Denver Latest City Hit By Viral Respiratory Infection That Targets Kids 174
A respiratory illness that almost exclusively infects children and for which there is no vaccine has struck Denver, Colorado, the latest in a series of infection clusters in the Midwest; one Denver hospital alone has treated more than 900 children for the illness since August 18, though no deaths have been reported.
Health officials believe that the sickness is related to a rare virus called human enterovirus 68 (HEV68), the [Denver] Post says. HEV68, first seen in California in 1962, and an unwelcome but highly infrequent visitor to communities worldwide since then, is a relative of the virus linked to the common cold (human rhinoviruses, or HRV), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ... HEV68, which almost uniquely affects children, tends to first cause cold-like symptoms, including body aches, sneezing and coughing. These mild complaints then worsen into life-threatening breathing problems that are all the more dangerous to children with asthma. Since viruses do not respond to antibiotics, hospitals have treated the illness with asthma therapies.
Scary (Score:2, Insightful)
Every time I see adaptions of existing virus'/fungi/etc I'm reminded of the fact we rely on 3 very crude methods for treating the vast majority of illness.
1) Anti-biotics (which is more of a biological bomb, destroying a large array of bacteria, almost completely untargeted)
2) Immune-system & healing aids (various types of steroids, NSAIDs, simply shoving things back in place, etc)
3) Brute force removal (surgical extraction and bypass)
Very few (by ratio - that's not to say there aren't hundreds of reaso
Re:Scary (Score:4, Informative)
There are vaccines for many of the most dangerous viruses. That's why nobody gets smallpox any more and very few people get polio or measles.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear AC
And then there are gene-based therapies, x-rays, proton beams, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, radioisotope treatments, as well as vaccines, blood and bone marrow transpants. Nanotech is coming soon.
Yes, they're all crude and "not having an advanced understanding" (whatever the fuck that means) but they are EFFECTIVE.
As far as pandemics are concerned, where is it written that people in first world countries can't get difficult-to-treat illnesses transmitted while in close proximity to each other?
What do actually suggest that is not "crude" by your definition. Reiki? Homeopathy? Hoping it will all go away if we pray to this deity or that statue?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Different AC) What original AC is saying is that our current medicine doesn't resemble Star Trek style tricorder, hypospray, targeted transporter non-penetrative surgery that we might expect from a Star Trek future. We drop blanket bombs into our bodies with the expectation that the evil bits will die a whole lot faster than the good bits, and by the time the evil bits are dead, the good bits are still in a good enough shape to regenerate. Sure, we made some progress (that proton beam sounds like a thing t
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me get this straight... you're unhappy with the present because it doesn't hold up to the predictions of a piece of fiction?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is Slashdot. I'm not sure why you seem surprised.
You have me there... (Score:2)
Well, true. After all this time I don't know why I continue to be surprised.
And the original AC is wrong. (Score:2)
What original AC is saying is that our current medicine doesn't resemble Star Trek style ... We drop blanket bombs into our bodies with the expectation that the evil bits will die a whole lot faster than the good bits, and by the time the evil bits are dead, the good bits are still in a good enough shape to regenerate.
No that is NOT what we do for practically anything but chemotherapy for most cancers (where the difference from normal tissue is very small - a few mutations in signaling systems) and the ma
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is. That people should realize medicine isn't perfect? Most folks probably do realize it, but like the feeling of hopefulness. Or are you calling for increased public funding?
antibiotics (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a feeling most docs will give out antibiotics for this anyway. It helps makes everyone feel like something is being done.
Re: (Score:2)
When people suffer from asthma, they are often prey to secondary bacterial infections which can turn nasty. Yes, they'll be prescribing prophylactic antibiotics in some cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Broad spectrum stuff for bacteria that most likely already has resistance. If there is an infection and it does turn nasty, then they will worry picking their antibiotics more carefully. Or should I say correctly?
I'm a big believer in getting a culture to be positive of what needs to be killed and then picking an antibiotic that has some chance of working. I should add: IAMAD.
Re: (Score:2)
I should add: IAMAD.
??
You are mad at doctors?
Re: (Score:3)
"Broad spectrum stuff for bacteria that most likely already has resistance. I
false. Not even close. You are tlkaing out of your ass to defend tlaking out of your ass.
