|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 12 2016 08:20 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 08:11 hunts wrote:On September 12 2016 08:04 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2016 07:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 12 2016 07:32 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2016 07:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Pneumonia is serious as an infection secondary to another medical condition. It's not anything that's incredibly alarming on its own. Another medical condition here includes old age. Heck, even for young people it can be lethal depending on the pathogen. Pneumonia is by it's incidence relatively trivial, but it is NOT a trivial disease. No, it doesn't. Old age is an easy but not always accurate correlation with things like heart disease, COPD, diabetes, etc. The reason pneumonia is worse for old people is because old people are almost always already ill. As a medical professional that works in an emergency room, I can tell you that a diagnosis of primary pneumonia isn't incredibly concerning. Treatment, bed rest, keeping an eye out and it should resolve in a week. I was talking in laymans terms, but if you want me to be more specific: Yes, old age is a proxy measure for comorbidity-burden, but even after adjusting for comorbidity, mortality following pneumonia increases with age. As a MD PhD I can tell you that a diagnosis of primary pneumonia depending on pathogen can be lethal - even in young people. You fail to differ between the treatment being trivial and the disease being trivial. If we did not have antibiotics zero cases of pneumonia (except some of the viral ones) would be trivial. The reason why you perceive it to be trivial is because the pathogen in the majority of the community-acquired cases are due to S. pneumoniae which can be treated with penicillin. However, as soon as the pathogen begins to exhibit resistance it quickly becomes are very non-trivial treatment. So what you're saying is that in the potential future where we have not come up with a new antibiotic before penicillin stops working due to antibiotic resistance, what she has now, will be (in this hypothetical future) be very non-trivial. Gotcha. PS. statistically pneumonia is barely more lethal than the flu. No, that is not what I'm saying and responses like yours are exactly why I try to avoid this thread. I had the avian flu :d. I mean, there is a reason why we call antibiotics not antivirals.
Can a pneumonia arise from allergies ? That's the only thing that sounds iffy to me, but i don't know about this kind of stuff. I would think it was more likely she had a flu/cold and then got to pneumonia (more likely, because she didn't stop working and get some rest), but well i don't really know, hence why i ask.
|
I think that the presidential debate cutoff should be 5% not 15%. The people in the system benefit from a two party system, and hence nothing changes.
Also they really should do something to break up party loyalty so much... 70% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans would vote for Trump and Satan respectively if it was for their party, just really unfortunate. And the fact that people get to choose the party candidate, it's all kind of odd.
|
On September 12 2016 08:31 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 08:20 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2016 08:11 hunts wrote:On September 12 2016 08:04 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2016 07:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 12 2016 07:32 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2016 07:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Pneumonia is serious as an infection secondary to another medical condition. It's not anything that's incredibly alarming on its own. Another medical condition here includes old age. Heck, even for young people it can be lethal depending on the pathogen. Pneumonia is by it's incidence relatively trivial, but it is NOT a trivial disease. No, it doesn't. Old age is an easy but not always accurate correlation with things like heart disease, COPD, diabetes, etc. The reason pneumonia is worse for old people is because old people are almost always already ill. As a medical professional that works in an emergency room, I can tell you that a diagnosis of primary pneumonia isn't incredibly concerning. Treatment, bed rest, keeping an eye out and it should resolve in a week. I was talking in laymans terms, but if you want me to be more specific: Yes, old age is a proxy measure for comorbidity-burden, but even after adjusting for comorbidity, mortality following pneumonia increases with age. As a MD PhD I can tell you that a diagnosis of primary pneumonia depending on pathogen can be lethal - even in young people. You fail to differ between the treatment being trivial and the disease being trivial. If we did not have antibiotics zero cases of pneumonia (except some of the viral ones) would be trivial. The reason why you perceive it to be trivial is because the pathogen in the majority of the community-acquired cases are due to S. pneumoniae which can be treated with penicillin. However, as soon as the pathogen begins to exhibit resistance it quickly becomes are very non-trivial treatment. So what you're saying is that in the potential future where we have not come up with a new antibiotic before penicillin stops working due to antibiotic resistance, what she has now, will be (in this hypothetical future) be very non-trivial. Gotcha. PS. statistically pneumonia is barely more lethal than the flu. No, that is not what I'm saying and responses like yours are exactly why I try to avoid this thread. I had the avian flu :d. I mean, there is a reason why we call antibiotics not antivirals. Can a pneumonia arise from allergies ? That's the only thing that sounds iffy to me, but i don't know about this kind of stuff. I would think it was more likely she had a flu/cold and then got to pneumonia (more likely, because she didn't stop working and get some rest), but well i don't really know, hence why i ask.
