Because the cost of treating people would destroy the economy if we remove “stay at home” and social distancing orders. It would quickly overwhelm the system.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
This doubles the benefit of having ours sent directly to the account. I won’t have to see that check, with the Sharpie signature.
Yeah, you can tell if they’re the asshole who thinks that showing how strong your hand is and how much of a jerk you are willing to be by possibly squeezing their hand to pain.
Instantly think that guy is an asswhipe, so yeah I guess that you are right.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Ok, this paper is heavy on the speculation without any sort of hard data to back it up,
Wambier CG, Goren A, SARS-COV-2 infection is likely to be androgen mediated, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jaad.2020.04.032.
but their artwork is amazing.
Move upside and let the man go through...
Everyone is pissed at Who for this tweet
""Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China,"" in mid-Jan. Yes they started cleaning that up by late Jan and by the there was supposedly vital sign testing for travelers from Wuhan and of course Chinese travel block by end of Jan.
There's no argument he fumbled for all of Feb and he should never be allowed to address the nation again.
Young people are not immune from the virus (both death and long term complications) but at some point, you would think they revolt and say why are we being fucked economically to disproportionately save old people? Data from Seattle:
![]()
Checking in as a young-ish (31) person who doesn't feel anything akin to what you're postulating. I would like to see a lasting transformation of the economy toward a low/zero growth model and away from the current state of things. I know it's unlikely to happen, but I'm in no rush to return to the way things were. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of cancer.
How many of those young people are working jobs that don't provide health insurance? How many of them would be royally fucked economically if they kept working and got sick enough to require hospitalization? It isn't just age and infirmity that put people in the high-risk category.
Last edited by glademaster; 04-15-2020 at 11:12 AM.
Wow, I agree. The 30-64 age group of employees is likely more valuable than the 18-29 age group.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Never in U.S. history has the public chosen leadership this malevolent. The moral clarity of their decision is crystalline, particularly knowing how Trump will regard his slim margin as a “mandate” to do his worst. We’ve learned something about America that we didn’t know, or perhaps didn’t believe, and it’ll forever color our individual judgments of who and what we are.
Interesting, Most of our patients being treated for COVID-19 are male.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
^ Summarized: The more androgens the more risk so bald beardy men might face the highest risk. Anti-androgen drugs could help.
Thought I saw a chart guess I didn’t save it, indicating age dispersement of infection in usa was quite a bit different (younger) than China.
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of cancer."
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of capitalism
A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.
Bookmarks