trail volunteers have been recalled from the A.T. and cannot maintain the footpath, trailheads, shelters and privies that may be heavily (or permanently) impacted by increased visitor use. And, they may not be aware of the rural communities adjacent to the Trail that may not have the healthcare resources to help a sick hiker or volunteer or manage a COVID-19 outbreak should a hiker transport the virus in from the Trail.
Many day hikers see the outdoors as an escape from the stresses of these difficult times. But with crowding from day hikers reaching unmanageable levels and the lack of any staff or volunteers to manage this traffic, it is necessary that all hikers avoid accessing the Trail. The A.T. is not a separate reality from the communities in which hikers live – so, until the risk of spreading COVID-19 has reduced significantly, hiking on a heavily-trafficked trail like the A.T. potentially increases rather than reduces harm.
The ATC does not want to do too little, too late. We cannot close the Trail. We cannot physically bar access to trailheads or connecting trails. We can and do, however, urge everyone to please stay away from the Appalachian Trail until further notice.
Had an acquaintance who had a long trip planned, she wisely cancelled but was heartbroken to do so.
Sounds like trouble brewing.
I’ve been out of the news junkie loop for a while. Never been a CNN fan but I just can’t stomach Fox anymore. Saw him tonight, they are in panic mode desperate for beds and vents, and I wondered if they were trying to leverage the system to get more supplies by speaking the truth instead of going along with the cover up feel good story.
This was brought up (again) a few pages back, in much the same manner as the first time but was not looked at near as harshly. It was discussed by many, with a ‘just the facts’ kind of attitude, non of the hitler hyperbole (or maybe you do mean it?). What’s the difference?Logan's Run.
This is probably the most cynical post I've seen on INGO.
Why don't we do it by race? Or IQ?
Or genetic purity?
Brand them at birth. They get sick or hurt...no treatment. Unless you want to take the next step Adolf.
If it has to be explained to you why a person of 40 or 60 or 80 is as valuable as any other person, then you are lost, amigo. Truly lost.
Nobel prize winners......
Personally I believe Cameramonkey is severely understating the 6% loss and overstating the depth and time it will take to recover, is that not what should be argued to be consistent with the last conversation a few pages ago?
It was resurfaced by smokingman. I couldn't let it go this time. Primarily because the same issue has come up on other sites and I'm sure will arise again and again as the economy gets worse and people ACTUALLY have to sacrifice....perhaps for the first time in their lives.
It is just contrary to what it means to be an American. The sense of equality. The objective of equal protection under the law. It is perhaps the singular issue upon which liberty stands. It isn't socialism/communism in place, as Cammonkey incorrectly observes. But what he proposes, IS fascism.
And removing 8% or so of the population because they were going to die anyway at some future point is not better than, say, No One with a January birthdate can get treatment.
I've said elsewhere that if it is my fate to get the virus and there is a shortage of beds, it would be my choice whether I'd say that it is time I punched out. I'm not afraid of dying. I've had many years to make peace with the meaning of life and the nature of existence. Look at the old folks at Fukushima who volunteered for the cleanup to protect the younger generation. They are venerated. It appears that USA kids who live in basements won't feel the same when grampaw gets ill.
====
Different than the point raised, but part of the same topic, if restrictions are eased, there is no doubt we will accomplish three things: more deaths, a greater economic struggle for a longer period of time, the development of philosophies in which the strong prey at a greater rate upon the weak.
======
The other thing we do not know at this point is whether this virus will mutate into something that will change the demographic. And I don't know if they've had time yet to study the possible effect on long-term epigenetics. Maybe all those corona virus survivors in the basement dweller category won't be able to breed.
It is just contrary to what it means to be an American. The sense of equality. The objective of equal protection under the law. It is perhaps the singular issue upon which liberty stands. It isn't socialism/communism in place, as Cammonkey incorrectly observes. But what he proposes, IS fascism.
And removing 8% or so of the population because they were going to die anyway at some future point is not better than, say, No One with a January birthdate can get treatment.
