pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2020 15:17:17 GMT -5
See the problem with every single one of the statements that get made is that they over promise and underdeliver. Very few medications are actual game changers. Medicine advances incrementally. Every so often a good black swan appears, and we have a major breakthrough. I'm sure that Walk agrees with me in that this is a nice idea with merit. But it is just that, an idea. Biologic systems have a way of acting in unpredictable ways. Until this is tested, it remains a nice idea. So it is premature to get your hopes up. It may not work, work only marginally, or have a serious side effect. All of those options are more likely than it will be wonderful. When a major breakthrough occurs, you will know, because everyone will agree. I am not even sure this idea is practical; how many people need to be treated before it has a major effect on the pandemic? I personally need some good news amidst the gloom and stress that worrying about keeping myself and my family healthy and prepared bring. Not to lower my current precautions, but to have hope for any kind of meaningful future. Distressing news from all over the world are too difficult to hear without any hope that many are working on ways to make it better. Once I put forward plans and measures to do the best I can for now, I need to look for ways everyone else is trying to do their part. And looking for treatment is one of them. If we can cobble together many different ways to make this disease affect us less, why not. I am not pinning my hopes on this or any particular one development to be the one personally, I guess the title of that article does not reflect my views accurately I understand the need for hope, I really do. I spent the most frustrating week of my career caring for these patients. The thing is, 1 month later, quite a few of them survived, some fully recovered. So, even without treatment, good care can make a difference. There is reason for hope. Science and medicine are both capable of amazing things. The best and the brightest around the world are working on this. tangible progress in understanding this is being made, and in a relatively short time. the problem is that doing it right takes time and patience. But we can "science" our way out of this. the reason you do not have enough hope is due to a failure of leadership. If the president had then character to step up, do the right thing, acknowledge this is going to be hard, we need shared sacrifice, but we have a plan to get us out f this, that would be helpful to your despair. But we get the same shit out of him we have gotten for 3 years: anger, lack of empathy, inconsistency and divisiveness. The fact that this is a science problem, and people will work on it regardless of what he does is why we have hope. Stories like the one you posted causes problems, because the nuance necessary is never there. Miraculous breakthroughs rarely happen, but hard work is frequently rewarded, and that is what is being done. I don't know if that helps. I have had a few tough days too, but typing it has made me feel better.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on May 15, 2020 15:22:19 GMT -5
... That's the heart of the problem though. To keep people happy, you keep their short-term outlook nice. And sometimes you do that to the sacrifice of the company's long term health. The after-the-fact judgement is the problem, and precisely where the problem lies. If I'm the CEO, I can take option A which short term will be great and I can continue to get a paycheck (or re-elected), or I can take option B which short term is nasty and will get me fired...but which long term would be in the company's best interest. Your point about "how do we make the call" is accurate, but also what CEOs making intentionally damaging decisions rely on. "Save my short term ass, hope to explain it away later". Because if they don't save their ass short-term, they aren't in the long term picture. So it's not INHERENTLY bad...but it's bad if you don't think the person in charge is willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. So then the question becomes, do you think Trump is willing to sacrifice his re-election to do the right thing? Not that he HAS to, there's always the chance the right thing turns out to be the popular thing as well...but if someone isn't WILLING..then you have a misalignment of goals (for most folks, I think most folks care more about the long term outlook of their lives than the short term when it comes to political decisions). Two positions you take: ... (for most folks, I think most folks care more about the long term outlook of their lives than the short term when it comes to political decisions). ... To keep people happy, you keep their short-term outlook nice. So folks care more about the long term and people are kept happy in the short term? I am struggling wrapping my brain around that.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,371
|
Post by thyme4change on May 15, 2020 15:46:26 GMT -5
But would add that a very specific third agenda is an incumbent President running for re-election. His agenda is to make the decisions which will result in people voting him in for a second term. That is not inherently bad. In fact, I see the positive side being he has a huge incentive to get his part right. Time will tell how successful he was. Maybe not inherently bad, but in most cases is bad. Generally speaking, you don't want a CEO concerned with the short-term results at the expense of the long-term results...and that's essentially his motivation at this point. The problem is, getting his part "right" might mean doing something horribly unpopular with his likely voters. Moat publically traded corporations live and die by the quarterly earnings release. CEO's try to have long term plans, but not at the expense of the quarter profits.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,679
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 15, 2020 16:04:41 GMT -5
A few minutes ago I was sitting at a red light outside the CDC. There was a man with multiple signs and the one he held up to my car read: "The mandatory vaccine that Gates and Fauci want you to have will let the government track your every move". I'd be tempted to say, Silly Wabbit, Facebook, Google and your phone already track you better. Why are you worried about an imaginary chip that allegedly fits through a needle.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 15, 2020 16:07:46 GMT -5
... That's the heart of the problem though. To keep people happy, you keep their short-term outlook nice. And sometimes you do that to the sacrifice of the company's long term health. The after-the-fact judgement is the problem, and precisely where the problem lies. If I'm the CEO, I can take option A which short term will be great and I can continue to get a paycheck (or re-elected), or I can take option B which short term is nasty and will get me fired...but which long term would be in the company's best interest. Your point about "how do we make the call" is accurate, but also what CEOs making intentionally damaging decisions rely on. "Save my short term ass, hope to explain it away later". Because if they don't save their ass short-term, they aren't in the long term picture. So it's not INHERENTLY bad...but it's bad if you don't think the person in charge is willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. So then the question becomes, do you think Trump is willing to sacrifice his re-election to do the right thing? Not that he HAS to, there's always the chance the right thing turns out to be the popular thing as well...but if someone isn't WILLING..then you have a misalignment of goals (for most folks, I think most folks care more about the long term outlook of their lives than the short term when it comes to political decisions). Two positions you take: ... (for most folks, I think most folks care more about the long term outlook of their lives than the short term when it comes to political decisions). ... To keep people happy, you keep their short-term outlook nice. So folks care more about the long term and people are kept happy in the short term? I am struggling wrapping my brain around that. People's ability to predict the long term is poor. Ask people whether they care more about their life this year, or about their life for the 50 years after this year...most will take the 50 years after this year. Give people a good short-term, and they'll typically mis-predict that good short term into a good long term, and vice versa if you give them a bad short term. People tend to predict that their current state will remain their future state far more than it likely will. That's why giving people a good short term works, they do a poor job of correctly predicting the long-term implications...even when they value them more than the short term.
