Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: PGHphoto
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 58 next>>
May 3, 2020 22:29:18   #
TriX wrote:
Before one jumps to conclusions, maybe best to read the entire referenced link from the CDC, including the notes:

“Why these numbers are different

Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons: Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays. States report at different rates. Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation among jurisdictions. It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days. Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.”
Before one jumps to conclusions, maybe best to rea... (show quote)


The question you really need to ask is why does it take "extra time to code a COVID-19 death" ? I work directly with healthcare reporting and billing services and am connected with state 'health exchanges'. The guidelines used to identify a co-morbid diagnosis have changed - specific to COVID-19. Reimbursement structures are also changing. ICD10 coders are being told 'when in doubt, include COVID-19 and sort things out later'.

The bottom line is NOT that one number is more trustworthy than another - its that the numbers will reflect the perspective you examine the data from. And the media will always promote the one that gets more people to watch more coverage. I don't dispute the idea that a traffic fatality victim may have been corona-virus positive but I certainly would not use that unfortunate persons death to spread fear and panic just to sell more ads. With the local hospitals at 40-50% occupancy in western PA, I would say that somehow the media is flawed in their reporting.

I am also very aware of hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness - in conjunction with other drugs - to combat the disease. I do not know any individuals personally that have been treated but do look at the reports by physicians coming from all over the country. Yet the FDA has authorized the use of a comparatively much more expensive drug (up to $1000 per dose) that is less than 50% effective over a drug that has been used successfully numerous times and has been proven safe for other problems as well for YEARS. Even if people are going to follow their party line - ask what is the most effective treatment. Or another way to put it - which would you rather be treated with - a drug with a proven efficacy rate over 80% or one with a 50% *estimated* efficacy ...

Oh well - done commenting here - I will leave those who want to be scared to hide in their dark corners. Seems there are very few actual thinkers and a whole of of blind followers on BOTH sides - unwilling to even question the media. Before you accuse me of being a President Trump blind follower - I take what everybody says and throw out the conclusions to look only at facts. So far many of those commenting in this forum are only in it to see more doom and gloom that the media wants them to subscribe to. So sad that people don't care about the facts anymore and can't make their own decisions.

Won't try to pass any more facts along - I am done with all COVID-19 talk. I am sure many are relieved that I will not challenge their deranged thinking.
Go to
May 3, 2020 21:22:32   #
lsaguy wrote:
From that Buzzfeed article;

In comparison, the CDC’s actual most up-to-date count of COVID-19 deaths is on a separate site and shows more than 64,000 people have died in the US.

As the CDC states, that tally is updated daily based on data received from state health bodies: "Case notifications were received by CDC from U.S. public health jurisdictions and the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS)."

Neither that CDC figure, nor the National Vital Statistics System page, have been revised down.
From that Buzzfeed article; br br In comparison, ... (show quote)


care to identify the website you are quoting from ?
Go to
May 3, 2020 21:20:23   #
Bill_de wrote:
Your first statement seems misleading. If I read correctly they are not only 2 weeks behind in their counting, and are only counting those deaths were a death certificate has been processed.

The second topic is a nicely crafted opinion piece, with a lot of opinions based on a lot of inconclusive evidence. I'm not saying it is wrong, just that the final results are not in. I agree with President Trump that it is worth looking into. I wish he would discuss it behind the scenes with the experts instead of blurting it out to people who will take it as fact.

IMHO of course.

--
Your first statement seems misleading. If I read c... (show quote)


The CDC site itself reports the updated data on a given day. The totals are from the previous week - as stated on the site.

I also know that physicians have been told to include the COVID-19 diagnosis as a contributing cause of death if the patient tests positive - regardless of the actual cause of death (all healthcare organizations were informed of this requirement months ago). CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services) issued that directive. If a patient dies of trauma resulting from a vehicular accident and is tests positive prior to expiring, COVID is added. Check CMS guidelines.

Those are supposed to end up as presumptive cause of death and are supposed to be corrected 'later'. I am not saying the number won't go down - it will when the cases are audited. What I AM saying is that the media jumps on the numbers and pretends things are worse than it seems to sell more media. But when the real number decreases, not so much ...
Go to
May 3, 2020 21:08:03   #
lsaguy wrote:
From that Buzzfeed article;

In comparison, the CDC’s actual most up-to-date count of COVID-19 deaths is on a separate site and shows more than 64,000 people have died in the US.

As the CDC states, that tally is updated daily based on data received from state health bodies: "Case notifications were received by CDC from U.S. public health jurisdictions and the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS)."

Neither that CDC figure, nor the National Vital Statistics System page, have been revised down.
From that Buzzfeed article; br br In comparison, ... (show quote)


As someone who watched the number daily, I can tell you for certain it was changed from previous numbers. even the CDC actual dataset states the percentage of actual deaths is 103% as of 04/25/2020. So you are claiming that the 67,000 number that is in numerous media reports were not reported ? And the 'daily' claim has 23k+ people dying in 7 days ? Even CNN disputes that.
Go to
May 3, 2020 20:59:05   #
DirtFarmer wrote:
Not sure what you mean by that. Research papers are not "published for peer review". They are sent out for peer review and are not published until after the peer review comments are addressed.


sorry - used published as another word for released to the public - like publishing a newspaper ... I am sure you read the content before you commented (?)

