A month ago New Hampshire Republicans reclaimed control of the state House of Representatives. Last week Rep. Dick Hinch (R-Merrimack) became the new Speaker of the House. Yesterday he died of COVID. It appears that a GOP caucus meeting on November 20th may have a superspreader event.
âHow do we pretend to do the right thing until this drops out of the news cycle?â
âLetâs issue some arrest warrants we have no intention of serving.â
âBut wonât people question why we didnât just arrest these people at the scene of the crime?â
âHave you even read the news in the last 20 years? Journalists are imbeciles.â
I canât find the podcast where I learned this, but after Hurricane Katrina some of the governors of southern U.S. states got in touch with Cuba and started sending medical students there to train. This was with a wee bit of cultural sensitivity training, of course, and the agreement that they would go to under-served U.S. communities for (IIRC) 2 years afterwards. Hereâs an older article on the topic.
Given Cubaâs COVID-19 record of 70 times fewer deaths per million maybe itâs a model to consider (12.5 COVID deaths per 1m people, versus 877 per 1m in the U.S., so 280,000 Americans might be alive today if the had a system as good as that of . ⌠kind of gives a new spin on their rallying cry: âSocialismo o muerteâ)
itâs worse than fighter jets. we literally pay people to become soldiers to kill other people overseas, but itâs"socialism" to pay people to become doctors to save lives here.
( we do somehow manage to pay firefighters. i noticed - however - when my partner had to go to the hospital recently, that paying paramedics with public money is no longer a thing. gotta love private ambulance companies taking 911 calls )
I always get confused by the âcasualtiesâ. I get it as of course wounded is worse for an army than dead, and missing could be runoff which is also worse.
Of course weapons are designed to disable and wound and suck up resources.
Itâs not a mad stretch to think that maybe the army had it right: weâre so obsessed with the number of deaths a health threat forms (the Pinto, Covid 19) that we forget the nonfatal outcomes can be even more draining on society.
"At the end of the day, the committee voted on one question:
Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age or older? (Seventeen members voted âyesâ to this question, four voted âno,â and one person abstained.)
Some of the key points of discussion during the meeting included:
whether there is sufficient data from the Phase 3 clinical to authorize use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds. (The companies are seeking an indication that would allow teens in this age group to receive the vaccine.)
whether the vaccine can prevent infection with asymptomatic disease
whether certain patient populations like pregnant women and people with HIV/AIDS should receive the vaccine
I heard an infectious disease* expert say on CNN that from what he read in the Pfizer data is that the Pfizer trials specifically excluded participants who had reported any previous drug allergies/reactions. This is why they have no data.
(*Then again it may have been Gupta. Itâs all a blur with the on-camera news docs at this point. I only remember the comment.)
The two reactions were in individuals who had a history of severe allergic reactions in the past. Such individuals were disqualified from the trials, so not surprised this was not seen. What is currently unknown is, what kind of reactions in your history are red flags? I have a pretty nasty peanut allergy. Does that disqualify me? We do not know.