Stop it.
"Or should I say correctly?"
No. fact that turns nasty can be too late.
"I'm a big believer in getting a culture to be positive of what needs to be killed and then picking an antibiotic that has some chance of working.
Fact of the matter is, that often not possible. Plus, it could be several. And it could become too late.
Re:antibiotics (Score:5, Informative)
I have a feeling most docs will give out antibiotics for this anyway. It helps makes everyone feel like something is being done.
In most cases they are prescribed to treat secondary Sinus infections that result from the virus. I, for example, get a sinus infection every time I get a cold. Literally, every time. I was genetically cursed with terrible closed off sinuses that easily become infected, and as a result it's a matter of course that I get antibiotics when I get a cold. They do normal inspections to make sure I really have an infection, and I always do. Some people are just like that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I had the same exact problem. In my case, I had sinus surgery to remove a polyp. Getting a cold meant my sinuses would close up and remain closed from an infection that would soon follow. 18 years later, I haven't had a single sinus infection.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the beneficial side effects of places like Kaiser ( all in one insurance/provider ) is that they can communicate and enforce such policies as "No antibiotics for viral infections", often in spite of well meaning but ultimately clueless parents.
Smaller practices may still prescribe antibiotics for everything from a sniffle to a stubbed toe, but the bigger places are finally getting it. It's one of the few benefits of consolidating our health care as we are.
Re:antibiotics (Score:4, Informative)
Yup, and now we have higher pneumonia rates as a result. Better for the herd? Yup. For the individual patient? Well, maybe not quite as much.
It's a tricky problem - you don't want antibiotic-resistant strains proliferating, but you don't want patients to spread or die of easily treated diseases, either. Evolution, in this case, sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Better for the herd? Yup."
If we have higher pneumonia rates, then no it s NOT better for the herd.
Re: (Score:2)
"Better for the herd? Yup."
If we have higher pneumonia rates, then no it s NOT better for the herd.
That depends greatly on whether the increase in pneumonia is offset by decreases in other problems like MRSA (especially considering that the former is much more treatable).
That is one of the problems we have in healthcare - sometimes the best decision isn't the best decision for every individual, but if we want to really improve average health we need to still make the hard choices. If I'm the guy who stands a 2% chance of recovering if somebody spends $200k on cancer therapy, then that may very well be t
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, and now we have higher pneumonia rates as a result. Better for the herd?
The only source I could find that agrees with you is this one [nih.gov] which is a small, retrospective study in an isolated area of the world. An interesting theory but I would hesitate to get all wound up about it just yet.
Even if this were to be a general case, you would have to consider this against the background of serious side effects from antibiotics (1:1000), development of resistance, costs and likely some other issues.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Backup a sec... (Score:3)
...when did Colorado become part of the Midwest?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Denver, Colorado, is called the "Mile High City", I would classify the state in the Mountains region. Midwest is mostly farm country.
Re: (Score:2)
Mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The Eastern half of Colorado is in the Great Plains so it is valid to call that part of the state the Midwest. Denver sits on the West edge of the Great Plains. Everything west of Denver is the Rocky Mountains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. The regions have specific designations; which has exactly NOTHING to do with the Louisiana purchase.
You probably should look shit up once in a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take my tongue out of my cheek.... (I was making a sideways swipe at what I thought was not a serious complaint...)
You must live in Boulder.... Take a bike ride and ease up... Maybe find the nearest pot shop....
Ok.. Ok.. I'll stop making fun of my boyhood home....
Re: (Score:3)
Well then (Score:2)
*Puts on sunglasses*
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Re: (Score:2)
I like it.
So in essence (Score:3)
'cause (Score:4, Insightful)
What segment of the population do you imagine investigates cures for things like this?
Nerds and geeks, boy, nerds and geeks.
Re: (Score:2)
The human enterovirus 68 is a close cousin of the polio virus.
Citation requested - close enough that polio vax should have caught this?
Are we seeing the outcome of the antivaxxers' stupidity come to fruition with something closer to benign?
Can we spin it that way anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
You could just look it up [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
If nobody has died why is this news? Slow news day?
Do you have children?
