MedicineDan

Darkest Dungeon pisses me off so much! Rat bastards! Geez, the RNG is Satan in software form!

Well, I don't know if I've posted this before, but I like this song. It's upbeat and irreverent and goofy as hell. I love it!

Looking over the previous recipe, I put 1 tablespoon of yeast nutrient. I wouldn't use that much for 3 gallons. It would give kind of a vitaminy finish to the mead. I must have meant 1 teaspoon, but even that is a bit much for 3 gallons in my opinion, but my feelings about that kind of change, so I might have. Anyhow, off today and so going to Lowes and various places for things I need to do around the house. Also, I think I'll make the reservations for the Disney's Grand Californian Hotel. This is my niece's last year in high school and so we're taking her to her favorite place to celebrate. Not a big deal for rich city folk like Gromnir but a week there is a chunk o' change for the humble likes o' me. I think I'll stay home and that way the little lady can take the niece and a few of her friends. Nothing like a guy to mess up the ladies' vacation. As an aside, respect for your firearm skillz, GD!

For you, Azdeus: Let me see. I'm trying to remember if I did a 3 gallon or 5 gallon batch. I think I did a 3 gallon and put it into two 1 gallon secondary fermenters. I'm sure I have the recipe around somewhere, but I rely on my wife to keep track of it and she has no interest in helping me hunt down the exact recipe right now, but I can tell you almost certainly all of it. 3 Gallon blueberry mead (boil): 9 lbs fresh blueberries in season ~8 lbs local grown honey 4 gallons spring water (much more than necessary, but you need some leftover for other stuff) 1 table spoon yeast nutrient Wyeast Dry Mead (yeast) I think that's all the ingredients. Anyhow, fresh fruit, quality honey, and good water make a difference. Not that you need to fixate on those things. Good ol' store bought honey from the grocery works just fine also. I usually just wash the blueberries and strain out the stems and other debris. Some stems won't matter, but I like to keep tannins and astringents to a minimum. After they're washed and ready, I put them in freezer bags and crush them into pulp, lay them flat in the freezer, and let them sit overnight. The reality is that I'm lazy enough to use the frozen blueberries to help get the must into the right temperature range after the boil. If you're doing a non boil batch, you could just crush them and put them in without freezing. Also, there's some debate about whether to put in the fruit early or late. Later can mean more aromatics, but I always put the fruit in straight away. However, I sometimes do both and put non crushed berries (or whatever) in later to enhanced the aroma and to be decorative. Whether you let the fruit freeze or put it to the side, it's time to start the boil. I've made both boil and non-boil batches. I typically boil, which is a little more complicated since you certainly don't want to singe the honey at the bottom of a pan that's too hot. You have to skim the foam off the top as it boils. Non boil you don't worry about foam. You don't even need to bring it completely to a boil, and I've had several ranges I've tried. Just don't let it burn! Boiling requires bringing the must to a low enough temperature afterward that it doesn't kill the yeast when you add it. I usually do an ice bath for the pan (a big hulking assed thing) and then add the frozen fruit, which is what I did this time. Once it's cool enough you take a big funnel and put it into a carboy. Most people swear that only glass works, which is true if you're going to primary ferment for a long period of time, but my 3 gallon is plastic. I just never keep the brew in it for longer than a couple of weeks, month at most. I always transfer to a couple of 1 gallon secondary fermenters that *are* glass. At this point, getting back to this batch, the temperature is about right for the yeast which, for the one I used, I think just entailed getting it slowly to room temp while I'm doing other stuff and putting it in the must once it's in the right temperature range. Add the yeast nutrient and then put your (sanitized) hand over the top and shake like hell. Oxygen is bad later on, but getting some O2 into the batch at the beginning is good so you can get the yeast thriving. Yeast uses oxygen if it's available, but it goes to sugar if not. So, since oxygen is more efficient, getting enough in there to promote quick growth works well. After the Oxygen is gone, there's a lot of hungry yeasties to start making ethanol. We're set now. Just put in a sanitized bung and tubing. Some people use an airlock, and I do eventually, but fresh fruit can create a tremendous frothy mess and having tubing so that it can gather in a mason jar is good. Just fill the jar so that the end of the tubing is submerged and you're golden. This might sound disgusting or odd, but there's a lot of aroma and taste in the water in the mason jar during the first couple of days. I usually use the leftover water from the brew in the jar and then switch to vodka or some other spirit for the airlock. If you really want something tasty, you could use vodka or some other likely spirit for the mason jar and drink that up as the foam from batch gets pushed into it. Anyhow, this takes a couple of days if there's a lot of fresh fruit in the batch. Overall, I just kept this one in the secondary for several months before racking it. Clear bottle are cool because they really show off the color but light oxidizes and so you need to keep those clear bottles in the dark until you want to show off the goods. Anyway, I'm sure there's more stuff I'm forgetting to mention, but the important thing now is to keep the temperature from fluctuating and keep the fermenters, both the primary and secondary, in a cool, dry, and dark place. Have patience. I think it tastes best after 1 year, but you could go six months or even a few years if you're careful. I would say longer, but mead doesn't last that long around my house. I drink it up. Oh, don't forget whatever sanitizing agent you use. I think I'm still using star san. Also, keep in mind you need to have a corker or a capper with corks or caps when you rack. Hmmm, anything else? I think that's pretty much it. Good luck! Unfortunately, I can't ship to north of the border, but if any of you get back down to *my* neck of the woods, I'll have a special batch ready for you. :crooked smile with one raised eyebrow:

