Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Non-Actuarial Topics
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4771  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:21 PM
Loner's Avatar
Loner Loner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Third Half
Posts: 46,532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rookie View Post
I gave "leaders" a lot of latitude in their recommendations. In the aggregate, when accounting for masks increasing how often people touch their faces, I can understand the prior policy. If masks become recommended, they (leaders) should reiterate the concern over the tendency to touch one's face. Will you re-use your mask? When you put something over your mouth, you better be sure it is clear of germs.
I'm sorry, but no, this is like saying condoms are worse than pulling out because they might slip off. All that talk of touching your face making it worse was to make it sound plausible to laypeople so they wouldn't buy up all the masks. It was propaganda to slow the purchase of masks.
__________________
2012 AO Rap Battle Champion
Co-Legend of the Water Cooler(TM)
Reply With Quote
  #4772  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:26 PM
Cloister Cloister is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,080
Default

So CA is sitting with about 10K reported cases (per Worldometers). Which, given their population is amazingly low. But that's on 30K tests, with 60K tests pending - their backlog issue has been horrible for many days now. If the pending test positive rate matches the reported rate, then it should be about 30K reported. That would be much more in line with the WA figures on a per capita basis.
Reply With Quote
  #4773  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:26 PM
3rookie 3rookie is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy View Post
Pregnancy is an immune-compromising condition -- basically, the mother's immune system is tamped down so it doesn't kill the fetus. (And the problem with rH incompatibility is that the mother's immune system DOES kill the fetus.) Pregnant women are considered at risk, along with old people and people who have cancer and people who have diabetes and ...
Would you have been (or were all women) scared to death being pregnant 100 years ago when maternal mortality rates were near 1 in 100 live births? So much of the way we feel is driven by irrational fear, placing the likelihood of events happening to us at a much higher % than reality says. I would expect protocols to be in place that reduce the number of people (without masks) that would be around the mother and child.
Reply With Quote
  #4774  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:27 PM
Lucy's Avatar
Lucy Lucy is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loner View Post
I'm sorry, but no, this is like saying condoms are worse than pulling out because they might slip off. All that talk of touching your face making it worse was to make it sound plausible to laypeople so they wouldn't buy up all the masks. It was propaganda to slow the purchase of masks.
Yeah. Speaking as someone who has been wearing face masks from time to time for a while (for reasons I don't want to get into) it's really dumb to say, "it will make you touch your face." I mean, sure, if you put a mask on a child and don't explain to them why you did it, they would probably touch their face more. But if you put a mask on an adult who is trying not to touch their face, it's actually a really good reminder not to do that.

And if you looked at the official recommendations, they ALWAYS said that people caring for someone with covid ought to wear a mask. They just downplayed the benefit in a vain attempt to reduce the run on masks, leaving health-care providers unprotected.
Reply With Quote
  #4775  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:27 PM
Cloister Cloister is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,080
Default

And FL goes boom - total deaths tripled from 100 to 300 in a day. Probably distorted some by reporting issues, but still that's a massive increase. Hoping it's a data error and not really that much of an increase.

Last edited by Cloister; 04-02-2020 at 01:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4776  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:28 PM
dgtatum's Avatar
dgtatum dgtatum is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Louisville, KY
Favorite beer: San Pelligreno
Posts: 4,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdsafdsa View Post
Tested positive and died <> died due to COVID.
Yep, that case says died with Covid-19 not from Covid-19.
__________________
It's times like these you learn to live again
It's times like these you give and give again
It's times like these you learn to love again
It's times like these time and time again
Reply With Quote
  #4777  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:31 PM
Lucy's Avatar
Lucy Lucy is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rookie View Post
Would you have been (or were all women) scared to death being pregnant 100 years ago when maternal mortality rates were near 1 in 100 live births? So much of the way we feel is driven by irrational fear, placing the likelihood of events happening to us at a much higher % than reality says. I would expect protocols to be in place that reduce the number of people (without masks) that would be around the mother and child.
Of course! And most women were anxious about giving birth then. There's a prayer Jews are supposed to say when they survive mortal danger, and after giving birth was one of the times they said it.

https://netivyah.org/birkat-hagomel-...-thanksgiving/
Reply With Quote
  #4778  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:31 PM
3rookie 3rookie is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loner View Post
I'm sorry, but no, this is like saying condoms are worse than pulling out because they might slip off. All that talk of touching your face making it worse was to make it sound plausible to laypeople so they wouldn't buy up all the masks. It was propaganda to slow the purchase of masks.
Yes, the intent was to not have people buy up all of the masks so providers could have them. It was correct to state an additional (and valid) reason for people to not buy masks.
Reply With Quote
  #4779  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:32 PM
Gorilla Gorilla is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rookie View Post
Would you have been (or were all women) scared to death being pregnant 100 years ago when maternal mortality rates were near 1 in 100 live births? So much of the way we feel is driven by irrational fear, placing the likelihood of events happening to us at a much higher % than reality says. I would expect protocols to be in place that reduce the number of people (without masks) that would be around the mother and child.
What are you doing here, dude?
Reply With Quote
  #4780  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:36 PM
ElDucky's Avatar
ElDucky ElDucky is offline
Free Mason
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In a van, down by the river
Studying for Let me worry about blank
Favorite beer: Trappistes Rochefort 8
Posts: 44,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy View Post
Congrats!

Pregnancy is an immune-compromising condition -- basically, the mother's immune system is tamped down so it doesn't kill the fetus. (And the problem with rH incompatibility is that the mother's immune system DOES kill the fetus.) Pregnant women are considered at risk, along with old people and people who have cancer and people who have diabetes and ...
https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/heal...irus-covid-19/

Information for pregnant women coronavirus (COVID-19)


To date, pregnant women do not appear to be at higher risk of contracting the coronavirus disease (COVID‑19) than the general public.

In studies of pregnant women infected with the virus responsible for COVID‑19 around the world, none of the babies were infected during pregnancy. The virus responsible for COVID‑19 was not detected in the amniotic fluid, placenta or breast milk of the infected pregnant women. No cases of congenital abnormalities caused by the virus responsible for COVID‑19 were observed.

However, due to the physiological changes that occur during pregnancy, pregnant women are at higher risk of developing complications following a respiratory infection. The more serious the symptoms and the complications, such as pneumonia, the more significant the potential consequences are for the pregnant woman and her unborn child.

At this time, there is insufficient evidence on the coronavirus disease (COVID‑19) to determine whether or not pregnant women and their unborn children are more at risk.
__________________
I live near the cows.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.58683 seconds with 12 queries