From the article -
HEV68, which almost uniquely affects children, tends to first cause cold-like symptoms, including body aches, sneezing and coughing. These mild complaints then worsen into life-threatening breathing problems that are all the more dangerous to children with asthma.
Sure, having your child day is way worse than having your kid really sick, but having a really sick kid is pretty horrible as well. That's why i
Re: (Score:2)
And THAT is why it's news. Because it's a surprise and we are caught unprepared for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lighten' up Francis.
Re: (Score:2)
Key words: 'so far'.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Like having your kid on a ventilator is fun thing to do. Walk in the park and all that.
There are unpleasant things in life short of dying: ICU admissions, taxes, politicians ...
Re: (Score:2)
Having a kid on a respirator is better than watching them die (and yes I've done this), but it doesn't eliminate the FACT that nobody has died from this yet.
Are we SO self absorbed that we don't realize that kids are dying in Africa from Ebola? From Starvation even? Then we get all up in arms over a respiratory virus that hasn't killed anybody yet?
Yea, this is NOT a public health emergency, YET. It might get worse, if it does, people will likely die from it. But more kids die from car accidents on thei
Re: (Score:2)
SO? are you saying we should alert people this is happening? remind people that they need to wash their hands?
You're attitude is why Ebola is spreading. No one took it serious becasue it's always been so limited in the past so basic precautions where not taken.
When we have the elderly, people with other illness, etc.
No one is saying everyone needs to stay home. If we stay informed, take basic precautions, we can stop this from become a big deal.
You're one of the idiots who thinks because there wasn't a prob
Re: (Score:2)
You're one of the idiots who thinks because there wasn't a problem, then all the precautions and changes done ahead of time was useless, aren't you?
No, I'm I guy who recognizes the dangers of a government that is too big, too intrusive, to expensive. And I'm asking those who think otherwise to explain what they think the logical limits of government SHOULD be. Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size and scope of government's reach into your life or are you just willing to go along with the "it's for the children" type arguments for bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government arguments?
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem with being concerned... The problem is how they intend to *control* people for their own good.
Remember back when NYC tried to ban soft drink cups over some set size? That's the kind of thing that government has no business trying to control though law. Public education programs are good things, but until you are able/willing to ban soft drinks totally, making the size of the cup a matter of law is stupid.
So the CDC has it's place, but trying to legislate personal/private behavior is not
Re: (Score:2)
"Remember back when NYC tried to ban soft drink cups over some set size?"
I do, and I agree with that. Note: It in no way limited how much you could drink. You could still get seconds.
That was done becasue people, as a whole, will drink all there soda regardless off how much is their.
The size of all cup of soda was increasing dramatically.,
There where many good reason for that, none of which was 'control'.
"So the CDC has it's place, but trying to legislate personal/private behavior is not among them."
When it
Re: (Score:2)
That's all well and good, and should definitely be a goal for all. However...what do you think we should do with those who will fail the 'personal responsibility test'? This is where conservatives start mumbling. Most seem to be of the opinion 'Fuck off and die'.
That's where I differ. I'm all for personal liberty and all that, but I also realize that there will be people w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm with you on everything up until " I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. "
This won't go well then, because Personal responsibility is fundamental to the founding of this country, in fact was WHY it was founded and why it's not a colony of Great Britain still.
That's all well and good, and should definitely be a goal for all. However...what do you think we should do with those who will fail the 'personal responsibility test'? This is where conservatives start mumbling. Most seem to be of the opinion 'Fuck off and die'.
Which you should fully know is NOT true if you are listening to what the advocates of "personal responsibility" are actually saying. One little known fact in the USA is that charitable contributions from the conservative right, far outweigh the contributions made by the left. The left has ceded the social responsibility
Re: (Score:3)
First off, if you take away tithing to churches, conservatives give the same or less than liberals. I don't have a problem with tithing, but the thing is, it isn't fundamentally about helping people, or compassion, or social benefit. It's about propping up the expensive machinery of religious institutions, paying for giant buildings, high-tech entertainment equipment, and the most dynamic public speak
Re: (Score:2)
Shesh, What do you THINK matters to me? You question my motives, yet you don't answer the posed question. You dismiss, with no real evidenced, that your opinion of conservatives are somehow unfeeling and don't care. That is offensive to conservatives, who care very much about these things. It's like running campaign ads showing some candidate pushing granny over some cliff in a wheelchair, it sends a message that is NOT TRUE. I'm willing to stipulate that liberal believe they care, but you are going to hav
Re: (Score:3)
Shesh, What do you THINK matters to me? You question my motives, yet you don't answer the posed question.
