Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Because, of course, media-driven panics have a long and wonderful history of positive outcomes? Look, all I'm saying is that it might be wise not to drive up the free floating paranoia levels without good reason.
When you have to change your own phase definition in order to avoid looking like idiots for not changing the phase, then you're doing something wrong. Avoiding panic is definitely the way to go, but that's not what's happening. *By their own definition*, "limited" spread involves very close contact between the infector and the infectee, e.g. caregiver/patient. If random tourists are contracting it, it's gone a wee bit beyond that. The WHO are walking a line between not wanting to scare the horses and looking like they don't know what's going on; at the moment, they're erring towards the latter, which for the major world-wide health organisation is less than ideal.
Now, what *does* need to be emphasised in the media is that every case outside Mexico has been mild, with only one or two hospitalisations. The word "deadly" also needs to be excised from the media's vocabulary.
-
Yeah that struck me as odd. The fact that some kiwi tourists have picked it up suggests human transmission is pretty good.
Not just Kiwis - those New York schoolkids were on spring break, the Kansas cases were started by someone else who visited Mexico, there are six cases in Canada, only three of whom actually went to Mexico - human-to-human transmission is clearly pretty well established. WHO have even changed their definition of phase 3 (apparently it now means human-to-human transmission, but not enough to start "community-level" outbreaks.) They seem to be bending over backwards to not raise the level. It's...odd.
-
"Few of the cases appear to have had any contact with live pigs" - from the Guardian.
Which begs the questions as to why the WHO still seem to think it has "limited" human-to-human transmission.
-
I still don't know what they saw, but he thought I was concussed. Sent me home. Told me not to drive.
Something funny with your pupils, maybe?
-
Nope, the real issue is that there are some people who 1) need to get a life of their own, and not run around getting offended on behalf of people who might not appreciate the presumption
Given that the young lady who began the whole debate *is* Inuit, I think she has the right to be offended on *her own* behalf. Not everyone is going to agree with her, but it doesn't mean she can't complain. Or that we can't debate the complaint.
I did, however, enjoy 3 News last night trotting out a half-Inuit Kiwi to endorse the continued production of Eskimo lollies and pies. It was the perfect example of the "But my friend is and they aren't offended!" defence, as done by a media network.
-
I have always found the problem with memorising the eye chart is that after one or two goes-round I genuinely *do not know* whether I'm reading the lines clearly enough for it to count, or whether my memorisation means I can decipher the blurs better than I should. They need, I don't know, rotating sets of letters. Make it a digital projection, it wouldn't be hard....
OK, they can get lost with remarkable ease, and dust & other particles can cause quite remarkable pain, but I still love 'em...
I have hard contacts, and the amount of pain involved if you get an eyelash under them and your contact case/glasses are not to hand is, as you say, quite remarkable. Like, whimpering-on-the-floor remarkable. Their other benefits make it worthwhile, but it's a feature I could definitely live without.
-
Are you my institutional memory, Lucy?
That or your evil twin, apparently.
-
Normal people don't do that kind of crap and so don't know of the other meanings.
Snerk.
-
So, apparently, his "suffering" continues... and I'm sick of hearing about it. Incredible, the amount of airtime the perpetrator has had, vs the victim.
And that is, of course, the *other* reason it's distasteful to give it headline status. But I do think that Kirstin Dunne-Powell has had less media coverage through an admirable and firm decision to not let it become a two-way media battle. It's allowed Veitch's PR team free reign, but it seems to have been the right decision for her personally. You've got to respect that.
-
In breaking news, V. has been rescued again.
I kind of wish the media would lay off that particular story, if they're tracking it down independently - if you take it at face value, it doesn't do *anyone* any good to have it be public property, least of all Veitch. It's quite distasteful.