J.C.MacSwell

We are all genetically weak, and genetically challenged. Covid 21 might call up your DNA. None of us are impervious to everything. Thank God we are not all the same (read also as evolutionary robust...at least in our time)

Thanks. This makes sense. Any thoughts on the levels of success so far on slowing down the virus even while reducing restrictions? Is it simply due to the remaining measures being more adequate than many believed they might be? Or am I interpreting the data too optimistically? I'm not suggesting we are out of the woods by any means, especially as most are now, temporarily, out of flu season, but there is a general pattern that looks more favourable than seemed to be expected. (not to be confused with the depth of many of those patterns, where many have died, but they seem to have gotten under some degree of control almost everywhere) Are we just getting better at responding to the virus, and maintaining adequate social distancing even with loosened restrictions?

All Trump's "antics" aside, that really isn't true. There are countries with worse numbers. France, UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden all have significantly more deaths per capita. Take out New York State and the US has numbers better than most countries that are doing comparable testing. Obviously New York has had a tough go of it. Arguably the worst response... or arguably the worst circumstances. I'm not buying into all of Trump's crap, but why is Trump "responsible for deaths" (not directed at you MigL, just the thread title) any more than Governor Cuomo in New York?

So, given all that, they should not be infectious. Correct? Would they still have "broken" virions in their respiratory tract, possibly leading to some degree of vaccination for others that breath any noninfectious "post covid droplets"? Follow up question if that is true: If you look at the curves of the regions that have reduced restrictions, other than a few exceptions we are not seeing much in way of spikes or second waves. Are enough people catching "post covid 19" to account for this? Or is that just wishful thinking? Also...would all, most, or some catching "post covid 19" still test positive for Covid 19? "Catching" might be a poor term to use in case of an inactive or non proliferating "post pathogen". In this case I mean significant enough exposure to get a significant enough immune response. But could "friendly zombie covid 19" account, at least in part, for why this virus seems to be so infectious yet somewhat self extinguishing? (given that everywhere it's proliferated it has subsequently subsided...or is that just a result of adequate to sufficient responses in every region, to the the initial exponential rise in numbers of cases?

...and after all he's done for Fox News....ingrates!

Some of my best friends (okay, distant acquaintances, but they still are people) are chemists. It's always the 90 percent of them that give the rest a bad name...

Certainly. But you still have to prove they're pink! We can't just accept your word for everything.

Quick calculation I get 5.79 quadrillion based on atmospheric pressure at sea level and the surface area of a sphere with a radius equal to the average radius of the Earth. I guess the difference is mostly due to the volume of the land mass above sea level?

Better in one than nailed to one...

No. Freedom for me. I get to go live on an island somewhere...

You guys are all so going to get smited...

The one treatment I remember for Kawasaki's was a daily dose of aspirin that went on for several months. IIRC it was a single "baby" (low dose, 81mg) aspirin daily, to thin the blood. Aspirin is generally not recommended (Read as don't give it to them) for children, due to increased risk of Reye's Syndrome, but it was considered a necessary and acceptable risk at that time. Low dose aspirin is also used as a therapy for older adults with risk of heart attack or stroke, but currently not otherwise, due to risks including stomach bleeding https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/a-major-change-for-daily-aspirin-therapy Aspirin in higher doses has been linked to increased deaths during the Spanish Flu, so it is definitely a double edge sword.

I saw that. As far as I know Kawasaki's is a set of symptoms of unknown cause, so maybe the Covid virus manifests that way in some children?

My oldest son had Kawasaki's disease. As far as I know there is no increased risk as he full recovered around 20 years ago. Coincidentally he is at the house today for the first time in over two months after yesterday's easing of restrictions in Nova Scotia.

Obviously that would be a concern, but if we can assume it can be sexually transmitted, let's say vaginally, would that give the body more time to adapt than breathing in the virus, given that this manifests most dangerously as a respiratory disease? Broadening the question what is generally the most dangerous way to "catch" a flu or flu like disease? Not to be confused with most likely way to "catch" it. Is there a way to get it that is least/most preferred, assuming you would get it? I did see some claim that abstinence was advised for 28 days after recovery as a precautionary measure.

Takes more effort though...

Now he actually sounds worse than Cuomo...

Sent someone home with a cold?

And Delbert...INow's a Democrat! (I Kid...I kid...)

First of all ...no. But furthermore I think he did tone it down, which was much more persuasive, and Abolition happened sooner because of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debates

The unsensible part, I would expect. If you toned it down you might get your points across a little more readily.

Delberty, Is this a fair summation of your thinking: "Anyone Governor who would allow someone return to a nursing home with a common cold is attempting mass murder"

...and despite much greater efforts to mitigate it than the Flu in 2018.

Almost 10 X that many Americans died from the Spanish Flu.

I think I can speak for everyone here and say we are glad you found it so, but that's anecdotal. Statistically it is far worse than a common cold.