Assuming we are talking pollen allergies, then yes. Really, anything that puts a strain on your immunesystem or causes you to ventilate worse than normally can make you more susceptible to a pneumonia. Allergies does both and stress/overworking has proven to at least do the first.
EDIT: Do note that I'm not her doctor and as such not really qualified to talk about what has "caused" her pneumonia. I would also like to quote part of an earlier post of mine as some seemed to have missed it:
Suffering a pneumonia could be a sign that she is terminal (incredibly unlikely) and could be a sign of absolutely nothing other than her currently having a pneumonia which about 3 million Americans are diagnosed with each year. We don't know on what end of the spectrum she falls and anyone saying anything differently is speculating
|
I'd be far more scared if this was hospital-acquired (or what are they calling it, healthcare-associated? whatever) pneumonia. But from what I learned in pharmacy school community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is not really something to wring your hands over treatment- or outcome-wise, even in the elderly
+ Show Spoiler +who may some places receive IV antibiotics for CAP purely to allow the hospital to bill a certain way
and it's hard to get anything other than CAP when you're on the campaign trail 24/7.
Either way, if it bears out as that it looks a hell of a lot better for Clinton than the stroke/"deteriorating mental state" hypothesis that was circulating online and in this thread.
It kind of lends credence to God hating Clinton if it is pneumonia, though, because that's some terrible timing.
|
On September 12 2016 08:23 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 08:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 12 2016 07:55 DickMcFanny wrote:
Haha, the world has just lost the battle against climate change.
This has got to be the biggest fail in this election yet.
First, Democrats have a super strong candidate. But because he's not beholden to corporate interests enough, they reckon they can do better and nominate the poster child of neoliberalism.
So they manipulate the primaries, ignore and marginalise the healthy, popular, conscientious candidate for months, then suck up to him to get his fan club on their side.
It gets better: even the ones who didn't really care about policy and really just wanted to see a woman president actually had an excellent choice. While Hillary gets tens of thousands of dollars to hang out with super rich celebrities, Jill Stein gets her hands dirty helping flood victims and protesting pipelines, all while standing up without help. But because Red and Blue didn't want to give Green and whatever colour libertarians are a voice, most voters don't even know who she is.
So now team blue have handed the election and the nuclear codes to some psychopath who is one small penis joke away from nuking a NATO ally and who thinks climate change is a hoax.
Well done America, from the rest of the world.
I waited until after midnight to send your neoliberal corporate hoax of a political system a hearty 'fuck you'. While Hilary may not be the greatest candidate, neither Sanders nor Stein are strong candidates. You're delusional if you think they are. What? Bernie mopped the floor with Trump in every single poll ever. He'd be extremely strong to win the election. What happens afterwards would depend, in both cases, on how big he could grow his movement. If a candidate as badass as Jill Stein, who is essentially a woman version of Indiana Jones, had gotten equal media coverage, we would be talking about the end of the two party system now. Only she and Bernie were ever vocal enough about the biggest issue that faces the world today (and that most Americans apparently care very little about), so forgive me that I'm biased towards them. As a non-American I don't much care about your domestic problems, it's foreign policy and energy policy that concern me.
Bernie is a high-flying idealist with zero foreign policy experience (and it shows via his lack of foreign policy knowledge) and domestic policies that just don't add up mathematically.
Jill Stein is the lefty version of Trump, appealing to hardcore leftist populism and being extremely anti-scientific from vaccines to GMO's to wifi.
