unicorn

Well, those bacteria take hold in the urethra and the rectum (and throat). Where did you get the information that scrubbing those places helps prevent infection? I haven't read that anywhere. If anything, it might be that damaging a mucous membrane could increase the risk of infection. Please read page 1 of the syphilis brochure and page 2 of the gonorrhea brochure. The CDC does not believe washing is helpful. https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/the-facts/syphilis_bro_508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/the-facts/gonorrhea_bro_508.pdf "• Washing the genitals, urinating, or douching after sex will not prevent any STD..."

Although there are quite a few people on this board from Thailand, this string was not posted in the Gay Thailand forum. IMHO, it would have been more appropriate to title this string "Thai domestic airfares set to fall.". This board isn't, and shouldn't be serving only the gay Thai community.

Medicare Advantage can help those temporarily out of the country. However, if you live abroad, you'll probably need another policy. They're usually much less expensive in foreign countries than they are in the US.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470439/ "...When patients with gonococcal arthritis are treated with antibiotics, there is usually full recovery without any sequelae...". Kudos to whoever diagnosed you. It's not an easy diagnosis to make, in that one must suspect it (of course, if you already had urinary symptoms, the diagnosis may have been more obvious). Hopefully, you will also be evaluated to see if your immune system is functioning well. Disseminated GC can happen in anyone, but is more common in those with compromised immune systems.

I'm not sure I believe those numbers...

We found the movie a bit slow and in need of editing. The acting was good, though.

Ajar A jarjar

I join your skepticism. Septic means something different, by the way... 😉

I'm not fan of Putin's, for sure, but that statement's hyperbole. Russia has a lot of competition, such as Syria, Somalia, North Korea, Uganda, Yemen, and Venezuela. You won't catch me in any of those places.

There is ZERO evidence at this point that masks provide ANY level of protection against SARS-CoV2. The confidence intervals include both harm and help, so it's possible that masks increase the risk. In fact, one of the meta-analyses showed a relative risk of 1.01. Comparisons with casino gambling do not support your argument. Gambling against the casino with the expectation to come ahead is irrational. Coming out ahead is possible but unlikely. Comparisons with cancer chemotherapy are also irrational. While chemo provides no guarantees, those medications have been been proven to extend life in large studies. The alternative is usually certain death. People frequently take actions just to allay fears without proven benefit. Rhinoceroses may be going extinct because of the myth that their horns, taken in powdered form, may help with erections. This is despite the fact that rhino horns are simply made of keratin, the same material as fingernails or hair. One cannot prove something which isn't true by using irrational "arguments." Facts are discovered through scientific scrutiny, not sophistry. The fact that people can and do at times act irrationally doesn't prove anything.

For a shorter excursion, I would recommend Rhinefalls over Luzern. Luzern deserves a few days, as the main sights are going up and down the mountains around the lake and other cities around Luzern, as well as boat trips on the lake. When you take the train from Zurich to Rheinfalls, you go through a German exclave (Büsingen am Hochrhein), and your phone will say "Welcome to Germany" when you enter the town and then again "Welcome to Switzerland" when you pass the town.

Well, I met one young Mexican physician whom I hired to come travel with me in the US in 2021. He did contract the virus a couple of times (he had to work inside the hospital, as a resident physician), and yes, he wore masks and protective gear assiduously. One physician who responded to this thread said he worked in the ER during 2020 and didn't contract it then. One cannot be certain why the difference, but a rational explanation could be the difference in the work settings' ventilation designs. I'm not aware of any study which compares healthcare workers' infection rates in different countries. Such a study might provide clues.

Russians pride themselves on how many of them die in conflicts (the only country that I know of which prides itself in its own citizens' deaths). And they don't mind eating each other like cannibals if needed.

And you're happy for OJ as well? A bit sociopathic, perhaps? While agree that the amount awarded was rather over-the-top, Rudy did very maliciously ruin these women's lives with his outrageous lies. Not murder, but still vicious and malicious. What kind of a sick person would cheer for Rudy (or OJ)?

The meta-analysis looked at various studies, some of them in tightly-controlled medical settings. Most certainly, it did not back any contention that masks work. That study did include observers to assess compliance. Even with incomplete compliance, one might expect to see some difference. In any case, this is what can be said about our knowledge so far: Yes, it is the case that there is no proof masks have no effect. No, there is no evidence of any effect (beneficial or otherwise). Our current state of knowledge strongly suggests that if there is an effect, the effect is modest--almost certainly no more than 30% (and even that's unlikely). Within the range of most probable efficacy (which seem to center near 0%), maximal efficacy is almost not going to be meaningful. I doubt men would wear condoms if their efficacy were around 30% (optimistically), nor would the FDA approve a vaccine that only decreased transmission by 30%. Yes, some people do it just because it makes them feel better, but that's not any evidence of efficacy.

