Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 8 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday March 17 2020, @11:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the sudden-impact dept.

A lot has already happened this year. SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) which can cause COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019) has been making headlines shortly after it was first reported. The first cases were reported to WHO (World Health Organization) on 2019-12-31. The virus spread. It began as an epidemic in China . The world watched apprehensively. Reports surfaced of cases in other countries and the the apprehension grew. For many folk, it turned to fear when it was upgraded to a pandemic: WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020: "We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic."

We have seen increasing efforts to stem the spread of the disease. Efforts have run the gamut. Closing of borders. Cancellation of sporting events. Conferences cancelled. Churches and other places of worship also closed. Schools closed. Panic buying of household goods and supplies. Supply chain disruptions affecting manufacturers. Restaurant, bars, and other such establishments closed. Work-from-home policies established and enacted.

The changes have been many, widespread, and continuing.

Reading about all the ways that "other people" have been affected is one thing. It seems different, somehow, when it hits closer to home and affects us directly. With many of our usual social activities curtailed or cancelled, it is easy to begin isolating and lose perspective. SoylentNews arose from a troubled period (the SlashCott) and a community has formed from that challenging period.

How have you been affected? Have you been infected? Had a family member or friend who was? Helped neighbors who are struggling? Hunkering down and isolating? (In a basement is optional.) Are you suddenly working from home and finding it challenging to manage your time? Still working on site, but now have a faster commute due to all the other people staying home? Catching up on watching TV shows? Reading more SoylentNews? How has your life changed?

From a somewhat different perspective, how have others helped you to cope... and how have you been able to help others? One of the potential impacts of social distancing is isolation and depression. I count myself fortunate, indeed, to have served this site for over 6 years and for all the people I have gotten to know, here. For those who may not be aware, SoylentNews has its own IRC (Internet Relay Chat) server. Feel free to drop in to #Soylent and just say "Hi!"

Social distancing is permanent when you're dead. So, practice good hygiene and stay safe.

Previously (oldest first):
China Battles Coronavirus Outbreak: All the Latest Updates
2019-nCoV Coronavirus Story Roundup
Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Roundup
Coronavirus Roundup
Coronavirus Roundup (Feb. 17)
Roundup of Stories about the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus and COVID-19 Disease
COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 - CoronaVirus) Roundup
CoronaVirus (SARS-CoV-2) Roundup 2020-03-12
Working from Home: Lessons Learned Over 20 Years

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @06:53PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @06:53PM (#972407)

    Shhh, don't start a run on paper towels too!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @07:18PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @07:18PM (#972419)

    Did I forget to mention napkins?

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 17 2020, @10:54PM (12 children)

      by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday March 17 2020, @10:54PM (#972523) Journal

      also, tampons!
      Plug that hole, bud!

      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by barbara hudson on Tuesday March 17 2020, @11:48PM (11 children)

        by barbara hudson (6443) <> on Tuesday March 17 2020, @11:48PM (#972552) Journal
        More women are opting to avoid periods entirely []

        More women in their 20s and 30s are choosing contraception that may suppress their menstrual cycles, says Dr. Elizabeth Micks, who runs an OB-GYN clinic at the University of Washington in Seattle. "In general, I think views are changing really rapidly," Micks says. "That need to have regular periods is not just in our society anymore."

        With traditional birth control, a woman takes a hormone pill for 21 days to stop her cycle. Then she takes a sugar pill for a week, so she can have what looks like a period.

        But Micks says, physiologically this isn't a real period at all. And it isn't necessary. "There's absolutely no medical need to have a period when you're on contraception," she says.

        So why have women been having all these "fake" periods for decades? "It's actually a historical thing," she says.

        One of the doctors who helped invent the pill was Catholic. He thought the pope might accept the pill if it looked like women were having periods.

        But the Catholic church never came around to the pill. And when doctors actually asked women if they wanted to have these fake periods, many said they didn't.

        Today women have many options if they want to try to suppress their cycles. There's the hormonal IUD, an arm implant and a hormone shot. They can also take some types of birth control pills continuously.

