> It turned out I had severe oxygen deficiency, although I still wasn’t short of breath.
I've read about this pitfall before. It might be an idea to have a blood oxygen saturation meter at home to keep an eye on this.
I've read about this pitfall before. It might be an idea to have a blood oxygen saturation meter at home to keep an eye on this.
It’s never my favorite source, but in the US there are a number of Chinese companies with US shipping on EBay.
I purchased 7 devices from “ConTec” at ~$26/each. All arrived and at least my unit read the same as a retail unit from Walgreens.
Not trying to shill, there are a number of other sources with thousands of positive reviews.
> It therefore requires the measurement of light transmission or reflection from a body segment such as a finger at two different wavelengths (usually in the red and infra-red).
> The Samsung Galaxy series of phones had a red light emitting diode (LED) built into the phone in addition to the flash light and camera. There were no details released by the company of how its app used the LED to estimate oxygen saturation, but it appears from publicity material on YouTube that it worked via a single-wavelength measurement (albeit with a monochromatic light source, the LED) and therefore that oxygen saturation could not be accurately derived from it.
That's accurate enough to tell whether you have serious Covid in many cases, especially if your baseline reading is 99% like mine. "No evidence" has killed a lot of people in this pandemic by discouraging practices that work but haven't been RCT'd. "Should not be trusted" because something has error bars, even when they're smaller than the dangerous range, could kill even more.
It's good to have the information out there that this is an inferior way to check, but I already assumed that was true just because it was only a phone app. "Possibly-inaccurate and free" is the choice I want to make with my health. I have low risk and it leaves more oximeters for others.
A price increase due to shortage is legitimate if it is new stock or production, brought online or made possible by a higher price that is now sought to satisfy demand.
It's not as though the wealthy have more legitimate need for the products.
As a people, we did not run low on hand sanitizer. As a free market, we ran low on hand sanitizer because a small minority decided they needed 10,000 bottles in their garage.
When there exists plenty of product for everyone, and there are distribution networks by which we can get it to everyone who needs it, and yet opportunists insert themselves in the middle for no purpose other than to make a quick buck, I call that price gouging.
Yes, there were some hoarders, but people also started buying and using a lot more sanitizer, the supply chain was overwhelmed. Companies didn’t have huge excess warehouses of the stuff ready to ship when demand suddenly spiked over the period of a few days.
If you're confident you'll be able to buy the good in the future, you'll buy less now. If a hoarder clears out the supermarket, that means that everyone that shops at that supermarket and doesn't get what they want is more liable to make a larger purchase when do find it at another store. This chain reaction leads to shortages. It's impossible to prove the direct amount of causation (and of course organic demand spiked), but the relationship is clearly there.
But that's definitely not the case with most shortages of things like PPE and alcohol. Most people are calling any price increase gouging, to the point where sites like eBay have simply banned anyone from selling masks at marked up prices. However they grandfathered some pre-existing sellers.
Ironically this created a monopoly situation that has constrained supply which by definition means ebay is price gouging (since they make a percentage based fee on sales).
If they simply let new sellers "price gouge", it would flood the supply and naturally lower prices for things like masks on eBay.
I had a box of mini hand sanitizer in the closet i purchased 2-3 years ago, I brought it out at the beginning of march and began to use it. I ran out and there was no more to be found in any store. Still have only seen it once or twice in a store, behind the counter now 2 months later.
Even if we had all just tried to buy 1 bottle of hand sanitizer each that would have been 330 million bottles, I don’t think store shelves had that many in march.
(Edit: It’s the same thing as happened to stuff like toilet paper - we usually make just enough toilet paper for everyone, between commercial and retail toilet paper sales. Suddenly commercial toilet paper became unsaleable with industries shuttering their doors, and the existing supply of home toilet paper wasn’t enough anymore since now all the bum-wiping that would have been done with commercial toilet paper needed to be done with the different rolls that are sold to home goods buyers)
And true to form, your following statement was not what lawyers or economists would call price gouging.
As with most things, there is the colloquialism, and then there is the law. Price gouging laws are almost impossible to run afoul of, because thats not how this country is run. There are limited temporary state-controlled market disruptions, activated by a State of Emergency declaration.
There is no reason to pay attention to any price gouging idea or statute anymore. There is a market price and that's it.
If the state really wants to disrupt a market to alleviate cost pressures on their consumers, then they can subsidize over a particular price if it wishes.
There is no interstate price gouging statute so basically any online merchant can conform any price around a different state's price gouging statute. When you see the Federal Government saying they are investigating price gouging, it doesn't mean anything, the Feds just extend enforcement resources to help a state enforce state level laws, which often don't apply to anything that's actually happening.
When the state of emergency lasts forever you just have a market.