Wait, what? I don't know which question you're talking about. What I'm saying is that we've got some example of handouts (as in, things given to people with no strings attached and which are in no way "earned") that produce lasting positive results. There's a trend recently in charity for this too - some of the most efficient and productive charities allow contributors to directly transfer cash to people in impoverished areas, with the idea that poor people know what they need the most, and will thus be the
Re: (Score:2)
So.. Let me see if I understand you....
You say "Let's limit government when there are clear problems."
This is not a limit. You can invent a "clear problem" to cover any expenditure by digging out the example of why you don't care if you don't support that "clear problem" x doesn't deserve a government solution.
So, unless you can define "clear problem" to be somehow limited, I don't think you've put any limits on government out of principle. You have said that it's up to me coming up with a definition t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, if you want a hard limit on government, what should it be? 23.4% of GDP? 6,342 pages of laws and only 9,634 pages of regulations with the force of law? I'd say that the size of government should depend on the situation.
Therefore, how large the government should be is a political decision.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, then we generally agree that what we have now is beyond what the framers intended. Where we differ is on the advisability of what we have done to date.
But I also think that we need to be STRICT in our understandings of original intent and accept nothing less from our judges. You see, the reason we are here is that many in the USA believe that the Constitution is squishy, that it can have all kinds of interpretations, that I can choose to read it in any way that I like. They DON'T think that original
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, the ACA has given millions of people health insurance, so the country is better insured than it was. It's not nearly the law it should be, but it has had positive effects.
You are drinking the blue stuff... Look, the ACA has not added to the insurance rolls, and in fact has been close to a wash (assuming the unverifiable numbers from HealthCare.gov can be trusted.) But the main selling points where 1. Increase coverage by 70 Million (everybody will have insurance) [FAILED], 2. Costs would go down [FAILED], and 3. You can keep your doctor [Not exactly true], 4. You can keep your insurance [Not true for most of us].
I'm being charitable on the enrollment counts vrs the numbe
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect to the "framers," I don't give a damn what the "framers" had in mind. They were not gods, they were far from infallible and most certainly not soothsayers. What they had in mind was a pre-industrial revolution society with its concerns and ambitions.
What they penned on paper gave this country a starting point, but it in no way should be the conclusion. The farther we travel in time from the point of their authorship the more limited the scope of understanding those documents will hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, can we not agree that "original intent" *should* be what is used to interpret the constitution? That we should be appointing judges who have this ideology?
Because I don't care what "team" you are on or if you consider yourself your own player, there is grave danger in the abandonment of "original intent" in the courts. We simply MUST be appointing judges with the correct ideology, regardless of party, and I firmly feel that seeking "original intent" based judges is the ONLY logical way this can work.
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect to the "framers," I don't give a damn what the "framers" had in mind.
Then go away.
Look, if we don't intend to interpret our laws based upon what the laws where intended to mean when they where written, then what's the use of having courts? What's the use of having any laws to start with? They apparently don't mean anything today if they can mean something else tomorrow.
What the *framers* (the guys that authored the document, argued about it and signed it) wanted it to mean *IS* important. IF you don't want to admit that, then I'm not sure if we have any common ground from
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of US Federal Law, law is made by majority vote in two chambers, and is then signed by the President. 536 people are therefore potentially involved in this process, and not one of them needs to share the same intentions as any other of them in order to play their part in ratifying the bill. They need only vote; their vote will count the same if they share the same intent as their colleagues, if they do not share the intent of their colleagues, and indeed, if they have no particular intention, and are voting solely because their party whip handed them a note saying "be on the Senate floor at 9:36pm and say 'Aye'." Their vote will count even if they are falling-down drunk or if they have not even read the bill under consideration.[7] All of which is to say that giving effect to the intent of the legislature not only presumes that there is a singular intent – no less dubious an assertion where statutes are concerned than where the Constitution is – but, worse yet, the very diversity of these bodies may permit a judge to corrupt his inquiry by finding a floor statement or committee report which suggests an intent that the Judge thinks would be a good result.[8]
So, we have to look at what was written, figure out what it was meant to do (as best as we can) and figure out what impacts it may have, which may very well extend far beyond any effect the legislation's originators ever intended, and hopefully make a decision that optimally accounts for the te
Re: (Score:2)
First this: .... "
""If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you end up at
Then:
"then why don't we go whole hog here and mandate that people only be allowed 1500 Calories a day and enforce this by making it illegal to consume 1501 or more with huge fines? How about we mandate exercise too? 20 min of cardio a week for everybody.... Yea, that's the ticket.. How about we make every woman have exactly two children and force them to breastfeed? It reduces breast cancer you know.."