        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday March 18 2020, @02:43AM (1 child)

          by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday March 18 2020, @02:43AM (#972608) Journal

          I just don't trust companies testing: too easy for them to hide/fudge things.
          I don't trust the pill: the original pill was found, finally, to cause Cancer, so they modified it (lowered the dose, I think). So then the new pill was safe until they found, finally, to cause Cancer in smokers, so they modified it (lowered the dose again?).

          But the NEW pill is SAFE!

          I just don't trust companies...or the government.

          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by barbara hudson on Wednesday March 18 2020, @03:11AM

            by barbara hudson (6443) <> on Wednesday March 18 2020, @03:11AM (#972617) Journal

            It wasn't cancer -it was embolisms for smokers . And it was not estrogen, but progesterone, that is the risk factor for cancers.

            Estrogen by itself is a real wonder drug. Now that we know the Women's Health Initiative study was hugely flawed (poor methodology, math errors, an unrepresentative cohort, and used horse estrogen with over 50 impurities in it that were grandfathered in under obsolete rules), as long as you're not a smoker, the rule is no longer "the lowest dose for the shortest time". It's "as much as you need for as long as you want."

            Real human estrogen has only been around since 1094, and it's taken a while to work its way into the system.

            Lowered risk of heart attack, better muscle tone, better balance because of better muscle tone (even without an increase in exercise), and other benefits. But it's going to take a generation of doctors dying to change attitudes.

            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @04:11AM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @04:11AM (#972639)

          The reality here is that there's no medically sound reason why women should be taking pills that screw with the hormones of their entire body to avoid getting pregnant. India has had a birth control pill for decades now that only affects the estrogen receptors needed to prevent pregnancy and none others.

          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by barbara hudson on Wednesday March 18 2020, @12:13PM (4 children)

            by barbara hudson (6443) <> on Wednesday March 18 2020, @12:13PM (#972727) Journal
            Ever heard of "my body, my choices "? Who are you to say that there is "no reason?" BTW, if anyone had asked me, I would have suggested they ask their doctor for only estrace or the generic equivalent if they're going to suppress periods. Same as HRT for menopause. Progestin has a cancer risk.
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @02:29PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @02:29PM (#972761)

              Yes, I have, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not medically sound to do that. People do a lot of things with and to their bodies that aren't medically sound. You've got those fat acceptance twats that say that it's a person's right to be hundreds of pounds over weight and for people to pretend like that's healthy. Yes, it's their right to be massively overweight, but that doesn't make it a medically sound thing to do and it doesn't mean that there aren't consequences.

              In this case, you're messing with the endocrine system on a body-wide basis. You'd have to be a great fool to think that there aren't going to be problems associated with doing so. The female body evolved to have fluctuating hormone levels, the male body as well for that matter, we've only been providing women with these pills for a few decades now. That's not a long time.

              The other thing is, how many of these women are really making these decisions based upon all available evidence? Few, if any, of them know that there are pills available in other countries that prevent pregnancy without all the side effects that are typical of the pills available in the US.

              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday March 19 2020, @04:45PM (2 children)

                by barbara hudson (6443) <> on Thursday March 19 2020, @04:45PM (#973239) Journal

                I spent some time thinking about this whole problem of you not going outside yesterday, and I noticed you complained that you didn't want to write from home because of distractions. That's understandable, but if those distractions are other people who are going in and out, unless you're locked in a separate room with a separate bathroom, and preparing and eating meals separately, you'd be better off getting out once in a while no matter what.

                Also, you mentioned that your daughter works as a nurse at the CLSC, and that she also is going out volunteering to help people. She's either been exposed or will be exposed, and shouldn't be doing that if it involves going into other people's homes. And she should keep away from you.

                However, half the population has underlying health conditions, across all age groups. Half the people who have diabetes or high blood pressure don't know it yet, but these are both risk factors, even for 20-somethings.

                I'm lucky in that I live alone with my two dogs. The place I volunteer at has gone way past the recommendations, and I approve. While the government says we can allow a certain number of clients in, we don't. We're in lockdown. Volunteers and staff only. Small numbers only. Hand sanitizer on entry and exit, latex gloves after sanitizing hands, keeping a distance from each other.

