Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cutlass, May 24, 2013.
imagine not getting paid because your child is sick lol
anyway my impression is it's easy to identify the few people susceptible to complications of chicken pox, and so they can be treated specifically, rather than dealing with everyone else
it's the freedom to free you from employment
I'm glad our misfortune is your amusement?
which part of my post are you reffering to
wow, shingles in 2 threads
that might be a first
Til ff7 remake! This is look so good waaaow!
But I prefer this to be turn base,
Today I heard, I do not say learned because I do not have the data to back it up, but I heard from a fairly senior scientist at a talk:
A diagnosis today of Type 2 Diabetes has a worse prognosis than a diagnosis of HIV.
That can be real, but there are some factors involved there too, which makes it more complicated.
With diabetes you often get diagnosed when it's basically too late. When you're already a fat blob, with a bad lifestyle, and probably unwilled to change it, which is making it worse (please note: I said often). Or you are willed to, but the process is extremely hart and requires discipline. Diabetes furthermore often comes with other comorbidities, like the mentioned obesity, which will increase your chance of heart attacks and other problems, like e.g. the diabetic feet.
With HIV you can get diagnosed when you have no disease symptoms yet, and treating it basically requires no effort from your side, besides regularly taking your medicine (although resistance can arise, making it again more dangerous). EDIT: Should be said that also HIV drugs have side effects, which will make life more annoying (like diarrhea and nausea), or which even could be very dangerous. Life long. So nothing to take easy, HIV is a very serious illness.
So for both you need to take life long medicine, but the former requires more effort, and you're probably in a worse state when you hear you have it.
I would still prefer diabetes over HIV. With diabetes you cannot potentially hurt your loved ones.
Liechtensteiners are simple money herders who, after the end of their traditional "fleecing" season, move most of their stock towards Switzerland to prevent losses before the new financial year.
To suggest that they are doing something wrong is bigotry; forcing them to change their traditional ways would be cultural genocide.
That made me laugh.
...to the best of my knowledge hookers are illegal in Liechtenstein.
And Monaco - i suppose - is technically abolitionist, but it's surrounded by neo-victorian France (which has exported its büssiness to Spain and Djermany) so i wouldn't try no feces there either.
Oh you definitely can hurt your loved ones with diabetes, just indirectly. My grandfather had it and didn't take any steps to manage it. He went on an at-home dialysis regimen and to be honest was too lazy to actually help manage it. It was up to my step grandmother to receive and sort these heavy packages of dialysis fluids (she'd get like 30 boxes at a time, each weighing close to 10 kg) and stay on top of his care regimen while he fell apart. The final stages were absolutely brutal and I can't thank my step grandmother enough for doing her best to keep him alive and healthy while he did next to nothing to help himself.
I know that's quite an extreme situation but diabetes can be hard on families, depending on the specific type and treatment methods. I would compare my grandfathers treatments to something like chemo rounds and even if he had been willing to be more helpful in his own care, it still would have been a massive burden for the household. Oh and the diabetes gave him dimentia towards the end that further complicated everything.
Also in the US, diabetes is expensive af
Sooooooo much ewwwwwwwwwww
(also I read that as balls as first)
@hobbsyoyo my sister is working in NGO for HIV carrier. If they boost their cd4, the virus may remain inactive (not death of course) and they can pretty much live normal like having children and having a partner of non hiv carrier, but the underline note is they must never stop the medicine.
We go that beat. We gave up coal for a week https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48215896
On one hand, when I hear that I like it.
On the other hand, the UK has essentially no reliance on coal because Thatcher and the Tories actively tried to destroy the mines to crush the unions and 'subversives'.
We still imported quite a lot of coal though although natural gas and more recently renewables have reduced the amount we import.
The trick there is, she didn't even do it on purpose. British dependence on coal remained basically static during her premiership: we just imported coal from the Soviet bloc instead. The shift followed over subsequent decades. This might be the embitter socialist in me, but even the few positive side-effects of her actions lay completely outside the scope of her intentions.
Separate names with a comma.