Thought people would be more concerned about the factual information than my choice of words. (And yes, the invitation/request for review is published according to my university research friends who *publish* scientific articles for peer review.)
Go to
May 3, 2020 20:08:18   #
The CDC just revised their "actual COVID-19" death toll - from 60,000 to 37,000 thats one heck of a problem adding the numbers.

( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm) Read it before you comment with any politically induced ferver.

Additionally, for those who made fun of President Trump talking up Hydroxychloroquine - would you believe a research paper published for peer review ? The content is here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/pseudo-science-behind-the-assault-on-hydroxychloroquine/ . Before you complain about the person not being a 'scientist' please read the whole article and check the references at the bottom.
Go to
May 1, 2020 09:49:48   #
yssirk123 wrote:
I missed it at first glance.


One reason nobody should need it - its a Nikon !!!
Go to
Apr 29, 2020 12:23:31   #
SpacenerdSteven wrote:
My fiance keeps saying I do NOT need a fourth telescope. I can take pictures of large nebulae and close galaxies. I need another with more focal length to take images of planets and distant galaxies. JOIN my fight against this stupidity.....LOL. I promise only on more unless I win the lottery. My farthest galaxy to shoot is about 19 million light years away. Thus the reason I need more focal length and a new telescope. One light year equals 5.88 trillion miles X 19 million light years. Equals a LOT of zeros. So a long away from us, thus verifying why I need at least one more telescope...LOL. This is my hobby. I don't subject her to sports. I have better things to do with my life than watching grown men play with their balls.
My fiance keeps saying I do NOT need a fourth tele... (show quote)


Why not do a 'replacement' ? Take your least used, least useful telescope and sell it ? Will help fund the new one and not add to space needed for storage.
Go to
Apr 28, 2020 13:08:24   #
R.G. wrote:
It's probably obvious to most that we need light coming from the right direction to get good shots. In some cases that may mean going at the right time of year or perhaps just waiting for the right time of day. That's true in general, but it's especially true where cliffs are concerned.

I thought I'd post a couple of shots that show the difference between shooting cliffs at the right and the wrong time of day.

(The only factor I'm trying to demonstrate is the negative effect of the deep shadow on the cliff face in #1. I'm not trying to compare any other factors. Not only is the lighting different between the shots, the weather's slightly different and the sea is different due to the tide being different. #2 is not an attempt to present a perfect capture of the scene, but it's sufficient for the purposes of making the comparison).

(Apologies to those who were expecting the pop group ).
.
It's probably obvious to most that we need light c... (show quote)


Have you considered using HDR techniques in order to get the best of both worlds ? That way you get the 'atmosphere' of the original shot and the detail you desire. Just suggesting you don't have to wait for the sun to get the detail you want ! For a detail shot, I agree waiting for the light to move where you want it is good but just suggesting there are other ways to get the detail besides waiting hours on the sun.
Go to
Apr 27, 2020 11:23:08   #
Bridges wrote:
What is the purpose of a flu vaccine? The problem is that viruses mutate and we are always chasing the latest incarnation and not knowing what it will transform into in the future. That is why flu vaccines are not 100% effective. They offer some protection but not total protection. The same will hold true of Corona. By the time a vaccine is developed it will most likely be out of date and not as effective for the new strain of Corona. It will help in that they will not have to "reinvent the wheel" but will have a starting point that will allow more productive and faster development against the latest strain of the virus.
What is the purpose of a flu vaccine? The problem... (show quote)


There are a number of vaccines out there in testing now specific to COVID-19 (I specifically am aware of 3 that are in testing right now). So far there is some evidence of mutation but nothing conclusive. Also, need to keep in mind that there are different forms of immune responses in the body and that antibody production may not be the only/best way to deal with the virus. I believe the vaccines in testing right now are all about triggering antibody protections but I only know for certain that is true of the one I am most directly getting information about. Only further research will guide the path
Go to
Apr 27, 2020 11:11:39   #
Rongnongno wrote:
I am not sure where you are coming from saying a 'vaccine does not work'.

A vaccine expose the body to a weakened or dead virus in order to train the body to fight off the virus if exposed to it later on. The vaccine by itself does not kill, a virus, that is true but the result is the virus is killed by the body. Therefore vaccine work as intended.

Teach a child to swim and hopefully if he falls into the water he survives. A vaccine teaches the body to swim.

To say it does not or never works is grossly misleading. Polio, measles virus vaccines are effective and work by example. Some need to be repeated periodically (booster shot) or even updated but they work.

Something else, a virus can evolve over time, such as the flu. In this case you always or almost always get 'last year' version yet it protects from last year and the previous ones too.

So....