Fresh blueberries. ....At least I think it's blueberries. It might be blackberries, but I think that tends to look more purple than dark red. I have cherries I bought for the little lady that she hasn't eaten and they're probably *just* right for making cherry mead. That's more tart, but I put in enough honey to take off the edge and then I sometimes add dark brown sugar at racking if I want to carbonate and that has a distinctively sweetening effect. It took a while, but I love the end product now. You just have to be patient, and I was for patience made. :wry grin: Anyhow, I tend to have a lot of stuff fermenting at the same time, and I'm a bit in my cups now so I think I'll wait until tomorrow to verify. I can post the recipe if anyone is interested.d

Good God! Is it truly the fabled scaled one participating in this neck of the sandbox?! lol I have to say, I don't think anyone has experienced these times in his or her lifetime. Not to those of us South of the border, at least. I guess I should post something about my day now. Well, let's see. I'll post a picture. For all of the fact that some folks probably hate my political views, they'd be won over by a sip or two of my home brewed mead.

I was going to hop in here about a month ago and predict that Trump loses the election. I didn't believe that the polls were completely accurate. However, I didn't think the issue with national polling, which wasn't as bad as people thought last presidential cycle, were all that crazy. The important polling really is the state by state polling, and I know various organizations are trying to get a better handle in key states. I still think the election is Biden's to lose, and that's mostly because Trump is a sociopath. I'll gladly muddle through the diatribes of Trump hate around here, but I don't believe the crazy stuff Trump does as an individual have made much of a difference. Before the 'Rona, we were in excellent shape. My litmus test to see if you're a blind hater or not is if you deny actual data about the state of the economy before the pandemic. If you talk it down, you're doing so for nakedly partisan reasons. So, the big reason Trump isn't doing better is because of his personal failings, and they are many. People's lives were going well and, minus Trump's vexing persona, he would have walked away with re-election. Then the 'Rona came. He made legitimate policy mistakes that could have hurt him a little, but his incontinent character and multiple... weird statements were the big problem. The press hates him, and so any stupid mistake is highlighted. The hydroxychloroquine kefuffle was just silly. His endorsement was ill advised, but it wasn't earth shattering or even all that important. On the other hand, his crazy assed question to Birx about sunshine and bleach rightfully drew harsh criticism. No rational person would hear those comments and not be confused at best. I mean, what the hell was the guy saying? Then George Floyd was brutalized by police. Peaceful protests turn ugly and then the real motives of the left come out. Defund the police. White people must kneel and atone for sins they personally did not commit. Suggesting that all lives matter, including black lives, can lead to consequences in your life and in your job. This sort of stuff ends up hurting legitimate causes. It simply does. This is not a winning message for Democrats, which is probably why they've more or less stepped away from the strategy. Now, I'll say that, while in my opinion Trump probably loses the upcoming election, I'm not really sure. There's no way to trust current polling in this atmosphere. People are afraid to tell pollsters anything but what they think they should say. That's always true a little bit for