I've said elsewhere that if it is my fate to get the virus and there is a shortage of beds, it would be my choice whether I'd say that it is time I punched out. I'm not afraid of dying. I've had many years to make peace with the meaning of life and the nature of existence. Look at the old folks at Fukushima who volunteered for the cleanup to protect the younger generation. They are venerated. It appears that USA kids who live in basements won't feel the same when grampaw gets ill.
====
Different than the point raised, but part of the same topic, if restrictions are eased, there is no doubt we will accomplish three things: more deaths, a greater economic struggle for a longer period of time, the development of philosophies in which the strong prey at a greater rate upon the weak.
======
The other thing we do not know at this point is whether this virus will mutate into something that will change the demographic. And I don't know if they've had time yet to study the possible effect on long-term epigenetics. Maybe all those corona virus survivors in the basement dweller category won't be able to breed.
Last edited:
The problem we are facing here on INGO and in society is a new face on an olde issue, that is simply our risk tolerance.
The current nanny state has changed our society from a higher risk tolerance to a lower one. There does most certainly come a point where a risk becomes so high that a certain action or lack thereof needs to be avoided, but where that risk level is differs for each one of us.
For me, in some ways, I have a higher risk tolerance. I am willing to live with a degree of risk of coronavirus to keep the economy, jobs, and other HEALTH RELATED factors high. That's right, with money in our pockets our heath is higher. How much would depend upon each person. But with money in our pockets our stress is reduced, and with higher stress our immune system is weakened, ergo we are honestly better at fighting infection when we are less stressed. This percentage can never really be measured on an individual basis.
For others, the risk of the coronavirus outweighs their concern for economic concerns. This is also not wrong nor unreasonable. Death is certainly not favorable, unless it is to eliminate suffering that cannot be ameliorated by other means, and even then should be the individuals choice.
So the argument cannot be won, nor lost. Neither side is completely right, nor completely wrong. It is simply a matter of how much risk we are willing to take to keep going as we have been.
Regards,
Doug
The current nanny state has changed our society from a higher risk tolerance to a lower one. There does most certainly come a point where a risk becomes so high that a certain action or lack thereof needs to be avoided, but where that risk level is differs for each one of us.
For me, in some ways, I have a higher risk tolerance. I am willing to live with a degree of risk of coronavirus to keep the economy, jobs, and other HEALTH RELATED factors high. That's right, with money in our pockets our heath is higher. How much would depend upon each person. But with money in our pockets our stress is reduced, and with higher stress our immune system is weakened, ergo we are honestly better at fighting infection when we are less stressed. This percentage can never really be measured on an individual basis.
For others, the risk of the coronavirus outweighs their concern for economic concerns. This is also not wrong nor unreasonable. Death is certainly not favorable, unless it is to eliminate suffering that cannot be ameliorated by other means, and even then should be the individuals choice.
So the argument cannot be won, nor lost. Neither side is completely right, nor completely wrong. It is simply a matter of how much risk we are willing to take to keep going as we have been.
Regards,
Doug
I agree with Doug. Age and stress will always be different for everyone. Keep moving forward and don't look back.
??? Subsidizing? That's not really what's happening.
We like consuming stuff. Lot's of stuff. But we don't like the messiness of manufacturing lots of stuff here. We don't like the pollution. We don't like the higher wages that Americans demand. We don't like exploitation of employees. We don't like not regulating the **** out of companies. And we don't like having to pay a lot for our stuff to offset the cost of doing it here to our standards.
But, we don't give a flying **** at all if China is willing to do for [STRIKE]peanuts[/STRIKE] rice, all the things we don't like, for the price of doing it here. It's not in our back yard if it's over there. And it's a **** of a lot cheaper. So companies like Apple build the stuff we like to consume on the cheap, over there, to ship here and sell.
If you want stuff to come back here, some things have to give. We either have to lower our standards or pay more for ****, or some combination of the two. However. This pandemic I think should open some corporation minds to the potential risk of continuing to make all their **** in China. Risk aversion might get companies to put their **** elsewhere. And maybe some of that will end up back here. But I think they'll mostly move it to some other ****hole who doesn't mind doing the things we mind doing here.