                Nobody is required by the government to stay in 24/7, despite what the web site seems to say. You can go out once in a while for exercise, as long as you keep your distance from other people and don't touch things that others might have touched (or carry hand sanitizer with you).

                Most of the population are going to get it no matter what, if the models are correct. One of the things that determines both severity and fatality is the initial viral dose load. People who have been in contact with many infected people come down with a much more severe case, and much higher death rates. So by practicing reasonable social isolation precautions, we can reduce the load when we finally get hit - we may not even notice it. That 80% who get a mild case include a huge chunk of the population who have underlying health conditions, and that includes those who don't even know they have underlying conditions.

                So what else can we do to reduce both severity and fatality rates? The #1 factor is whether you smoke or not. Don't smoke, and don't expose yourself to second-hand smoke or other lung irritants.

                As for estrogen, the default configuration for all fetuses is female. It's only when the SRY gene kicks and and causes testosterone to be released that you'll see visible sex differentiation. Estrogen improves health, causing the same healing properties for damaged muscle tissue that testosterone and other steroids, but with fewer side effects.

                Interesting fact - when men get older, their testosterone level drops, and their estrogen level rises, until it exceeds that of women the same age. As for menopause, it's as unnatural as blue eyes. Blue eyes are from a genetic mutation between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago in a single human. Menopause occurs in humans and two out of ~81 species of whales, and not many other mammals. It's far from the norm, as are the drastic drop in estrogen that comes with it.

                Women don't need to use birth control pills that contain progestins - estrace and generic variants have been around for almost 3 decades. Estrogen-only HRT works. It gives both a better quality of life and a longer life. Fewer strokes, fewer heart attacks, what's not to like? Unless you're a smoker, in which case you're fucked anyways, but your body, your choices.

                I'm not aware of any countries that ban the use of estrace and it's generic forms. Estrogen by itself can prevent pregnancy, and it's women who are talking to each other and demanding that their doctors end unnecessary periods. Kind of understandable when women experience more than 6 years "waving the red flag."

                If males had the same problem, this would have been attended to long ago. Same as if men got pregnant, the morning-after pill would be available at the local beer store along with a case of 24 and a pizza.

                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2020, @07:47PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2020, @07:47PM (#973280)

                  Most of that doesn't seem relevant to my post. The active ingredient is Ormeloxifene, here's a link to an article, [] .

                  It's one thing to take hormones in order to bring out of control hormonal fluctuations under control and another to try and completely eliminate them because they're inconvenient. Men also have hormonal fluctuations, it's just not as sever and even there, I'd be hesitant to try and eliminate them as we don't entirely understand the consequences of messing with such a complicated system.

                  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by barbara hudson on Thursday March 19 2020, @11:10PM

                    by barbara hudson (6443) <> on Thursday March 19 2020, @11:10PM (#973334) Journal

                    We're not talking birth control here - we're talking ceasing having periods completely, not causing a failure for a fertilized ovum to implant in the uterus. So birth control pills aren't really relevant.

                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 19 2020, @12:24AM (1 child)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday March 19 2020, @12:24AM (#972991) Journal

            Please do expand on this. It's not of direct interest to me for obvious reasons but still sounds like something this country should be getting in on.

            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2020, @07:44PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2020, @07:44PM (#973279)

              Here's a link to a short article on it. []

              The main reason we don't have it is that women aren't demanding that they be given better options. And, in some cases, they're taking the pills because of the side effects on their bodies. The pills have been in use for nearly 30 years now and any problems with them are pretty well understood.

              Personally, this also doesn't directly affect me as I'm a man and my wife and I are old enough that there isn't such a thing as an unwanted pregnancy for us. Once we've had one or two, I'll likely get snipped, or more likely, we'll be old enough that we won't even be able to have more .

          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday March 20 2020, @12:00AM

            by barbara hudson (6443) <> on Friday March 20 2020, @12:00AM (#973344) Journal
            This is for avoiding periods entirely [], not birth control. There is no medical benefit to having a period, and periods increase risks of everything from anemia to ... well, just read the article.

            With recent confirmation that periods have no health benefit, an increasing number of women are using contraception to stop them altogether

            Some women say we should celebrate our periods, but others feel trapped in a cycle that can be unpredictable, inconvenient and unpleasant.