Trump, but I'm telling you that it's gone crazy. There are people who truthfully said they weren't going to vote for Trump last month who still say it now even though their feelings have shifted. The problem for Democrats is that they tend to match crazy for crazy with Trump. I rarely resort to profanity, even in person, but the United States is a complete ****show right now. This is the one way Trump can actually cause real harm. He's capricious and crazy in an unsettled time when we need real leadership at the top. The thing is, we were already heading to where we are as a society. Trump just got us there faster. He had two things going for him that people like me felt justified all his bad qualities: he's a disruptor and he defies the relentless march of wokeness in our society. In my opinion, the quality of disruptor is like any medicine. It's got a therapeutic range after which it becomes toxic. With multiple traumas in our society, Trump as disruptor goes from harsh medicine we need into a toxic range that is disturbing to me personally. At this point, I doubt people like me can jump ship on him because we believe society has become unhinged by wokeness that is unforgiving and unrelenting. I just hope the medicine doesn't end us all. You can rest assured of one thing. People like me aren't a huge number in Trump's corner, but he simply cannot win without us. In the states he needs to win, he can't lose even the small number of us he has. If he does, I don't have to hedge my bets. He simply loses. His hardcore support is sizeable in this country, but it's not enough to put him over the top. It's not even close.

I've had a little extra time and I *finally* finished Darkest Dungeon. I cheated in that I did it on Radiant. However, now that I understand you can just keep throwing people at the RNG, you'll eventually win, I understand that harder levels just mean more patience. All good. I downloaded the expansions because the game is just. that. addictive! This game is splendid for getting your mind off of our current socio-political environment.

Yeah, those bad ol' Trump supporters posting fraudulent information. Anyhow, I want to get this out of the way first: hydroxychloroquine and Trump! lol Now, to something I saw today: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html?__source=twitter|main This is like the craze over surfaces, which I knew was a red herring all along. It's possible, but not likely. The real problem is trusting the studies because, until they're vetted, none of them is all that valuable. The study has to be reviewed, the underlying data made available, and then, ideally, follow up research should support the findings. There are two problems I've seen with information about the pandemic. First, some of the research is just shoddy, which muddies, the water. Second, and even worse, we've been relying on theoretical models without a solid amount of data going into the assumptions. That makes the models little more than informed guesses, and it shows. Covid-19 is still a serious problem, but I suppose interest is lagging because of the protests and riots. That's too bad because, while I believe the lockdown was misguided, I *do* think we should continue to take it seriously. Luckily, there might be a vaccine on the horizon. There's always the chance that the virus mutates in order to become milder, which is what a lot of microbes do in order to exist more efficiently within a human host for transmission. Finally, this virus might be like a lot of the past pandemics and just peter out and not come back. I'm not an epidemiologist, but I hope those are all possibilities. EDIT: what the hell? Jjust so I can read through another diatribe: Trump and hydroxychloroquine!