This thread is one of the fastest moving ones I’ve seen in awhile. Not sure if this was posted yet or not so...just in case.
https://fox59.com/news/coronavirus/...covid-19-testing-vs-confirmed-cases-by-state/
Testing vs. confirmed cases by state.
https://fox59.com/news/coronavirus/...covid-19-testing-vs-confirmed-cases-by-state/
Testing vs. confirmed cases by state.
I see we're still entertaining the same nonsense as a few pages ago. So let's get this reasoning straight. Let the old ****ers die because their life ain't worth ****, and yours is worth so much more for no other reason than you're younger. That's it. You have no idea how long you'll live past this, or any idea how long any given boomer will live past this. I'm thinking that regardless of what demographic identity you are, you could probably concoct any justification why you should live and "they" should die.
I think there's a saner, less **********y way to triage. Rather than age, if it comes down to who gets the respirator, given the medical conditions and the realistic likelihood of survival, give the respirator to the one who has the best chance to survive. Maybe that's you. Or maybe you're younger and you've smoked for more than half your young life, and maybe you haven't taken good care of yourself. And maybe that old ****er that you want priority over just because he's older, can run a marathon, come home and detail-wash his car, and then **** 3 supermodels all night, has a better chance of surviving COVID 19 than you do.
And I suppose it may be unfair to let some lazy but young asshat who contributes nothing to society, spends most of his time in jail have the respirator. So we can add that criterion too. So, if you have a better chance than the other schmuck to survive, AND you've not been a complete burden to society all your life, maybe you get the respirator. But just to say age on birth certificate of person A > B therefore treat B, I'm okay with Alpo likening that to Hitler. Yes, it's a bit hyperbolic. But it's responding to a pretty absurd suggestion to the extent that a hyperbolic response is appropriate. If you're going to discriminate, at least do it in a way that doesn't make it seem like you're justifying your own priority.
I think there's a saner, less **********y way to triage. Rather than age, if it comes down to who gets the respirator, given the medical conditions and the realistic likelihood of survival, give the respirator to the one who has the best chance to survive. Maybe that's you. Or maybe you're younger and you've smoked for more than half your young life, and maybe you haven't taken good care of yourself. And maybe that old ****er that you want priority over just because he's older, can run a marathon, come home and detail-wash his car, and then **** 3 supermodels all night, has a better chance of surviving COVID 19 than you do.
And I suppose it may be unfair to let some lazy but young asshat who contributes nothing to society, spends most of his time in jail have the respirator. So we can add that criterion too. So, if you have a better chance than the other schmuck to survive, AND you've not been a complete burden to society all your life, maybe you get the respirator. But just to say age on birth certificate of person A > B therefore treat B, I'm okay with Alpo likening that to Hitler. Yes, it's a bit hyperbolic. But it's responding to a pretty absurd suggestion to the extent that a hyperbolic response is appropriate. If you're going to discriminate, at least do it in a way that doesn't make it seem like you're justifying your own priority.
The virus is just the replacement for natural selection that has been eliminated by science and medicine. The virus only takes those that need to go. If you are healthy enough u survive. This helps eliminate death panels. Don’t fear the virus embrace it. Why do you think it was made. It was not made for total destruction then you would see 70 to 90% fatality.
100% fake.
Dude drank fish tank chemicals because there was a similarly named ingredient. That's not "self-medication" of "a drug"
But "REEEEEEEEEEEEE TRUMP KILLED HIM!"
Eh, it's not all that fake. The man's wife who was able to puke up enough of the stuff survived. She said something to the effect that it was Trump's confidence in the cure that caused them to take it. It wasn't just a similarly named chemical. That is the name of the ingredient in the drug. But, to be fair, it's not sane to hear a president praise a drug and take that as an indicator that they should look for every household product that might have the same chemical in it. It's also fair to say that it may be the other things in the fish tank cleaner that killed the man. This is a valid complaint, and I don't want to overstate it, that Trump tends not to understand the weight of what he says as President. Especially for those who believe Trump is almost a god. And it seemed like these folks did when they thought he was saying this chemical would make them invincible against COVID19.
SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
I am not a doctor, but have spent far too much time looking at research papers on this disease... purely my opinion based upon deep dives on this disease, and it's progression. That's what's below, though the key to getting out of this, IMO, is distancing, widespread testing and isolation of infected. We cannot "treat" our way out of this.
1. "mild" cases
These apparently encompass a large percentage of the confirmed cases (currently discussed as 80%). The symptoms range from very mild to flu-like. These folks don't require hospitalization but should be isolated to prevent rapid disease spread. Younger people might be more predominate and the percentages might be higher than 80% - only widespread testing with minimal thresholds or population-wide testing will tell.
These cases stay home and IMO, should be treated similar to someone in the household having the flu, isolated to a room plus additional precaution to prevent/delay the spread to the other household members.
2. Cases severe enough to require hospitalization:
These cases have severe breathing difficulties and have progressed past "flu-like" to full-on pneumonia. The most promising treatments I am seeing revolve around strong anti-biotics to treat the pneumonia combined with anti-virals of various stripes to "lessen" the viral load in the blood, allowing the bodies natural defenses to eradicate the infection. HIV/AIDS medications might also be useful.
This is currently 20% of the confirmed cases, though it might be found to be lower when/if more widespread testing is available at low thresholds or population wide.
This is "fairly to very" deadly, by normal standards, especially for anyone with already impaired lung function - it's pneumonia, and many times severe pneumonia at that. These patients require antibiotics and in many cases oxygen... if the hospital beds fill up and anti-biotics/oxygen become scarce, a lot more of these patients will die from the untreated severe pneumonia.
3. "Cytokine storm"
In the most severe/critical cases, the body's defense go into hyper-drive to attack the virus, but also attack the patient's lungs themselves. This is some kind of an auto-immune response of the body itself. This phase is EXTREMELY fatal, from my reading it is 50-70% fatal IF ICU/ventilator care is available. If ICU beds/vents are not available, it goes higher. Ventilators literally must force oxygen into the lungs to keep the patient alive - without which this is probably close to 100% fatal.
Promising research for this phase revolves around actually SUPPRESSING the immuno-response if the patient's bloodwork shows highly elevated immune system response of a certain kind (certain IL-1,2 etc levels). So far, the "best" study I found was reducing fatality to 27%. The hope here is to catch this auto-immune response early before the lungs are severely damaged both to increase survival AND so that the survivors aren't severely lung-compromised for life.
These are part of the currently stated 6% of the confirmed cases that are critical/ICU required. Note that the 6% likely includes both immuno-response cases and severe pneumonia cases. Only widespread testing at a lower threshold of symptoms can determine what the true prevalence of these two is... but one thing is clear... even with doubling/tripling beds per ICU room and vent, they are rapidly filled and most patients in this category will die without critical care... and then it's stacking bodies like cord wood as seen in Italy. And keep in mind, this is still going on even after they ordered shelter in place March 12th. Do the things, people. Your life and the lives of those in your community literally depend upon it.
NOTE: I am not reading/responding on this thread (nor any other current thread, I don't see anything meaningful)... it's all chaff and little to no wheat. The above are my informed opinions and like i said I am not a doctor, just some random guy on the internet, so take my survey of the current state with how many ever grains of salt you deem appropriate.
Godspeed all!
1. "mild" cases
These apparently encompass a large percentage of the confirmed cases (currently discussed as 80%). The symptoms range from very mild to flu-like. These folks don't require hospitalization but should be isolated to prevent rapid disease spread. Younger people might be more predominate and the percentages might be higher than 80% - only widespread testing with minimal thresholds or population-wide testing will tell.
These cases stay home and IMO, should be treated similar to someone in the household having the flu, isolated to a room plus additional precaution to prevent/delay the spread to the other household members.