            For some, it is about bringing an end to debilitating pain or dark thoughts. For others, it is as simple as being liberated from the sinking realisation that you need a tampon – but you left them in your other handbag.

            When a new wave of feminist authors and activists are calling on women to embrace their periods, the idea that some do not want a monthly bleed and are seeking to avoid having them altogether can seem radical.

            The technology is there, in contraceptives. They don’t only prevent pregnancy. A recent drop in tampon sales has been linked to women using contraceptive methods that stop, or lighten their periods. About a fifth of women using the contraceptive implant no longer bleed (myself included), while many who take contraceptive pills without a break often achieve the same result – and they are not the only methods.

            The impact can be life-changing. “I started taking the mini-pill purely for the fact it would stop my periods,” says Jaimi Kendall, 25, from Exeter. “For years, I had extremely heavy periods that would drag on for eight weeks or so and left me severely anaemic to the point where I started experiencing pulsatile tinnitus. Not having periods any more is a blessing.”

            She is not alone. Catriona Clarke, 25, from Cambridge, was thrilled when she realised she could stop having periods thanks to her contraceptive pills. “My periods weren’t even that bad,” she says, “just uncomfortable and a mess. And, given how expensive period products can be, an expensive mess.”

            Let’s be clear: removing stigma around a normal bodily function should be celebrated. Proposals to end the tampon tax, distribution of free sanitary products, better education for boys as well as girls, and the introduction of menstrual leave are all positive moves towards ensuring women are not held back by their periods. But seeing them as a fundamental part of the body’s rhythm – something to be endured, or even celebrated each month (the author Maisie Hill writes in her book Period Power of embracing their natural high) – is only one side of the story. The other is a tale of pain, bloating, bad skin and mood swings. Many women feel trapped in a cycle that can be unpredictable, inconvenient and unpleasant.

            Menstruation is the process by which the body sheds the lining of the uterus and unfertilised egg, triggered by fluctuating levels of the hormones oestrogen and progesterone. Not having periods does not create a “backlog”, nor are they necessary to “cleanse the body”. Menstruation can, however, exacerbate incapacitating physical or mental health problems including endometriosis and depression; it can also be distressing or problematic for people with gender dysphoria. According to a recent survey of 7,500 women by Public Health England, half those aged 16-64 reported menstrual issues in the last year, rising to 75% of those aged 16-24.

            Dr Jane Thomas, a consultant gynaecologist at Homerton university hospital in London, says that having so many periods is a modern phenomenon: historically, women would spend much of their time pregnant or breastfeeding (which can delay the return of periods). “It would be a minority of people who had a couple of children only and menstruated all the way through their lives.”

            So, if women do not want a period, is there a medical reason that they should? Many may be surprised to learn that the short answer is: no.

            While Thomas notes that regular periods are an indicator of good health, Dr Anne Connolly, the clinical lead for Women’s Health for the Royal College of GPs, says there is no health benefit to them: “Ninety-nine per cent of women don’t need to bleed.”

            Judith Stephenson, the Margaret Pyke professor of sexual and reproductive health at University College London, says the same. “In some ways, it seems like one of God’s great design faults … It is not helpful to have these periods – in fact, if you don’t have them, one of the biggest benefits would be reducing iron deficiency anaemia.”

            The option not to have periods is rooted in hormonal contraceptives, which use synthetic versions of oestrogen and progesterone to interfere with the menstrual cycle. This prevents pregnancy (meaning the decision to stop bleeding is not compatible with trying for a baby), sometimes with other effects – including lightening bleeding or stopping it altogether. Many new forms of contraception – including the contraceptive implant and injection, intrauterine system (the hormonal coil) and the progestogen-only “mini” pill – are designed to be taken continuously, meaning many users can safely go months or years without any bleeding.

            The benefits can be myriad, from saving money to mitigating health problems, including polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), in which there is a risk of problematic cells building up in the lining of the womb. While regular natural periods prevent this buildup, and thus can be beneficial for the condition, so too are hormonal contraceptives (even if they stop periods), because they keep the lining of the womb thin.