Sure Grom, because you're focused on Trump and I'm focused on therapies. Seriously, I *am* focused on therapies. I've been exposed to the virus. I have co-workers infected with the virus. I'm treating the most at risk population right now, some of whom have had the virus. ...And I don't even work in a dedicated Covid-19 unit. I work medsurg rehab, for crying out loud. It doesn't matter whether Trump did something wrong or not. This is precisely like the Russian collusion investigation, the Ukrainian debacle, and any number of Trump controversies. You guys hate this guy so much that it has simply infected your thinking. However, I'll have to disagree with Elsa. I'm going to continue talking about the drug. I'm going to do so because my underlying points will still be valid. Whether or not Trump is a jackass, we should not pile on a drug just because he promotes. Just like we shouldn't build it up for the same reason. The absolute unreasoning hatred in some quarters, and I include you, leads to perverse outcomes. Do you people realize that it hydroxychloroquine might actually end up being established treatment for Covid-19? I suggest probably not, but there is a sizeable group of reputable physicians who promote its use. We don't have enough information yet. Scaring people so much they won't participate in rigorous trials is not just foolish. It's evil. You've always been ol' reliable. You always rise up to the challenge. I find it funny most of the time. I even find your single minded perseveration admirable on occasion. That doesn't mean you're right all the time, but you put on one hell of a show. I would imagine the vast majority of people who even read this... well, vast majority of a small number of people, but whatever. Anyhow, most folks reading this will be cheering you on. Cool. :shrug: Doesn't make me wrong. Look, Gromnir, reign court for now. If it turns out that the only reasonable conclusion is that hydroxychloroquine was not only ineffective but also dangerous, I'll come here and own it. That's mostly because I don't mind people erroneously (or more likely, cleverly pretending) that I touted it myself. I never did, of course, but it must be that I did in order to straw man my arguments into a defense of Trump. I wonder if anyone who talked about the absolutely established dangers of hydroxychloroquine will be willing to come here and own it if it turns out it works. After all, while I made no firm claims about the drug, others did. As to letting go. I have to go to work, so it might not be immediately, but I'll be back. Mostly, as has been the last couple of exchanges, because legitimate news has come out about this issue. Lancet pulling its support of its own article is a big deal. If the idea is that I should let it go and not mention actual news because it doesn't matter that widely released stories ended up being wrong... well... okay. Heaven knows, the hypocrisy of you telling someone else to let it go. lol I mean, come on! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me I made this personal! .. :guffaw: ...And you'll probably get away with it. God bless you, Gromnir, you're a force of nature.

The real problem is that we don't have any substantiated studies. That's been my whole point all along. I mean, I expect another diatribe railing about how urging calm patience in letting research happen equates to loving Trump. OMG! I accidently uttered Voldemort's name. Quick, sharpen you keyboards! lol Okay, I kid. Well... maybe I'm a *little* serious. Seriously, though, we have to wait for real research to be done to determine what impact, if any, some of these drugs have. Hell, Remdesivir isn't thoroughly vetted either, although it looks promising. I wish that Gilead Sciences were a little less involved in the research that pushed it ahead, but I understand that things were looking pretty desperate at the time. The bad press that hydroxychloroquine received, contrary to my exchange with... Mal? *did* have an impact on research. It dissuaded people from participating in trials for fear for their lives. It caused the WHO to halt research. :sigh: my point has *never* been and has never been stated that I think the drug works. My point was and still is, it has been politicized in a way that has actually been counterproductive. Solid research may still establish that hydroxychloroquine might be harmful to Covid-19 pateints. It might establish that it's ineffective. It might show that it is effective as either a stand alone medication or in combination with other drugs. The point is, people in this thread have been making definitive statements about hydroxychloroquine that are simply not established. It is no more dangerous in a general sense than a wide variety of medications in common use. To claim it is a particularly dangerous medication is simply foolish. Hell, *aspirin* is considerably more dangerous in more situations than hydroxychloroquine. Any medication can be dangerous, including hydroxychloroquine. The question for all medications is whether the therapeutic value is sufficient to overcome the risk. I have *not* made definitive claims about the drug. I have merely urged caution in believing initial media releases. I anticipate that my past comments, when read in their entirety, prove that. The most I've done, and I still kind of feel this way, is that I would not be surprised if hydroxychloroquine were helpful for specific cases of Covid-19 (which I would call the periphery). On the other hand, I would not be surprised if it did not. Trump doesn't get the blame or the credit either way. I mean, I wish he'd kept his mouth shut. Then again, I really wish the haters would have had a little restraint also, but we don't live in that world. I know I'm kind of setting up a bunch of angst by typing this, and I'm always prepared for some angst coming my way, but people should at least recognize that some of what I was saying about the research has been substantiated by legitimate and reputable organizations. Hell, if I remember right, Lancet was the journal that published the study in the first place. They certainly withdrew their support, but I think they actually retracted it. I don't have time to look it up at the moment.