If you're going to quote a study, it would be wise to read it. First of all, there were interventions other than mask-wearing between the two communities (i.e. distancing). However, even if we were to incorrectly assume that masking was the only intervention, the experimental group showed only a 9.5% drop in transmission, with a 95% confidence interval which approached unity. Even with that (again, incorrect) assumption, few people would say that an efficacy of less than 1 in 10 is significant. Randomized clinical trials, especially in healthcare settings, in which only one variable is changed are more instructive. And meta-analyses (joining together) of these RCT's even more instructive.

If it makes you feel better, that's wonderful. Some people get comfort from rosary beads or prayer. I'm sure you understand that this is not evidence of efficacy.

Some people find it helps them sleep 😉

Well, of course it would always be correct to say that it hasn't been proven that masks have NO effect. No researcher or health care professional would ever make a blanket statement such as "Masks don't work." Do you think any scientist would say "My study shows masks don't work!"? One cannot prove a negative. There has been a fairly large number of studies done under controlled conditions, however, and they all come to a similar conclusion. What can be stated, with a high degree of confidence, is that if there is any effect, that effect is small (since the confidence intervals of the relative risks are generally near 1, the effect might be that masking increases risk of infection). Most certainly, unless there are real-life randomized controlled trials of which I'm unaware, what can be unequivocally stated is that studies so far have shown no evidence of a protective effect of masking. It's interesting that for the last year, there don't seem to be more studies on this matter. I suspect it may be because most people in this field consider the matter settled (that any effect, if present, is too small to be considered helpful), or maybe because no one wants to fund such further research. To summarize: (1) No real-life study has suggested masking has ANY efficacy at reducing spread of either influenza or SARS-CoV2. (2) No study has or ever will prove that masking has no effect on transmission. (3) When combining the multiple randomized controlled trials which have examined the effect of masking, either with surgical masks or N95's, one can say with 95% confidence that any effect either way is small (if present). This is the language of science.

One can never prove that the difference is zero. With a large enough study, one could document a very small difference. What the studies can and do show is a 95% confidence interval, documenting that if there is a difference (might go either way), it is a small one (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Since the studies, when combined, involve over 200,000 people, and the results are very close to zero difference, they do show that a truly significant difference is highly unlikely. What seems especially unlikely is that N95's are superior to surgical masks, as those studies were mostly done in medical, highly controlled settings. Obviously, preferred goal of researchers is to show that an intervention demonstrates an improvement. Fortunately, most researchers will publish results even when the results aren't what they'd hoped. (From the original post): "Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people)...". Of course, there will always be some people, including, unfortunately, physicians, who will be guided by their intuition and personal experiences rather than by careful study.

And Trump-lovers ignore his 90+ felony indictments, not to mention his civil cases. I will agree with you that Biden is a weak candidate, though Trump is far worse, and both are probably too old to start a new term in 2025. It's too early to know what will happen in the upcoming tumultuous year. Trump has limitless funding in his so-far successful attempts to delay his prosecutions, so we'll have to see if he continues to be able to delay his trials. Trouble for him if they go forward. A majority of Americans want neither as candidates, but, unfortunately, it's what the majority of Republicans and Democrats want as their candidates, not the wishes of the American citizenry.

Well, I applaud you for your service. Certainly things were diciest for those providing inpatient services (including ER and ICU), and knowledge at the time was lacking. I'm sure you're aware that anecdotes are the very weakest form of evidence, if they can be considered evidence at all. It has been well-documented that over time, as the virus mutated back towards its wild (original) form, it became more contagious and less virulent (deadly). This is because the virus again started latching onto the upper respiratory areas instead of the lungs, making it easier to spread but less deadly. Also, hospitals are designed to provide efficient air exchange, especially in ER's and ICU's. It's therefore little surprise that as schools and other facilities started opening up, and the virus became more contagious, that your kids were the ones to be the first to pass it along to you. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm I hope that as a physician you base your treatment decisions based on the latest science, and not on your personal feelings based on your own experiences. Your personal experiences and feelings in this matter are a good example as to why, hopefully, medicine advances on the basis of scientific study rather than on individual anecdotes and "opinions."

Well, I'd never carry around $20,000 in cash under any circumstances. Such quantities of cash usually have to be declared upon entering a country, and would be bound to raise suspicion. Typically, I will carry some $100-$150 in cash in my pants pockets. I suspect that the authorities in Singapore would ask why he was carrying that kind of cash on the flight. https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/sg/travel-info/visas-immigration/customs/singapore/#:~:text=If you're entering Singapore,on your departure from Singapore. If you’re entering Singapore with more than SGD20,000 or its foreign currency equivalent in cash, you must submit a completed NP727 form to: the Customs Red Channel on your arrival at Singapore’s Changi Airport, or the immigration counter on your departure from Singapore. Collect the NP727 form at any major checkpoint, Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) or, Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP). Alternatively, you can download it from the websites of the Singapore Police Force (SPF).

Each individual study may have low to moderate certainty, but the Cochrane report combines all of the (many) studies, to greatly increase the certainty. While it is true that even larger studies could show an effect (one way or the other), what seems fairly certain at this point is that if there is an effect, that effect is small. It would be foolish to have faith in masking for providing protection from either influenza or SARS-CoV2. At this point, efforts should be directed towards providing better ventilation in public facilities, and vaccination.