and then:
"Where does this end
Re:No deaths? (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, you still haven't answered the question. Where does this end? What logical limits do you place on government? How big, how intrusive does it get in your view? When is it too big, too intrusive and how do we know we've reached that point? What are your governing principles on this?
Yes, I'm making logical arguments this illustrating my points by being absurd, that's no surprise, it's what I'm SAYING I'm doing. I'm asking your types to put logical limits in place so I can understand what your arguments, positions, actually are. Because as it stands, debating your types is like nailing jello to the wall. You can always claim "It's for the children" (or the poor, or this group or that) but what you don't want to discuss is where your limits are?
Personally, I think we've gone well past a federal government that is reasonable in size and scope and now have a behemoth out of control, unnecessarily expensive government that does too much and costs way too much. Where does it stop?
Re: (Score:2)
In modern society no man is an island unto himself. The activities of a person will with near certainty have consequences for others to some degree whether good or bad. You hold up a soft drink cup as an example of absurdity. Allow me to illustrate how it is otherwise. The reality is that that 64oz soft drink is of course not the first and only incident of reckless over consumption of sugar but rather a example of a lifestyle of over consumption. At some point this lifestyle begins to manifest health c
Re: (Score:2)
You have stepped out on the slippery slope with both feet and I'm not so sure you realize it.
My Healthcare is NOT your business, nor are my choices about what I eat. Why do I say this? Remember the HIPPA rules? My medical care is SUPPOSED to be between me and my doctors, only after the government inserted itself in the health care did such things become important to government, and this NEVER should have been the case. All sorts of things get justified this way, because all you need to do is come up with
Re: (Score:2)
On the second thought...I'll just reply instead of moderating: the CDC isn't legislating anything. If you have a problem with the science the CDC is putting out, take it up with the scientists at the CDC. If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
Oh how I wish that was how it worked in today's age. Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations, this should NOT be. The DOE, IRS, EPA, HHS, FCC etc are now endowed with the ability to make regulations which can send you to jail if you violate them. Congress does write law, but we need to move back towards a form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level, and do away with all these other regulation writing appendages of government.
Re:No deaths? (Score:5, Informative)
" Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations,"
false. But hey, fix news loves misrepresenting that.
" form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level,"
Every president has issued executive orders, and this includes founding fathers that became president.
You do know that those agency you list where created, funded, and given their authority by congress, right?
Some of us have read history. Have read about why those agency's came to be, and what life was like before them.
For the most part, thy are needed to have a functioning society.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate Original Intent?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Who said THAT?!?!
Are you trollin or somethin here?
As I understand "original intent" it is what I'm arguing FOR.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand "original intent"
And, like everyone is explaining to you, you don't understand the original intent of the executive branch, and the various agencies under its umbrella.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try... But you are apparently re-defining "original intent" here.
What the INTENT was for the creating of the Department Of whatever is not the question. What is the question is both the advisability of their creation and constitutionality of how they now operate. I.E. What the framers of the constitution would say about how all this works now. I dare say, they would not be pleased as they obviously did not envision the mammoth size and scope of the Federal government and took steps to keep this from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, you don't want the IRS to have the power to prosecute those who don't pay their taxes or are fraudulent in reporting them? If that's what you meant I would ask that you rethink the consequences of having no repercussions for not paying your taxes. You don't happen to work for one of those big US telecom companies like AT&T or Comcast do you? Is that why you want to get rid of the FCC regulations and those pesky Net Neutrality folks?