Aw well, bite me, you bastard! lol Okay, you've worn me down! I'll have to come back and engage in the endless debate later. I'll keep trying to drive you crazy, though.

Yeah, probative, Mal. Seriously, I'm not defending the medication. I'm suggesting we not label the medication as something we haven't proved it is. Why are we even debating the medication? Would we have this same discussion about a medication that already had media coverage if Donald Trump hadn't mentioned it in a conference? If you believe that, you're a fool. There were and are reasons to be skeptical about hydroxychloroquine. We shouldn't take it for granted that it works. However, the nature of the attacks became far more personal and less substantive the second that Trump made it politicized. Is it Trump's fault he's so obnoxious that he draws fire on a constant basis? Yeah. Sure. Do the people who have developed such hatred for him that they take every desperate avenue in order to attack him share in that blame. Of course. I'll give you this, like Gromnir, you take a narrow focus on a small line of text in order to attack a larger argument, but at least you don't take so long to do it. As an aside, I think it's an effective tactic, so I can't help but admire it. I agree with Gromnir in this: if we were in person, I think we'd still have heated arguments, but I think we'd also find it easier to generate some goodwill also. Anyhow, I really do appreciate pushback on my ideas. It's simply impossible to grow otherwise. I *do* find some of the arguments frustrating, but that's probably a good sign. EDIT: just a few minor edits for clarity.

Whatever Gromnir! This isn't about Trump for me, regardless of your wall of text. This *is* about Trump for you. You're fixated on Trump. What I'm suggesting is that people wait for robust clinical trials of the drug. There's a good chance that the news about the drug won't be important enough by the time sufficient clinical trials are conducted and vetted to warrant people talking about them either way. If they indicate that the drug doesn't work, it won't matter because Trump will be out of office even if he gets a second term. If it indicates the drug has therapeutic value, the media will largely ignore it. Even Trump-friendly media won't spend a lot of time on something that amounts to old news. Grom, I'm not defending Trump. You're attacking him. As with most liberals, you accuse me of exactly what you're doing. You fixate on the president, not me. This *is* madness, but of your making, not mine. I promise, if it comes out that the drug lacks therapeutic value or, heaven forbid, actually causes more harm than good, I'll come back and own it. I'd say I'd eat my words, but I never said that it was good, only that I suspect it might have some benefits on the periphery. I stated at the time that it was unwise for the president to make claims about the drug before it were vetted. I stated that specifically because Trump taints every he touches now by and large because of crazies who use any stick with which to beat on him. I stand by what I've said, which is entirely about the drug. We should stop worrying about whether or not the president likes or dislikes it and allow actual research to happen. God bless you Gromnir, but I hope I drive you crazy sometimes as much as you do me. :Dan's half maddened/half laughing icon:

It's funny that you mention Lancet, Zoraptor. I haven't had time to play in the sandbox lately, but I saw this in a Medscape email just now and thought I'd post it. I want to be clear, I'm not sold on Hydroxychloroquine. It might have some benefit and it might not. The animosity of the drug based solely on the fact that Donald Trump mentioned it is idiotic. Anyhow, I don't think you need to be signed in to read this article. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931539?src=mkm_covid_update_200601_mscpedit_&uac=295063MZ&impID=2403073&faf=1 Plus, last I read, my elite numbered friend mentioned that we should not draw equivalency between the immediate deaths due to Covid-19 and the increase in overall mortality over time. We never act as if this is true. Policy decisions virtually always balance harms. The decisions about resources and restrictions balance immediate and long term effects all the time. I bet in ten years, it will be determined that the length and severity of the lockdown will be considered worse than the Covid crisis in the first place. I'm not one of the crazies who said we should do nothing. Regional strict lock downs for two weeks to get an idea of the extent of the danger would have been perfectly reasonable. Even extended localized lockdowns would have served a good purpose. The lockdowns as they have been handled in large swaths of this country? Insanity.

