Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Search
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Open Roads Forum  >  Search the Forums

 > Your search for posts made by 'BCSnob' found 221 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 12  
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: Don't Panic

I’ve not been at 14,000’; I have skied the tops of A Basin and Breckinridge CO at 13,000’ and last summer we visited Independence Pass at 12,000’. The air is thin up there.
BCSnob 07/08/20 02:24pm RV Pet Stop

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV and influenza pandemics This publication in Lancet has a good summary comparison of this pandemic to past pandemics. Table 1 has a good overview. A mortality study59 in 17 cities in the USA during the 1918 influenza pandemic found that the cities which implemented mitigation strategies early on had a delayed, flatter epidemic curve, with a 50% lower peak mortality, and a 20% lower overall mortality. Thus, mitigating policies are of paramount importance to ensure that the burden on the health-care system remains manageable. Here is the link to the referenced article on the 1918 pandemic Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic Early closures lead to lower deaths. We noted that, in some cases, outcomes appear to have correlated with the quality and timing of the public health response. The contrast of mortality outcomes between Philadelphia and St. Louis is particularly striking (Fig. 1). The first cases of disease among civilians in Philadelphia were reported on September 17, 1918, but authorities downplayed their significance and allowed large public gatherings, notably a city-wide parade on September 28, 1918, to continue. School closures, bans on public gatherings, and other social distancing interventions were not implemented until October 3, when disease spread had already begun to overwhelm local medical and public health resources. In contrast, the first cases of disease among civilians in St. Louis were reported on October 5, and authorities moved rapidly to introduce a broad series of measures designed to promote social distancing, implementing these on October 7. The difference in response times between the two cities (?14 days, when measured from the first reported cases) represents approximately three to five doubling times for an influenza epidemic. The costs of this delay appear to have been significant; by the time Philadelphia responded, it faced an epidemic considerably larger than the epidemic St. Louis faced. Philadelphia ultimately experienced a peak weekly excess pneumonia and influenza (P&I) death rate of 257/100,000 and a cumulative excess P&I death rate (CEPID) during the period September 8–December 28, 1918 (the study period) of 719/100,000. St. Louis, on the other hand, experienced a peak P&I death rate, while NPIs were in place, of 31/100,000 and had a CEPID during the study period of 347/100,000.
BCSnob 07/08/20 08:53am Around the Campfire

Scenario (the one that is occurring for every test of these experimental drugs): You (or a loved one) are so sick with covid you get admitted to the hospital (the only place where these off label drugs are allowed to be prescribed). Each of the possible experimental drugs have multi-day dosing regimens (at least 5 days for hydroxychloroquine). You have to choose between one or none of these drugs. Do you choose to use your first 5 days of treatment taking hydroxychloroquine where the studies have shown at best inconsistent benefits (for unknown reasons) to ineffective? Do you choose to use your first 5 or more days taking one of the other drugs still being evaluated or do you choose to not take an experimental drug? I’m curious which choice you would make, especially since you would unlikely be admitted into one of the few hospitals where hydroxychloroquine has shown benefit?
BCSnob 07/08/20 04:31am Around the Campfire

This retrospective study using the same drug dosing regimen and similar number of patients as that n the Henry Ford study found no benefit from Hydroxychloroquine. Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 This is a summary news article with links to the peer reviewed published studies showing no benefit for this drug. Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19 I’m still curious what was different in the Henry Ford study to show a benefit. But the bottom line is; if sick with covid I would not want to waist 5 or more days taking a drug with so many large studies where no benefit was found.
BCSnob 07/07/20 11:23am Around the Campfire

The unknown facts discussed above related to modes of transmission and recommendations for mask use and severity of the disease not effectiveness of drug treatments. An effective drug should become obvious with the 1000s of patients that have been treated with this drug over the multiple drug trials. If you’re sick with covid-19 would you want to wait the 5 days of treatment with this drug to see if you’re one of the lucky ones where it might show benefit or would you rather try one of the other possible treatments that are still being investigated?
BCSnob 07/07/20 11:01am Around the Campfire
RE: Sasha 1st birthday

Happy birthday Sasha
BCSnob 07/06/20 05:47pm RV Pet Stop
RE: Neighbors Wouldn’t Help

2 firemen wearing protective gear This might point to part of the answer to your question. Not everyone is willing to risk their health or life to help a stranger.
BCSnob 07/06/20 09:19am Around the Campfire
RE: Don't Panic