2. Cases severe enough to require hospitalization:
These cases have severe breathing difficulties and have progressed past "flu-like" to full-on pneumonia. The most promising treatments I am seeing revolve around strong anti-biotics to treat the pneumonia combined with anti-virals of various stripes to "lessen" the viral load in the blood, allowing the bodies natural defenses to eradicate the infection. HIV/AIDS medications might also be useful.
This is currently 20% of the confirmed cases, though it might be found to be lower when/if more widespread testing is available at low thresholds or population wide.
This is "fairly to very" deadly, by normal standards, especially for anyone with already impaired lung function - it's pneumonia, and many times severe pneumonia at that. These patients require antibiotics and in many cases oxygen... if the hospital beds fill up and anti-biotics/oxygen become scarce, a lot more of these patients will die from the untreated severe pneumonia.
3. "Cytokine storm"
In the most severe/critical cases, the body's defense go into hyper-drive to attack the virus, but also attack the patient's lungs themselves. This is some kind of an auto-immune response of the body itself. This phase is EXTREMELY fatal, from my reading it is 50-70% fatal IF ICU/ventilator care is available. If ICU beds/vents are not available, it goes higher. Ventilators literally must force oxygen into the lungs to keep the patient alive - without which this is probably close to 100% fatal.
Promising research for this phase revolves around actually SUPPRESSING the immuno-response if the patient's bloodwork shows highly elevated immune system response of a certain kind (certain IL-1,2 etc levels). So far, the "best" study I found was reducing fatality to 27%. The hope here is to catch this auto-immune response early before the lungs are severely damaged both to increase survival AND so that the survivors aren't severely lung-compromised for life.
These are part of the currently stated 6% of the confirmed cases that are critical/ICU required. Note that the 6% likely includes both immuno-response cases and severe pneumonia cases. Only widespread testing at a lower threshold of symptoms can determine what the true prevalence of these two is... but one thing is clear... even with doubling/tripling beds per ICU room and vent, they are rapidly filled and most patients in this category will die without critical care... and then it's stacking bodies like cord wood as seen in Italy. And keep in mind, this is still going on even after they ordered shelter in place March 12th. Do the things, people. Your life and the lives of those in your community literally depend upon it.
NOTE: I am not reading/responding on this thread (nor any other current thread, I don't see anything meaningful)... it's all chaff and little to no wheat. The above are my informed opinions and like i said I am not a doctor, just some random guy on the internet, so take my survey of the current state with how many ever grains of salt you deem appropriate.
Godspeed all!
https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/New-study-suggests-how-long-COVID-19-can-stay-on-surfaces-569036171.html
New study suggests how long coronavirus can stay on surfaces
New study suggests how long coronavirus can stay on surfaces
SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
ETA: Saw Jamil's post above... people there is a correct dose for malaria treatments... if docs give it, it's safe. Twice the appropriate dose is FATAL! Screw with this stuff and you're either not taking enough, or you will literally poison yourself to death. Docs/pharms have a saying, "the dose makes the poison"... many strong drugs ARE literally poisons, just taken at doses low enough to not kill the patient. In some cases, the margin is VERY thin. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes.
- Status
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere -
mom45Momerator
Members online
- jcj54
- TJ Kackowski
- Cavman
- OneBadV8
- Creedmoor
- bocefus78
- Altrex
- flightsimmer
- DoggyDaddy
- BigBoxaJunk
- Jim5528
- two70
- KellyinAvon
- Luke.Schlatter
- Twinsen
- knutty
- opus1776
- glock27
- A. Ramon
- mom45
- Tradesylver
- BoilerWes
- bigdaddy1427
- Brandon
- red_zr24x4
- Dean C.
- jsx1043
- benw
- boogieman
- slims2002
- eric001
- rushca01
- Businessend
- jeff1980
- JimH
- Jndturner317
- 22LRFan
- BR8818
- LokhXIV
- EODFXSTI
- Lost Californian
- BD63
- ECS686
- smkummer
- Gascitykid
- maxipum
- Born2vette
- led4thehed2
- gpasp101
- edwea