On the one hand, I have the night off, which means I can read the posts I've missed. On the other, I'm tanked by the time I get to this time of night, so... :shrugging icon: The question of the mask is a lot more involved than what we've seen here. First, I assiduously abide by all societal rules where I live. So, while I firmly believe the mask edicts won't be affirmed by further research, I still wear one whenever I'm out past my neighborhood. In my neighborhood, I wear a bandana around my neck when out and fit it over my nose when in closer than 20 proximity to other people. That's in excess of the CDC guidelines last I saw. It's also more than any of my neighbors so far. I saw my numbered friend's post about extrapolating a larger data set in a longer term mortality table. Right now, I'm not sure I could do a response justice, but I will respond later in depth. The upshot is, just because it's difficult to quantify doesn't mean we shouldn't assess it. I have a few long term bets. I don't think I've made them here, but I can, if need be, attest to when I made those bets. I don't want to put anyone on the spot here, so I'm perfectly willing to restate those bets anew. I just want to wait until I'm a little less diminished to do so. Probably tomorrow. I hope. lol

Even as we speak, the little lady is teaching her class from home. I saw some posts earlier and intended to reply if I had a slow night at work. Nope. I had two patients med out to higher acuity facilities. Insane! ...And it's not the nurses choice. I don't want to describe the situations because I try to be extra careful about patient information, even though I'm anonymous. I guess I have at least one person here who knows where I work, but I trust them implicitly and I doubt they frequent this part of the sandbox anyway. Still, have to respect privacy. ...But if I could tell! Anyhow, I appreciate the pushback. Always interesting to read people's views. Even Gromnir's, and he's about the only person who manages to get under my skin from time to time. The only thing I want to mention is the hamster mask study from... Hong Kong? I can't remember, but it entailed putting fabric between cages and blowing a fan through it. I've never denied that masks help stop droplet transmission. I think a one time use mask donned for single patient encounters is manifestly wise and evidence based practice. My point is that the way that people wear the masks makes them considerably less useful than suggested. When the cages sprout hands and start readjusting their masks, I'll buy into the theory. I don't have a lot of 10 year bets, but I'm betting the usefulness of masks will be proved considerably less effective over time when we identify all of the variables in actual practical use of a mask over extended periods of time. I know medical professionals, nurses, therapists, and doctors, who wash their outside masks like once a week and it's *impossible* not to need to adjust a mask multiple times over that period. As it is, the studies keep coming and I think we need time to sift through them and see which ones are best. After all, another of my ten year bets was that this preoccupation with surfaces was silly, and time is bearing that out already, although 10 years is 10 years. Gotta play by the rules I set when I made my bets. Hopefully I have the time to read through all the posts I've missed, but I couldn't even catch up on the stuff up to now. So, if you have a really clever mean thing to say, wait until the weekend!

You cite an NPR article from April 25th that was last updated April 28th? The safe bet for Florida at that time was June... 21st? I'm not going to reread the article. I'll just point out that the opinion pieces that Florida was going to be a wasteland of 'Rona deaths didn't pan out in the nearly one month since that article was published. People really ought to start worrying that, if the news and the 'experts' don't start getting their act together, people will stop trusting professionals in the medical profession. Seriously, whether it's drugs that don't have sufficient testing done to make definitive statements or conditions on reopening states, we should stop making definitive statements about the 'Rona. Even the preliminary studies have been largely wrong so far. I don't mind the advisors being cautious because it's their jobs and reputation on the line and, Heaven knows, you won't lose your job and reputation if you're too cautious. There is too much 'Rona in some places to count on testing and tracing. Good luck with that. There is simply not enough virus to need tracing in others. Discarding the notion out of hand, I would suggest that putting all the effort into protecting the *truly* at risk populations, which means the superbly old, is the best options. EDIT: sorry. night off and so that means abundance of ETOH. I'll leave my original comments, which are wrong. Tracing in places with low rates makes a lot more sense. What I'm getting across is that even in those places concentrating the efforts on the right areas is more effective. That means testing and tracing smart. Of course, at this point, we're getting to the point where we can conduct huge numbers of tests. The irony is that we'll get a lot more confirmed cases and then people will use *that* as an excuse to extend lockdowns that are already starting to fall apart.

