The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) does actually deploy international election monitors in the US. Here’s their report on the 2016 election, it’s actually fascinating to read their report, referencing “one candidate” who was “intolerant” (they don’t get into actual policy analysis) but do…

FOR FUCKS SAKE, NOBODY TOLD ME BLACK MIRROR WAS A DOCUMENTARY

Here in Arizona, the gun stores did either appointment only, walk up, or curbside pickup. I don’t think that was *actually* a requirement from the state (which classified them as essential and would have legally allowed them to stay fully open), but a lot of them operated that way. The background check requirement was…

COTD right here. I’ve been laughing - alone here in isolation - about this for 5 minutes straight.

I mean, if her job is in fashion, and the salesperson’s job is working at a Chanel counter, and each is dipping their toes into the water of trying to return to some semblance of work, then this interaction would seem to actually BE a priority for them.

Trump is a disgusting, incompetent goon, but I question when people talk about “preventing” this, what exactly we imagine President Hillary Clinton would have done differently in January and February? Do we think she would have been able to procure more tests or masks out of thin air? Do we think that, thinking back…

This is Hart Island in New York, unclaimed bodies and indigent people have been buried there for 100+ years. There’s over a million people that have been buried there.

The ignorance of most people to the complexity of the agricultural systems we have to support 7 billion humans is staggering. So, so many people are under the illusion that farmers are cute little operations with a couple cows, a butter churn, and a couple acres of wheat that they imagine is baled up by hand or…

That’s not what they mean. They just mean something is detectable, period. Just as a single mosquito might be detectable anywhere in the world, but obviously malaria is more likely in places with more mosquitos where it’s easier for them to live.

It would be effective at almost any level of usage - keeping asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic people from coughing or sneezing in public.

Detectable on surfaces isn’t the same thing as infectious risk though. It’s not nothing, but it’s far less infectious than direct human contact, or contact with a still-wet body fluid - like particles from a sneeze or a cough. 

It will really never be super clear how long viruses and bacteria live in cardboard or other surfaces, and you’ll never get a definitive “safe or not safe” cutoff. There’s too many different types of materials, textures, environments, types of contacts, and confounding factors to ever give an definitive rule.

Some people are getting it too in the US, under other clinical trials and “compassionate use” cases, but that’s why this study and the coverage around it is so confusing: remdesivir itself is ANYTHING BUT a conventional treatment. It’s an experimental antiviral drug originally developed to treat Ebola virus, which…

“What they would have gotten if not in the study” is the WHOLE thing we’re debating here. Because it’s not explained what “what they would have got” is, and that matters a TON for assessing the meaning of this relatively small study. 

The linked source is mostly in Chinese (I read all the English parts and none of it answers the question posed here), and regardless, the debate here is about whether the author above and the author of the source and all the other summaries about this are *missing* the fact that “conventional treatments”, when stated…

At least according to a couple other articles, “standard care” DID INCLUDE treatment with antivirals like remdesivir:

As in, either Ed or the summary might be misreading the original Chinese study. 

But does the “standard care” include remdesivir? That’s where they seem to disagree in this thread.

I don’t know if either of you or the author can or did read the original Chinese language study linked to. If so, I’d be glad to see a direct translation from the study itself (if that’s what you’re showing above, forgive me). But it sounds like the OP is saying he thinks the study was a remdesivir vs…

There’s no reason to do a diagnostic test on every single person for a well-known pathogen that is self-limiting in the vast majority of cases. Unless you are trying to measure the spread and extent of something *novel*, as this disease was at the outset, testing someone doesn’t really do anything useful on an…