StrangeSox

Even then, per the CDC guidelines, testing isn't necessarily indicated. It would depend on the type of contact/exposure, severity of the illness, lab findings and possible alternative diagnoses. edit: which probably demonstrates a substantial flaw in their current guidelines. Per that other person I quoted, CDC wants to handle all Ebola testing themselves right now. Because of that, they need to find guidelines so that everyone who's been to Africa within the previous three weeks and goes to the hospital isn't being tested for EBV. I don't know how quick and expensive that testing is.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 2, 2014 -> 12:05 PM) huh, here i was thinking that the Bears forced those turnovers. I didnt realize Kaep hiked the ball and walked to a defender and gave it to them Fuller's picks were just great plays, not unforced errors by Kap.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 2, 2014 -> 11:46 AM) The dude rode in a cab with a friend who had it to the hospital, carried her to the hospital from the cab and then sat with her outside because the hospital was full until she died. He had to at least have had an idea that he had it. And when he first showed up at the hospital, you would think that that word might have come out of his mouth at some time. The person not being symptomatic on the flight was more about not knowing prior to boarding and, more importantly, thankfully limiting the potential for the disease spreading.

The first step in the linked CDC flowchart is whether they have a fever of 101.5 or higher. If they don't, current guidelines are to not test. Maybe they didn't have a fever that high yet.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 2, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) Hung juries happen. This jury was all white. No it wasn't.

Well it took two trials so that isn't exactly a strong point in favor of a racially neutral justice system.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 2, 2014 -> 11:23 AM) But can someone carrying it, without yet having outward symptoms, still transmit it? Hemoragic fevers work fast, really fast. On the one hand that's a good thing historically, because the disease tends to blow itself out in short order when an outbreak occurs. But it also means someone can become a transmitter pretty fast - I just don't know if it happens before outward symptoms or not. On another board that I post at, there's a couple of people that are virologists, doctors, etc. including one person who is actively involved in the research and efforts in this latest case. They said that if the person is asymptomatic, there's a minimal risk of spreading the disease. They also gave a possible explanation for how this was missed the first time around at the Dallas hospital:

guys can we talk about Brian Anderson?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 2, 2014 -> 06:50 AM) I am more pissed that this idiot knew he had it, or should have known he had it, when he got on the damn plane to come here. He put everyone he came in contact with at risk. And while the hospital misdiagnosed and let him go, you would think maybe he would have spoke up and said 'no, I just might have ebola, I just came from Liberia where I was holding an ebola patient in my arms.please look again'. I read that he was not symptomatic during his flight.

Yeah, it's carried in the droplets you'd sneeze out. Carried in sweat, too.

"Sabes" is Spanish for "you know" or "you are knowledgeable," so there's some unintended irony there by greg.

Worldwide, wildlife numbers are down 50% since 1970. http://online.wsj.com/articles/report-wild...085197?mod=e2tw We seem well on our way to a sixth great extinction.

I don't know how comparable the 2011 and 2014 rosters are, even if you count Abreu.

My dog got absolutely soaked in Great Dane slobber at the dog park yesterday.

The opinion cites blog posts. That struck me as funny. But yeah this was district not appellate level, so it'll definitely get reviewed there and then possibly en banc before hitting the sc. It might be settled due to the other two cases before it even gets to that point.

If our one cat lives to be about 18 and our dog and other cat both live typical lifespans, we're probably looking at all three going within a year.

Apparently the 10th circuit is 7 democrat-appointed judges and 5 republican appointed ones, so this could end up being just like the D.C. circuit and reversed en banc. The problem for the plaintiffs is that under the Chevron doctrine, courts are deferential to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. When you read one line out of thousands within the bill, you can make the argument that the plaintiffs are that the statute excludes federally run exchanges and does so intentionally. Looking only at that one line and nothing else within the bill or any of the legislative history (nobody seemed to think this was a clever and deliberate way to force states to set up exchanges until this 'glitch' was discovered by people looking to destroy the ACA using any means necessary), it may even be the most plausible interpretation. When you read that line in the context of the rest of the bill, that argument is harder to make, and the intention of including federal subsidies becomes more likely. But really, which one is "more likely" doesn't matter. The courts don't decide that; as long as the IRS's "federal subsidies are ok" interpretation is a plausible reading of the statute, it's fine. Even if it's not the most likely interpretation, courts will still defer to the agency.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 30, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) Appellate court just ruled that federal exchanges cannot issue subsidies. This is very bad. Without Congress amending the wording of the law, which seems ludicrously unlikely, this could effectively destroy the law. Let's hope that at least the Democratic states like Illinois will set up their own exchanges since nobody really anticipated the creation of the exchanges to be a big battleground in the first place. The D.C. circuit court ruled the same way in a 3 judge panel a month or so ago in the Halbig case, but the full D.C. circuit elected to rehear en banc (full court) and is expected to reverse. I guess with the Oklahoma ruling, a circuit split is now inevitable and the SC will more or less have to take it up. But so far, the federal courts have ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the subsidies being allowed on the federal exchanges. If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down the whole law then, I can't imagine he'd gut it now on what would be even more ridiculous grounds. One funny part about the people filing briefs on behalf of the plaintiff in Halbig is that they were arguing the exact opposite position (federal subisidies are available) in their NFIB v. Sebelius (the big 2012 ruling). Ruling that federal exchanges can't offer subsidies would destroy large parts of the law in a majority of states and leave millions of people back in the position of not being able to afford health insurance, but at least it wouldn't gut the Medicaid expansion (more than Roberts already did) or the state exchanges.

My cat has to get basically all of her teeth pulled due to periodontal disease. But her lower jaw (mandible) is so compromised that the regular vet doesn't feel confident pulling her lower canines, so we'll need to go see a veterinarian oral surgeon. That'll probably run another $1000.

I have to say that I'm confused by Yahoo projected 23 points for McCoy next week.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 29, 2014 -> 01:09 PM) I really do think he broke it but somehow we had no good camera angle to confirm that. I don't know why the NFL doesn't have two cameras from an elevated position (10' or so) looking down the goal line for replays. HD cameras are not that expensive. Or that goal line technology FIFA was using in the world cup, not sure how well that worked.

Well at least the bears put up a better fight than the saints.

Done with this one.

I don't even know how to process that penalty.

Are you kidding me