|
|
jelloshots4all
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2013 15:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 4,642
|
Post by jelloshots4all on May 15, 2020 16:39:40 GMT -5
Two positions you take: ... (for most folks, I think most folks care more about the long term outlook of their lives than the short term when it comes to political decisions). ... To keep people happy, you keep their short-term outlook nice. So folks care more about the long term and people are kept happy in the short term? I am struggling wrapping my brain around that. People's ability to predict the long term is poor. Ask people whether they care more about their life this year, or about their life for the 50 years after this year...most will take the 50 years after this year. Give people a good short-term, and they'll typically mis-predict that good short term into a good long term, and vice versa if you give them a bad short term. People tend to predict that their current state will remain their future state far more than it likely will. That's why giving people a good short term works, they do a poor job of correctly predicting the long-term implications...even when they value them more than the short term. This is why we have so many people that live pay check to pay check. If they have money in their pocket, they are going to spend it. They don't think long term. I have friends that fall into this category. They complain about not having any money, yet they spend their money getting their hair dyed professionally or manicures. I buy a $10 box of hair dye and do my own nails. Because it is more important to me to save money for the LT. It has paid off because while I am currently unemployed, my family has not had to suffer.
|
|
nidena
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 28, 2010 20:32:26 GMT -5
Posts: 3,580
|
Post by nidena on May 16, 2020 9:37:45 GMT -5
A few minutes ago I was sitting at a red light outside the CDC. There was a man with multiple signs and the one he held up to my car read: "The mandatory vaccine that Gates and Fauci want you to have will let the government track your every move". With all the shots I got during 20 years in the military, I probably already have this chip. lol. And don't they realize that most people already have this kind of tracking on their person. It's called a cell phone.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 16, 2020 9:48:31 GMT -5
1950s: Big Brother Gonna Get You
2000+: Big Brother... I'm headed to Blank... what's the best coffee place on the way?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 9:43:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 10:17:52 GMT -5
If there is one thing I've learned from all the Dateline I've watched, if I'm planning to murder someone, shut off the data on my phone!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on May 16, 2020 10:28:57 GMT -5
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,196
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 16, 2020 13:24:36 GMT -5
Went grocery shopping and there is still a lot of meat which is surprising because the produce clerk I was talking to said they have been nuts lately with people trying to get to the meat first. Wonder if that is starting to slow down now like it did with the TP. Prices are going up but nothing to where I got sticker shock.
Cheese was completely cleaned out but other dairy items were plentiful. Found another flavor of Mike's Hard Lemonade to try.
Took the long way around to PetSmart to check out parking lots. I am not sure how many of those are employees vs people shopping but some of the lots looked like the last couple of months have never happened. Sam's still has a line out the door so I am going to continue to avoid them. Hobby Lobby also had a line out the door. Very few people wear masks around here so I think my decision to avoid places with lines out the door is a solid one for the time being.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 9:43:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 13:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 9:43:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 16:04:09 GMT -5
I dropped by a Home Depot garden center today. They weren't crazy busy but brisk. The traffic on the roads is back to batshit crazy with drunks, speeders, fatality wrecks, etc. At Home Depot the staff was masked and maybe 70% of customers were. Our mayor and county judge are hanging tough and fighting back against the governor's OPEN IT UP! stance.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,313
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 16, 2020 21:20:53 GMT -5
If there is one thing I've learned from all the Dateline I've watched, if I'm planning to murder someone, shut off the data on my phone! You should !eave the bloody thing at home and tie it to your Roomba.
|
|