Like I said, I'm going to reserve any response vis a vis the drug discussion from earlier. I'm not invested enough in the drug itself to keep duking it out. I guess if I did, it would go in my ten year bet I've had going since right when things got hot and heavy with this at the end of February, but I'm reserving that for the big five. As to the lockdown, I've been saying for months, also since February, that we had to be careful that the solution wasn't worse than the problem. There's a line in Plato's Apology that has struck me through this period. You could read it a few different ways, but the way I remember it is "Not for the sake of much time, men of Athens, will you earn the title 'murderer of Socrates, a wise man.' For even though I am not wise, your enemies will call you such in order to attack you." It's been a while since I've read it in either version, but it just eerily resounds to the current time, only in a different way. The steps we're taking are increasingly shaving off more years of human life in the long run than the months or years we're saving in the short term for a relatively tiny portion of the population. I'm very likely the most genuinely emo person in this place, but my assessment is that we should not significantly lower the life expectancy for the bulk of society for the sake of little time for a tiny few. I guess, at the end of things, as emo as I've always been, I'm more of a bean counter. The numbers don't lie and, unfortunately, I can read the numbers.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. If people blame Trump for a lady feeding fish tank cleaner to herself and her husband, and mainstream outlets did, then it seems inevitable that someone refusing hydroxychloroquine would be attendant to all the bad press. We can pretend that Trump's praise of the drug will cause people to clamor for it but the media hating on it won't, but that's too clever by half. As for policies? I think border security is important, although I don't like how he talks about it and much of his language. I think his identification of China as a global threat was not only right, but also timely in light of recent events. As far as the economy, I don't like the isolationism, but I do like the the tax cuts and the supreme court picks. Ironically, while I think the Kavanaugh attacks based on decades old unsubstantiated claims were despicable, I actually don't think he was the best pick. Mostly, aside from policies, I see Trump as the way to break and then remake the media landscape. It's still a longshot, but it's possible. Either we have to have a media that isn't so absolutely vainglorious and partisan or we need people to be less invested in the media and searching for facts and being better at sifting through what they hear. Frankly, Trump has a good chance of crushing the media. In the long run, it's almost certain to happen. My worry in that regard is what would replace it. To borrow from the famous quote, I don't want to see the four or five media tyrants in New York torn down only to be replaced by four or five million media tyrants from across the country. Anyhow, I've derailed this long enough. I'll let my comments stand and look forward to reading replies as I have the chance.

Doofus, I'm not worried about the drug companies. I doubt a drug that's been around as long as hydroxychloroquine is a huge money-maker anyway. Just as dangerous as folks thinking the drug is a wonder drug and wanting it prescribed is for people to fear the drug even when it has genuine therapeutic effects for certain conditions. That's all regardless of the 'Rona.

