brodie

That this article was written shows clearly that we don’t have enough of them and that any non-medical professional buying them is only contributing to the population of ill and the dead.

Speculation doesn’t make you right. “Likely to” counts for not much.

It’s sad you made that purchase. I wonder if that deprived a doctor or nurse of one. If they died, you’ve essentially condemned them to that. Is your own selfish neurosis worth that?

I know you’re being facetious, but I certainly hope he does no such purchasing.

There’s no mental gymnastics happening. You’re just ignoring what medical workers are saying and assuming your intuition is infallible. It’s easy to understand why it’s dangerous to deprive those workers of shields to benefit to yourself. And manufacturing cost is not the same as availability. We don’t have instantaneous infinite supplies of these.

Face shields aren’t seatbelts. Someone put it well when they said they’re ejector seats. I assume you aren’t flying jets or intubating patients.

Because they’re dying doesn’t mean shields will help. I think the medically inclined people in this discussion are making reasoned arguments. You however are just appealing to hysteria.

I can imagine so many other more likely reasons for those deaths than face shield usage.

Face shields aren’t protective wear in public. Taking them away from doctors and nurses however does increase mortality for them and patients in general.

Plenty of states have stay at home orders. Mine does. It isn’t clear to me the federal government has the authority to issue that kind of order, short of martial law. The US government isn’t identical to many other countries. States are like quasi-countries, legally, authority-wise, and culturally.

You’re not listening to what he said. He argued no such thing. You however seem content to deprive doctors and nurses of important tools and compromise their safety and patient safety so you can selfishly take something that provides zero protection to you.

They don’t provide the general public any significant protection. It’s basically the same as not wearing one, except you’re condemning health professionals to increased risk, exposure, and possible death.

They don’t reduce risk of infection in day to day situations. They’re specialized medical tools used in appropriate situations.

Also, please put on a mask and leave your house. You aren’t on permanent curfew. Do some essential activities each day.

I had to go to the hospital today for a follow up X-ray after a month long life threatening illness. Every single desk and checkpoint inside either had the glass windows slightly cracked open but essentially closed, or they were draped in plastic covers. My pharmacy also did the same thing.

These aren’t masks. Shields aren’t going to be as helpful as masks and medical workers need them much more and we need medical workers to stay alive.

You’re allowed to leave your house. Exercise, pet walking, and essential shopping and other essential activities aren’t banned. Put on a mask and go for a walk in your neighborhood and keep social distancing.

The majority of the replies from non-medical professionals here on this supposedly intelligent forum perfectly illustrates why that happens. People think they can tackle any problem and come to the correct conclusion with a minute of thinking alone, with no real knowledge or experience or testing. Now extrapolate that to the entire US or world and it is sadly not surprising that people think they know best and doctors and nurses and patients be damned.

If anything his comment reinforces negative stereotypes about the two regions. So many people in the Bay Area look down on Oakland like it’s a blighted disease-ridden wasteland and think the peninsula is some kind of haven for the rich and well off.

Does esophageal intubation happen much? I was intubated a month ago due to non-COVID respiratory failure. I also ended up getting pneumonia but no one knows when I got it. If that happened to me would my medical team have told me? Speaking generally obviously since you don’t know my case of course.

I hope a doctor or nurse or respiratory therapist can correct me, but my layman’s impression is that intubation itself isn’t causing deaths as much as having to be intubated means you’re already in dire straits.

I was recently intubated 3 times in the last month and had no ill effects. I know that’s just an anecdote but no doctor ever told me it would be super risky. The alternative to not getting it however usually meant death.

It’s okay to admit you’re wrong. It’s okay to not understand everything. It’s okay to defer to experts.

So many people on HN and in tech have the same attitude that if they just spend 5 minutes thinking about something then they can intuit an answer and that they must be right. This is a dangerous way of thinking. If anyone took what you’ve been saying as correct they’d be endangering themselves and depriving medical professionals of tools they need.

Are they intubating COVID-19 patients without general anesthesia? I've been in the hospital a month due to pneumonia and have been intubated 3 times. The second and third times they did intubation and extubation all under general.

The first time they put some kind of special tube in under general. When I came to 3 days later there was no ventilator, and the end of the tube was in my throat. It felt like a rectangular block. They extubated me while I was awake and immediately put me on high flow oxygen. They would've intubated me on the spot if I couldn't breathe. Never felt a gagging sensation in this instance.

I've noticed the same thing. In my twenties waking up before ten was extremely difficult and made getting into work stressful every morning. But now in my thirties I find myself awake when the sun rises without issue.

I’ve experienced a number of them and never felt anything leading up to them.