And people will get brain damage if forced to breath air with less than 19% oxygen while wearing a mask despite the fact that above 2,000’ elevation the percent oxygen naturally drops below 19%.
BCSnob 07/06/20 06:51am RV Pet Stop

If Hydroxichlroquine is such a great drug for the treatment of covid-19 why are so many good hospital systems and medical researchers having marginal success with this drug? Wouldn’t a great or even good drug be at least done what successful in the hands of most critical care systems? And you would not complain as the WHO, CDC, etc simply said we don’t have all the answers right now so we won’t provide any recommendations to you on how to avoid getting sick or what is the best treatment if you do get sick? Even if you did not complain, government bodies that fund these organizations would simply say what are get getting from our funding. You do understand that all the facts won’t be known until after the world population has achieved herd immunity.
BCSnob 07/05/20 12:47pm Around the Campfire

The same WHO that said in Jan 2020 the CV19 pandemic was just a "moderate global risk." That WHO? Lets see how much "value in making informed decisions" the WHO had back in Jan.Would you prefer the medical and public health leaders continue to promote what they were saying at the beginning of the pandemic or adjust their recommendations as they gain more knowledge about the virus?
BCSnob 07/05/20 12:19pm Around the Campfire

WHO “Solidarity” clinical trial for COVID-19 treatments How the Solidarity Trial Works Adults with COVID-19 admitted to participant hospitals can join this study. Eligible patients will be asked to sign to show they understand the possible risks and benefits and consent to joining the study. The medical team responsible for each patient will check whether any of the study treatments would definitely be unsuitable. After those checks, brief identifying details and any other conditions are digitally recorded for the patient, who is then randomly allocated to one of the study options. This may or may not involve one of the study treatments. Neither the patient nor the medical staff choose which of the study options a patient will receive, as a computer makes this allocation at random. Similar to a retrospective study. The randomization process does ensure equal sample sizes for each treatment within each hospital. What was not described by the WHO website were the doses and protocols used at the various hospitals participating in the trial which makes difficult to compare to other studies. If hydroxychloroquine were an effective treatment it should be obvious in most studies. The medical research community should closely examine the differences in the various studies to determine the sources of the different results.
BCSnob 07/05/20 07:42am Around the Campfire

From what I can tell about the WHO trial, it was of similar design as the one by the Henry Ford (not double-blinded). I’ve not been able to find info of dosing or when during the illness the patients were started on the selected treatments. Both studies have likely come to the correct conclusions based upon the subtle differences in their protocols and patient populations (underlying health issues) being treated and even perhaps the strains of the virus causing the infections. I think what is obvious is the the drugs in these studies are not definitive treatments since it appears subtle differences in protocols impact effectiveness.
BCSnob 07/05/20 05:50am Around the Campfire

Peer reviewed published studies should be provided even if they give conflicting results to other studies. Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 International Journal of Infectious Diseases Samia Arshad Paul Kilgore Zohra S. Chaudhry William O’Neill Marcus Zervos Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force Results Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American, with median time to follow-up of 28.5 days (IQR:3-53). Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.1% (95% CI:16.6%-19.7%); by treatment: hydroxychloroquine?+?azithromycin, 157/783 (20.1% ), hydroxychloroquine alone, 162/1202 (13.5% ), azithromycin alone, 33/147 (22.4% ), and neither drug, 108/409 (26.4% )?. In this peer reviewed published study, using their drug doses and their supportive care, hydroxychloroquine was found to reduce mortality from Covid-19. The authors clearly stated the limitations of their findings: Limitations to our analysis include the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design. Also, information on duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization was not available for analysis. The authors also discussed the variable performance of this drug reported from other studies. Recent observational retrospective studies and randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine have reported variable results. (Gautret et al., 2020a, Gao et al., 2020, Gautret et al., 2020b, Jun et al., 2020, Tang et al., 2020, Chen et al., 2020, Yu et al., 2020, Geleris et al., 2020, Rosenberg et al., 2020, Magagnoli et al., 2020, Million et al., 2020) In a randomized controlled study of 62 patients from China with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was associated with a shortened duration of fever and time to cough and pneumonia resolution (Chen et al., 2020). In contrast, a study of 1376 consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York that used respiratory failure as the primary endpoint found no significant reduction in the likelihood of death or intubation among those receiving hydroxychloroquine compared to those who did not. (Geleris et al., 2020) In a separate multicenter cohort study of 1438 patients from 25 hospitals in New York, no reduction in hospitalized patient mortality was observed with hydroxychloroquine treatment (Rosenberg et al., 2020). Among a number of limitations, this study included patients who were initiated on hydroxychloroquine therapy at any time during their hospitalization. In contrast, in our patient population, 82% received hydroxychloroquine within the first 24?hours of admission, and 91% within 48?hours of admission. Because treatment regimens likely varied substantially (including delayed initiation) across the 25 hospitals that contributed patients to the study, it is not surprising that the case-fatality rate among the New York patients was significantly higher than in our study. The authors also state: our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety, and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The authors also clearly stated this drug should not be given outside of a hospital setting where the patients can be monitored for the serious side effects.
BCSnob 07/04/20 05:46pm Around the Campfire

Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets A study emulating coughs and the distance the expelled droplets can travel, 12’ in 50secs (farther than the recommended 6’ social distance). The impact of various masks on the coughed droplets was assessed. There was a significant reduction in the distance the coughed droplets traveled and the effectiveness was dependent upon mask design. This is an important quote from this article. Several studies have investigated respiratory droplets produced by both healthy and infected individuals when performing various activities. The transport characteristics of these droplets can vary significantly depending on their diameter.23–28 The reported droplet diameters vary widely among studies available in the literature and usually lie within the range 1 µm–500 µm,29 with a mean diameter of ?10 µm.30 The larger droplets (diameter >100 µm) are observed to follow ballistic trajectories under the effects of gravity and aerodynamic drag.20,31 I read so many comments in yahoo about how masks can not filter the virus because the virus is too small. While the virus by itself is small enough to not be filter it is expel during coughs, sneezes, or talking in droplets which are large enough to be filtered by masks. This is like arguing mosquito is ineffective at preventing the spread of malaria because malaria is small enough to pass right through the netting.
BCSnob 07/04/20 01:56pm Around the Campfire

Suppression of COVID-19 outbreak in the municipality of Vo, Italy Abstract On the 21st of February 2020 a resident of the municipality of Vo, a small town near Padua, died of pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was the first COVID-19 death detected in Italy since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei province. In response, the regional authorities imposed the lockdown of the whole municipality for 14 days. We collected information on the demography, clinical presentation, hospitalization, contact network and presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasopharyngeal swabs for 85.9% and 71.5% of the population of Vo at two consecutive time points. On the first survey, which was conducted around the time the town lockdown started, we found a prevalence of infection of 2.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-3.3%). On the second survey, which was conducted at the end of the lockdown, we found a prevalence of 1.2% (95% CI 0.8-1.8%). Notably, 43.2% (95% CI 32.2-54.7%) of the confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections detected across the two surveys were asymptomatic. The study tested a large percentage of the population twice. Small percentage of the sampled population was found to be infected. Of those infected, 40%-50% had no symptoms. The infectivity rate, R0, was estimated to be 3.0 (3 people infected by every sick person) at the start of the lockdown and decreased quickly to <1 during the lockdown.
BCSnob 07/02/20 07:56am Around the Campfire
RE: Don't Panic

Dr Doug, Thanks for the info. I get the feeling that a country’s citizens response to the pandemic is a reflection of that country’s success or failure in educating its citizens in science. Mark
BCSnob 07/01/20 01:35pm RV Pet Stop
RE: Dogs with jobs

Renee’s puppy Hattie has been getting training for the past few months. She is really interested in the sheep. When not in the field working she likes to sit and watch sheep through windows. This is a favorite spot. Sorry about the rotated image
BCSnob 07/01/20 07:16am RV Pet Stop
RE: Picture posting thread...anyone into it?

I acquired an old pony from my father this winter.
BCSnob 07/01/20 06:17am Around the Campfire

I’ve seen news articles about the volunteers for these studies. Human Challenge Studies to Accelerate Coronavirus Vaccine Licensure Volunteers sign up to put their lives on the line for a coronavirus vaccine These studies are routine for animal vaccines; they are used to determine effectiveness and duration of immunity.
BCSnob 07/01/20 04:48am Around the Campfire

The United States Should Consider Compulsory SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Margaret Bove Voices in Bioethics May 4, 2020
BCSnob 06/30/20 07:52am Around the Campfire
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 12  

New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:

© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.