            The idea that bleeding is necessary has been fuelled by decades of advice that women on the combined pill should take a break for one week a month. This results in a withdrawal bleed, or “fake” period (which is why the combined pill is often referred to, somewhat misleadingly, as “regulating” periods). Some claim that this was contrived by the pill’s inventors to make it acceptable to the Catholic church; others argue it was chiefly a practice to reassure women that they were not pregnant and to give them a break from the high doses of hormones.

            Many new forms of contraceptive pill are designed to be taken continuously without any monthly break.

            Experts say women today take this seven-day break as a hangover from earlier practice, even as the makeup and dose of the combined pill has changed over time. When, in January, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) updated its guidelines to make it clear there were no health benefits to taking the break, many women felt they had been cheated into having a monthly bleed.

            Thomas says doctors have known for years that the combined pill could be taken without a break, but many women I spoke to said that they had no idea until they read of the change in guidelines. For 27-year-old Cinzia DuBois, from Edinburgh, the impact was huge. When she was forced to take a gap in her pill, the week before and after her bleed would often leave her feeling suicidal. “I’ve attempted to kill myself four times, so it’s not a light matter,” she says. “Having to go through this every month was exhausting for both myself and my partner.” Since she stopped taking a break in her pill, “I haven’t had a single suicidal episode and have found my spells of depression much less frequent than they were and not as extreme,” she says.

            For the more than 3 million women who take the combined pill in England, the FSRH announcement made no monthly bleed a possibility. But not everyone is comfortable with that idea, or of ditching natural periods. Holly Grigg-Spall, the author of Sweetening the Pill: Or How We Got Hooked On Hormonal Birth Control, says that while she understands why some women might choose not to bleed, there is limited research on the long-term impact of continuously taking the combined pill. Telling women they can stop their periods without giving them all the information could reinforce taboos around bleeding, she says. “It is really just an exaggerated form of saying to women keep your periods quiet, hide them, be secret about them, don’t talk about them, don’t show your tampon when you walk to the bathroom, your boyfriend doesn’t want to know about your periods.”

            Some have also raised concerns that bleeding is a sign that a woman has not conceived. But Thomas is clear that the only way to be sure you are not pregnant is a pregnancy test: “You can definitely bleed and be pregnant. So having a period or withdrawal bleed from the pill isn’t a guarantee.” Experts also stress that stopping periods won’t affect future fertility. “When you stop taking the hormones, they get flushed out of your system very quickly, and your periods will return to what they were before you started taking the pill,” says Connolly.

            It is, however, easier to reliably stop bleeding with some contraceptives than with others. The majority of women taking methods that contain synthetic versions of both oestrogen and progesterone can achieve that outcome, but it is less predictable for some methods containing synthetic progesterone only. Some women experience bleeding that is regular, irregular or prolonged (albeit often light); it differs between methods. About 20% of women on the contraceptive implant no longer bleed, compared with 68% on the injection at two years of use. Advertisement

            Some women may also prefer not to use hormonal contraceptives, as they can bring unwanted side-effects such as fluctuations in weight and mood. Some methods can also slightly raise the risk of certain cancers, including breast cancer (although they reduce the risk of others, including womb cancer).

            Thomas agrees that more research is needed into the long-term effects of taking hormonal contraception. However, she and other experts say there should be greater awareness of the benefits of contraceptives beyond preventing pregnancy, from tackling acne to alleviating premenstrual symptoms.

            Stephenson says the option of having periods is naturally addressed in consultations about contraception choices, but should be talked about more widely. “It is absolutely a sensible discussion in its own right,” she says. Earlier this year, she co-launched, a website that recommends contraceptive options to women on the basis of what they say matters to them – including whether they want to have periods.

            Some do, some don’t, each for a variety of reasons. But perhaps the most empowering approach for all women is simple: to let them choose for themselves. Sophie, 24, from Glasgow, no longer bleeds thanks to the contraceptive implant, and says it has made a huge difference to her mental health – she couldn’t be happier. “Just because something is natural, I don’t think it in any way means we should have to go through it,” she says. “Different things suit different people, and that’s fantastic.”

            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.