No, I'm saying Congress should be writing the law, including what we now do in "regulation" themselves and not ceding this responsibility to others. Congress has created way to many of these entities, and needs to do away with some of them and severely limit the scope of the rest. So if we deem the IRS or the FCC necessary, they can stay, but we need to CAREFULLY think though the authorizations used to justify them and keep only what's necessary to fulfill the constitutional purpose of the Federal governme
Re: (Score:2)
-1, crack-addled
Regulation is explicitly the job that the executive branch is for. Knowing the difference between regulation an law seem to me an important prerequisite to discussing regulation and law.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost your audience at 'libertards'.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that must be it. You'd better call the Children's Hospital in Colorado, since apparently the qualified medical staff there have no idea what they're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except this is a jump in the number of people getting them, and it has a stronger then effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Dead people don't win much.
Re: (Score:2)
I always hated them because they didn't have milkshakes.
Re: (Score:2)
I always hated them because they didn't have milkshakes.
Huh? I was pretty sure they do..
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the chickens!!!
I thought it was about the cows....
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want him to show you he got that from, because it would just be a picture of his ass
Re: (Score:2)
Scabies? Seriously?
RTFA
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the CDC's Smallpox Fact Sheet (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp): "The last case of smallpox in the United States was in 1949."
Stop spreading racist lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Just because the current administration broke multiple American laws and drew in thousand of alien children"
name one law broken. Name one instance of the administration 'drawing children in'.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Blame Central American Newspapers For Influx Of Undocumented Children [huffingtonpost.com] notes that critics say that DACA created the mistaken impression -- then repeated by Central American news media -- that minors who arrived in the U.S. illegally would be allowed to stay.
Of course, Bush 43 gave them the tools to skirt immigration channels by letting people stay in country while the 400,000 backlogged court cases are processed, creating de facto amnesty policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you, perchance, a Fox News affiliate?
Re:Where it came from (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one way to look at it.
The other way would be with facts and science.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderated "interesting"?
Re: (Score:2)
"What happened this summer in huge numbers?"
What happened differently at the time and location of each outbreak than the previous year in huge numbers?
Correlation may not prove causation, but lack of correlation sure has hell proves lack of causation.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the biblical nonsense, it's ~ 144,000 that will be rapture. So no one would notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that does raise an interesting question, did Denver receive any of the illegals crossing the border that were relocated around the country by the feds. I know they were trying to get grant money in order to do so but ran into a lot of protests over it.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Although alcohol based hand sanitizers work reasonably well against germs (mostly viruses and a few types of bacteria), they generally need 15-30 seconds to do their job well enough. You generally don't touch a door handle that long, nor is it likely to glop enough on to your hands to meet that threshold.
2. Alcohol based hand sanitizers are highly flammable, glopping a flammable substance all over a door handle will not make OSHA your friend.
3. At the end of the day, the washcloth is likely just wet w/o
Re: (Score:2)
1. Although alcohol based hand sanitizers work reasonably well against germs (mostly viruses and a few types of bacteria), they generally need 15-30 seconds to do their job well enough. You generally don't touch a door handle that long, nor is it likely to glop enough on to your hands to meet that threshold.
It's not to clean your hands. It's to keep the doorknob germ free.
Hand sanitzers mostly work against bacteria and not so much against virusses. They also don't do much more than regular washing with soap (sanitizer kills 99,9% of the bacteria with 30 second application while washing with soap cleans approx 99%). Regular washing with soap works much better if there is visible dirt on your hands. Hand sanitzer will not remove that, just spread it out.
FWIW, a more mainstream technique is to use special metal alloy door handles. Although they only work on bacteria, they are at least a known proven method ;^)
I can only agree with that.
Neither method will work efficie
Re: (Score:2)
It's not to clean your hands. It's to keep the doorknob germ free.
Sorry, that does not compute. What's the point of keeping the doorknob germ free, if everyone that needs to open the door has to touch a dirty rag and compromise their hand (that's swallowing the spider to catch the fly)...
Hand sanitizers mostly work against bacteria and not so much against virusses.
That' a common misconception. The latest generation of alcohol based hand sanitizers (when used correctly) work well as a virucidal agent [nih.gov]. However, hand sanitizers often don't work well against certain spore forming bacteria and some common problematic bacteria like Clostridium diffici [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)