Sunday, March 22, 2020

TOTAL MUST READ: "Holy Shit, This Is Not The Flu"

I read a very brief comment by this respiratory therapist in New Orleans a day or two ago. Now Zerohedge is running the full interview from ProPublica: "Holy Shit, This Is Not The Flu": Medical Worker Describes Terrifying Lung Failure From COVID-19... Even In Young Patients.

I won't try to synopsize it--go read it. I keep trying to tell stubborn know nothings--THIS ISN'T THE FLU! It's very graphic in its descriptions--not lurid, just honest. Who are these people who want their parents to go through this? And note--this guy is very specific in saying that it's not just oldies. Even younger people who "recover" are going through this:

Many are relatively young, in their 40s and 50s, and have minimal, if any, preexisting conditions in their charts.


  1. Replies
    1. Well, let me add this: FDA/CDC

    2. I'd feel a little better about this story if it didn't come from ProPublica. You can look up who they are yourself. The story itself isn't sourced (sound familiar?), and the explanation at the bottom is quite interesting. As for Zero Hedge, it blows hot and cold. It reminds me of Drudge.

      I'd also feel a bit better about Bergstrom's take down of Ginn if he didn't use Imperial College London and one of its computer models as the basis for a worst case scenario. Imperial College is so deep into the global warming scam they almost make Michael Mann look like an honest man.

      We still don't have accurate data. And people should stop using Italy as an example of anything.

    3. I haven't read Bergstrom. I read a bit of Will Chamberlain's takedown and agree with the general thrust of it. I've also stated my view that, while the data he presents is largely valid, he misuses it to draw the conclusions he wants. I was upfront in my post that I was using the data for my own argument and didn't agree with his conclusions. I also criticized a few specific parts of his presentation, although not much.

      I'll agree that the ending of the ProPublica piece could be read in two different ways, although I don't believe there's reason to doubt the medical veracity of what he's saying--I've read other similar accounts, but ended up using this one--probably because it was the longest and was well written.

      Re Imperial College, the people I've quoted have been clear that IC's model is a worst possible scenario--in their view. It's based on the worst spread and a response of doing nothing--as some commenters here have recommended. The people I've quoted have all pointed out that we're not in the position of doing nothing, so the IC model doesn't apply except as a warning. I hope you will give me that much credit, that I haven't pushed the worst case scenario as a likelihood.

      "We still don't have accurate data."

      We do have accurate data. We simply still need more. However, we have seen how rapidly this spreads, and we have enough data--including the experience of history (Spanish history and SARS) and scientific knowledge of SARS--to know what we could be up against and to warrant taking action instead of sitting on our hands. That to me would be the height of irresponsibility.

    4. I apologize for the tone of my response to the ZH piece. It was rude, in a blog that has none of it. You always manage to present an even keel. And you have never argued for the worst case. My defense, feeble though it might be, is that what we're doing to the economy has me mighty low.

    5. No offense taken. I understand that what's happening is very upsetting for us all. That's part of why I stress history--as Rebecca Grant says: we've been through something like this before.

      I can only repeat. We have reason for extreme concern--based on history and science. This is a real pandemic, and based on what we know about SARS it could be extreme concern. We must use the only tool we currently have against this infectious disease--social distancing--while we work to make drugs like chloroquine widely available. Recognize that the crisis in our ability to respond to a pandemic of this sort has been building for a long time and can't be quickly or easily resolved.

      I put a lot of time and effort into researching what I write. I'm trying to avoid needless alarmism while also recognizing the seriousness of it all.

  2. Mark, you correctly wrote

    "Recognize that the crisis in our ability to respond to a [........] of this sort has been building for a long time and can't be quickly or easily resolved."

    You can really take your choice how to fill in the brackets, though:

    Immigration Crisis
    Unfair Trade Deals
    Federal Budget Deficit
    Endless ME War
    Deep State Coup
    Left Wing University Takeover
    Crony Capitalism
    Biased MSM
    Progressive Judges

    I'm sure there are many more possibilities. While Trump had a good idea things were broken in 2016 he couldn't have possibly understood the magnitude of the problems he was stepping into.

    1. I couldn't agree more. And now we're literally in a fight for our lives at the same as a fight for our constitutional order.

  3. Albuterol seems to be helpful for treating the lung issue. It's used by asthmatics.

    1. I read that there's a shortage of the inhalers now.