Both would be absolutely eviscerated if they got half the media coverage of either of the current major candidates. Both are completely unknown to the average American and head-to-head polls at the time Bernie was beating Trump ate 100% irrelevant.
|
Can we all just dream for a moment that Clinton lets Kaine take over, and he has Bernie, Biden, or Booker step up as his veep? Wouldn't that be a nice world?
If I were the DNC I'd be pushing right about now (okay, I'd have been pushing for a while) to make sure Kaine gets shitloads of press coverage so that he was familiar-ish to voters if it came to that.
|
Is Kaine really that popular? I hadn't heard of him before and he seems somewhat weird and goofy
|
On September 12 2016 08:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Is Kaine really that popular? I hadn't heard of him before and he seems somewhat weird and goofy
He's generic democrat #398.
This election, that is enough.
|
On September 12 2016 08:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Is Kaine really that popular? I hadn't heard of him before and he seems somewhat weird and goofy
He doesn't have any significant baggage or batshit crazy ideas and he's very well-liked in his home state.
|
On September 12 2016 08:23 DickMcFanny wrote:
If a candidate as badass as Jill Stein, who is essentially a woman version of Indiana Jones, had gotten equal media coverage, we would be talking about the end of the two party system now.
Only she and Bernie were ever vocal enough about the biggest issue that faces the world today (and that most Americans apparently care very little about), so forgive me that I'm biased towards them.
It's a complete disservice to Bernie to mention him together with Jill Stein. One is a career politician who, despite having idealistic goals, was at least pragmatic enough to phone it in when he did, and utilize the popularity of his movement to push the DNC in a more progressive direction. The other is a totally inexperienced idealist running from a party so dislikeable with goals so unrealistic that they could never even win an election even at a local level.
You can't run for president on a platform full of things that are literally outside the power of the president to change. As much as you feel those are the issues that matter, it's utterly pointless to run on them if your solutions aren't remotely accomplishable.
|
With respect to this "Hillary is in perfect health" thing... I would consider myself to be in pretty good health most of the time, and yet I can get totally wiped out for a few days to a week because I caught some bug or another.
Does contracting pneumonia or whatever she has mean anything significant about Clinton's health a month ago or a month from now? I am not a doctor.
|
Is it even possible for them to do this? My understanding is they can't get on the ballot in most states at this late stage.
|
No doubt there is some health clause. Though I don't expect any change.
|
On September 12 2016 09:00 Aquanim wrote:
With respect to this "Hillary is in perfect health" thing... I would consider myself to be in pretty good health most of the time, and yet I can get totally wiped out for a few days to a week because I caught some bug or another.
Does contracting pneumonia or whatever she has mean anything significant about Clinton's health a month ago or a month from now? I am not a doctor.
It means absolutely nothing based on the information we have.
|
The DNC doesn't have big enough balls to demand that Hillary step down.
|
United States43558 Posts
On September 12 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
The DNC doesn't have big enough balls to demand that Hillary step down.
RNC didn't even have enough balls to stand up to the rise of fascism in America.
|
On September 12 2016 09:06 On_Slaught wrote:No doubt there is some health clause. Though I don't expect any change.
He's just a journalist making speculations.
|
On September 12 2016 08:50 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 08:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Is Kaine really that popular? I hadn't heard of him before and he seems somewhat weird and goofy He's generic democrat #398. This election, that is enough.
He was a two term Virginia Governor and was elected Senator of Virginia. He was also head of the DNC before DWS. He has a giant political network that lives in and around DC already. Kaine could walk onto the job before they got HRC on the stretcher.
|
On September 12 2016 09:01 jello_biafra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/775093724363784192
Is it even possible for them to do this? My understanding is they can't get on the ballot in most states at this late stage.
David Shuster is an unemployed hack, you can pretty much ignore everything he tweets.
|
Is this not an amazing excuse to get rid of Clinton? I really think Kaine could just stumbled into the white House at this point. His comparable baggage is practically nonexistent. He's a shoe in, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