The thing I hate about the debate is that it has a perfectly legitimate drug in the crosshairs. I don't know if hydroxychloroquine is effective on Covid-19 or not, but there were hopeful accounts of it in the media before the president mentioned it. In fact, since he seems to get a lot of his own talking points from the media that he then bashes, I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't heard about it first on one of the outlets he insists he doesn't watch or read. There are studies that suggest that the drug is ineffective. There are no reputable studies that suggest that it is more harmful than helpful vis a vis Covid-19. There is some indication that it might prevent SARS-CoV-2 from becoming Covid-19, but I don't take any of these studies very seriously. There hasn't been a significant study that is strong enough on which to base an opinion yet. However, doctors prescribe drugs off-label all the time. If reputable doctors think it is helpful, it's their choice and their practice on the line. Just because Trump is a giant horses arse (although *not* technically severely 'morbidly' obese), and just because some people hate him, is no reason to attack the drug itself. It's a drug with a long history and well known side/adverse effects. A physician should be trusted to weigh those factors. If Trump hadn't mentioned it, I firmly believe some of the people bashing it would still be sounding a hopeful note about it. However, Shady, I agree with your assessment of Trump's reactions completely. He's an imperfect tool, and perhaps just a tool, but this isn't about being pleasant or nice. His policies, even when flawed, are strikingly better from my perspective than *anything* the Democrats put forward. This place tends often, but not always, to be an echo chamber, but there is a decent chance folks will end up eating their words if they pronounce hydroxychloroquine failed based on the evidence we have now. Hating Trump is one thing. Hating a drug just because he says it's good is entirely another. I have personal experience with the drug myself, and it's not the bad guy in this scenario. On a personal note, I've had a lot of exposure to the 'rona. I found out last night that one of the PM nurses who had tested positive came in to have her two-step TB test checked. What a jackass! What the hell is wrong with people. The place is filled with old sick people, for crying out loud!

Trump does what Trump does. I'm not going to attempt to explain it. Just for disclosure, there's virtually no chance I'll vote for his opponent this fall. If folks want to think of me as a wild eyed Trump supporter, so be it, but my advice isn't to like him or even not to attack him. My pont is to be smart how you do it. Not you guys. You're blowing off steam. The Press? Yeah, they're going to destroy themselves with this insanity. As for his med o' choice? It became political. There are a couple of studies underway that will undoubtedly be definitive. I wouldn't be surprised if it had positive impact on the periphery, but I'm not making any claims. Once Trump talked about it, rational thought went out the window.

It's funny. When Trump touted Hydroxychloroquine, I thought it was maybe a bit brash. There had been some media coverage of it prior to that day's briefing, but it was premature to make a statement. Still, doctors prescribe meds off label all the time. For all I know, I might do that myself when I pass the boards. Nevertheless, the second Trump touches anything, it becomes ground zero for crazies who hate him so much they get him reelected. Don't hate the messenger. Don't even hate the message. Just hate the truth if you must, but blaming Trumo for taking one of the most doctor prescribed therapeutics is silly. Do I think it's necessarily wise? No, but his saying it wouldn't matter much at all if it weren't for the Trump hate that magnifies everything he utters. The media should have chuckled and then moved on about hydroxychloroquine from the very beginning instead of blaming Trump for some lady feeding fish tank cleaner to her husband. As it is, there are *real* studies underway. If those studies show that the drug didn't really have much of an impact, it doesn't really move the needle much. If they show that it actually *is* beneficial, that's one more shovelful of dirt on the coffin of journalism. I know there's an unreasoning hatred of Trump in many parts, but don't make him your white whale, even if he's "morbidly obese. "

Just got home a little while ago from my shift. I can't say that I don't sometimes get discouraged but, by the mass, I'm very happy working as a nurse. Despite the maxim that nurses eat their young, people have been kind to me as I've found my speed. Being on the one hand new and on the other hand highly motivated due to the age at which I took this journey, I tend to go out of my way to do stuff. I'd be cynical and say that I'll stop, but I've acted this way pretty much my adult life, so there's a good chance I might temper my enthusiasm, but not really ditch it. Anyway, I had a repeat patient last night. I've had a couple of patients commend me to the charge and whatnot, which is cool, but this one got choked up and said that he liked it when I was on shift because he felt much better when I was around. I know, too sappy by far, but it's still great. It makes up for having to reuse PPE because the supplies are still entirely screwed up for the time being. We already have at least two, and I think three, people out with the 'Rona. ...And this is a relatively small hospital. As an aside, my wife *loathes* it when I call it "the 'Rona." hehehe