The last decent one I can remember was a few years ago around maybe 2 or 3 AM and made my apartment roll back and forth. The rolling woke me up but my partner slept through it. And I tried not to panic so they could just sleep through it, hoping it would end soon.

Also, we didn’t have anything hanging or that could easily fall onto our bed in the bedroom so I think staying in the bed was an okay move.

I live in a single family home now even higher up the Twin Peaks area of SF so who knows how this house will handle the next one. Hopefully it won’t be too bad. At least the ground is solid and not considered a liquefaction zone. And my new neighbors seem to have some kind of thing going on where they stock first aid supplies for first responders in disasters which seems nice and thoughtful.

Though I just don’t understand why SF won’t use our missile warning system for earthquake warnings. Seems like they could make a special earthquake tone and warn everyone if one happens in another city and is heading our way. Even seconds of warning would be so helpful. Could be the difference in being able to jump under a table or desk vs. getting crushed by falling stuff.

Trains, planes, and automobiles would surely still function?

Is there something inherently better about seafaring ships? Wouldn't the ports just move?

Marshland and lagoons sounds a bit different than ocean, though. Would they not be easier to drain and contain? Or are you saying this past makes it more susceptible to bay/ocean encroachment in the future?

I'm no civil engineer so this is totally out of my realm of knowledge.

Also, I guess I'm lucky to live on one of the highest points in the city.

Why would SF go away without a bay? Do you mean because of tourism?

If anything it seems like SF would grow its boundaries if this happened.

It's hard to imagine SF being affected by this that much anytime soon. I can imagine the Marina and places like that having issues, but SF itself is so tall and there's so much hard rock everywhere.

But I don't know much about the Sunset or the Richmond so I guess you could speak better to that. I live near Twin Peaks.

Based on my own personal experience of putting myself in a position of dying now probably more times than I can count (unfortunately), I've been seriously wondering if the universe does contain all of my deaths as well, but my consciousness stays on a path where it can continue, because that's all it can do.

Though that still raises the question of why this particular set of living experiences and not others.

Also, if this sort of thing is the case, I think it would make being a moral person significantly more complex. You would need to not only make moral decisions, but create as many moral possible universes as possible and shut out the immoral universes from existence by not creating paths to them. Though I guess that would make me a highly immoral person at this point (causing pain and suffering in all the universes where I've died), though I do try to be moral in this universe as much as I can.

Could this policy actually be the result of Chinese politicians and/or businesspeople engaging in pay-for-play with Trump?

Or is there another explanation for why this policy doesn’t affect certain completed products from China? I just don’t get that part of it at all.

Is someone working on allowing users to opt out of AMP when viewing search results? For users whose internet connections are fast and who cannot tolerate the browser UX being broken (can't copy URL out of address bar, back button doesn't always work properly, web pages often don't have comments, the list goes on and on seemingly forever).

Also, is someone working on a successor to AMP that doesn't break or try to replace the browser's own UI? Maybe something done at a lower level, maybe the HTTPS level? E.g., I could imagine something where the browser is informed that www.google.com is loading/proxying a web page on the user's behalf, and through some kind of verification system, it determines the website has given www.google.com permission to do so, and the browser UI updates itself to show the right address in the URL, etc. Maybe there's a better way to do all that, just one idea off the top of my head that seems infinitely better than AMP from a UX perspective.

Though it'd also be nice if you could get websites to make their actual main sites faster for everyone, maybe using a method like jacquesm suggested. That coupled with the low level proxying might be a nice alternative to what we have now.

The sound quality of the EarPods, which presumably the AirPods are based on, is good but definitely a very subjective thing. I've found them to be excellent for the price/form factor. Things I like:

- Great, deep bass response (when you position them to create a good seal between your ears and the outside world).

- Reasonably detailed mids.

- Somewhat diminished but still relatively detailed highs.

- Comfortable for wearing for long periods of time.

- Isolation isn't too strong, even with a good seal (helpful for maintaining situational awareness).

My only complaint is that between different pairs, the ability to get a comfortable seal can be inconsistent. However, I wouldn't consider them high end, and while their lack of noise isolation can be a downside at times, given the cost and the excellent bass and overall clarity, I think they're a great earphones.

If the AirPods have better SQ, that'd be awesome; but if they have the same sound quality but without the wires and with good (and hopefully passthrough when possible) audio compression, I'll be eager to buy a pair. And I think as more and more people wear them, they'll quickly become fashionable to wear.

On a related note, I hope Apple and others are eventually able to move to lossless, even lower latency compression for wireless audio. I absolutely love the lossless compression the AirPort Express provides via AirPlay.