Why are you saying vaccines do not work? I puzzled.
I am not sure where you are coming from saying a '... (show quote)


Vaccines prevent the infection by triggering antibody production in the human body. Most vaccines are not made from 'weakend' or non-viable viruses but by creating a partial 'replica' of virus DNA/RNA so that when the antibody comes into contact with the full RNA/DNA of the virus, it identifies it as a pathogen and encapsulates/destroys it.

The questions are: 1) how long do those antibodies continue to be produced and 2) will the virus mutate like the yearly strains of the flu ?

For certain diseases, the antibody production seems to last a long time maybe even your entire life. It has been demonstrated that tetanus and diphtheria vaccines require a 'booster' vaccine be taken about every 10 years. At this time, the vaccines being developed for COVID are appearing to have somewhat lasting effects in the body and speculation is that the body will continue to produce antibodies for more than 1 year. This is in VERY preliminary results sets but the news from the folks testing the vaccines are promising and they are encouraged.

Mutation is the big worry now. If COVID-19 acts in a similar manner as the flu, we may need to watch every year for the latest strain needing a vaccine. Fortunately, once we have a vaccine, it should be much more easily modified and ready for the current strain. There still is a lot of basic research needed for the coronavirus family in general and also specific to COVID-19. SARS and MERS are 2 illnesses that caused by the coronavirus family that are already under study and may help with future coronavirus strains.

Some interesting reading:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer
Go to
Apr 27, 2020 10:41:00   #
Ritz wrote:
I have a Canon 6D Mark ll and the 600EXll-RT flash. I was looking to use the flash off camera remotely.
The Canon ST-E3-RT trigger is $285 at B&H, which is a bit expensive. I was looking at the Godox X Pro C TTL trigger, but it is only a transmitter and requires the purchase of the Good X1 R-C TTL receiver the work. It looks like the Yongnuo YN-E3-RT could be a possible one piece equipment answer. Anybody familiar with this setup goal and the Yongnuo YN-E3-RT? Is the Canon ST-E3-RT the best/only solution? I would be interested in other solutions/options.
Ritz
I have a Canon 6D Mark ll and the 600EXll-RT flash... (show quote)


I use Pocketwizard tt5's. the TT5 transceivers can be used on camera as sending units or on flash as receivers. I actually use a TT1 on the camera as a sending unit. TT1's and TT5's can be found somewhat inexpensively on Ebay. They also allow TTL metering. With a configuration of a Pocketwizard AC3 unit on top of the TT1 on camera, you have +-3 steps of individual control for 3 groups of flashes when shooting manual flash. TTL works well but the metering may not give you the results you want when using multiple flashes.

Canon 5DS, 5D2 and 70D integrate well with this setup.
Go to
Apr 26, 2020 10:43:10   #
jerryc41 wrote:
I poured a lot of hot water down the drain yesterday, but that didn't help. When I replaced all the pipes a year or so ago (with PVC), someone online recommended putting an air vent at the top of the down-pipe. I can remove that vent and see if the clog is downstream from there. I'm afraid it won't be that simple, though. It's easy enough to take the joints apart, but putting them together leak-free is something else.

Below is a picture before it was finished.
I poured a lot of hot water down the drain yesterd... (show quote)

That 90 degree at the bottom could be where you are getting the issue. If you have to redo, would suggest you try to reduce that to a 45 so you have a good slope. Maybe as a last resort ?
Go to
Apr 24, 2020 17:19:21   #
burkphoto wrote:
https://apple.news/AP2fX3WHwSm2IVisT1TnexA


from your link-

“President Trump has repeatedly said that Americans should consult with medical doctors regarding coronavirus treatment, a point that he emphasized again during yesterday’s briefing,” McEnany said in a statement. “Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines.”

'nuff said - everybody have a safe and restful evening
Go to
Apr 24, 2020 17:03:35   #
burkphoto wrote:
They carry the news conference live here on Spectrum News 14. I watched it. I cannot for the life of me see how he was misquoted! The edit was more than fair. He looked much more foolish live.


wasn't going to reply any more but wanted to address your comment. I have no problem with your interpretation - however much I disagree with it - you are entitled to be wrong .

However if I seriously said to you, "I know a nuclear bomb kills everything through concussion and radiation, could we use something like that to kill the virus" - I would hope you could tell I was not suggesting we stand up the infected and explode a bomb next to them.

If you take my actual words and suggest I was saying that nuclear bombing should be a course of action and say I am presenting it as a proposed solution ( factually using the words I used ) you are at best being disingenuous because you are presenting facts without context and not what was intended.

I don't like the president's use of hyperbole and self-aggrandizement but I also recognize he is doing it and why. Maybe there are a lot of people who don't understand the way he speaks but for the media to push an agenda by intentionally misleading people is wrong and we would be much better off as a country if folks just watched for themselves as you did and evaluated the statements on their own. When you see all the comments posted here that parrot the headlines and can't offer their own facts to support it, you know they are not thinking. When coupled with the vitriol and anger you see here with name calling and degrading remarks, it shows the end of the America I knew. Thats true of BOTH political parties, not just one side.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 58 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.