"I think I made a mistake" ... 30 y/o Dies after Attending COVID-19 Party

Updated:   Published

Quote

A San Antonio doctor says a man in his 30s who thought the coronavirus was a “hoax” died from the disease after attending a COVID-19 party.

Dr. Jane Appleby, chief medical officer at San Antonio’s Methodist Hospital, says lately she’s been hearing about COVID-19 parties, which young people allegedly attend to see who gets infected first or who can survive the virus.

“One of the things that was heart-wrenching that he said to his nurse was, ‘You know, I think I made a mistake.'"

In its entirety: 'I think I made a mistake': Young man from Texas dies after attending COVID-19 party

It is imperative that we take all of this seriously.

1 hour ago, A Hit With The Ladies said:

Secondhand smoke? Alcohol abuse doesn't affect others around them?

I was thinking the same. Alcoholism is an enormous societal problem that often ruins the lives of family members of alcoholics just as it does the lives of alcoholics. Add to that drink-driving and alcohol related violence. Secondhand smoke has been shown to cause heart disease, lung cancer, severe respiratory problems, asthma, bronchitis, and more.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
3 hours ago, juniper222 said:

I think you are just avoiding the facts to deflect because it does not meet your tiny view of reality. Why? because Dr. Fouci is perfect and can see far into the future right?

You may think what you like. I don’t play with the poor logic of false dichotomies which is what you’ve paid out here. They’re a lateral step away from totally uncredible biased sources and not worth discussion.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, juniper222 said:

When Trump said we don't need to wear masks during that time it was because Dr. Fouci advised so

That’s completely untrue.

Fauci had already been Bolger his position on masks and was recommending them AND so was the CDC.

Trump literally said as much during the very press conference where he stated he would not wear one.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 7/13/2020 at 10:42 PM, A Hit With The Ladies said:

Yeah but those programs are directed at those who have a history of drunk driving or alcoholism, rather than anyone and everyone who dares to take a sip of beer, right?

(Re: programs and laws geared towards reducing drunk driving)

actually no. The laws apply to anyone who is participating in that act that has been deemed a threat to picking safety (drinking and driving.

The cops pulls someone over and determine that someone is drunk and has been driving. That someone is going to jail or is being carted off in an ambulance. The cops don’t ask if they have a history of alcoholic behavior or a prior history of drinking and driving. They take the guys keys.

by your logic, if the laws only apply to people who historically and pathologically participate in a behavior that’s high risk to others, they would find out if the person has a history of alcoholism. “You were speeding and weaving all over the road. I now see that you’re intoxicated. Since you don’t have a history of alcohol abuse, I’m goi long to not apply this law to you. What the heck, lemme but you a beer for the road. It’s legal for you!”

No. the law is applied to everyone, not just the ones disproportionately affected. Because public health and safety depend on it.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 7/13/2020 at 12:26 PM, umbdude said:

We do ban the act of drinking and driving, and there are numerous programs designed to intervene drunk driving as there are to heroin overdose and suicide.

Just because hundreds of thousands of people die naturally everyday doesn't mean we just sit and do nothing about preventable deaths.

I suppose it takes a very certain type of person to enjoy spending every day and night demagoguing and polemicizing a pandemic set to take out over a quarter of a million people in approximately 8 months.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care; Cardiac; Professional Development.

I think the difference is that Fauci has since explained his logic and, like the scientist he is, has changed his recommendations. Trump has NOT followed suit.

I have said from the beginning that the CDC should not have been making changes based on the availability of PPE and fears of scarcity. It should have stated what was BEST PRACTICE and then had steps of next best and so on, leaving space to account for shortages. This, however, would have frightened big business medicine that they will get sued by employees for putting them at risk. I believe lobbyists for large hospital and pharmaceutical corporations have quite the ear in Washington. Either way, Fauci seems to be acting in good faith. Donald Trump seems hell bent on winning and nothing else.

juniper (now handsoffmysteth), your posts are usually admirably intellectual. You know very well the sources you posted were opinion articles without any scientific basis or credibility. I would have expected better from you.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×

So very sad.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 7/17/2020 at 6:15 PM, HandsOffMySteth said:

@herring_RN

Of course, I too believe that we should wear masks. The reason I posted those stories is to show that Dr. Fouci has changed his advice from time to time. There are biased news sources all over the place, and many of them end up redacting stories because of outright lies. It is on both sides of the fence. It is very difficult to discredit a video of a person making certain claims, however. (although some have cut the videos short to keep in only what they wanted.)

When Trump said we don't need to wear masks during that time it was because Dr. Fouci advised so, and yet there are people who claim it is all Trump. Yes masks were in short supply at the time, however, for Dr. Fouci to say publicly that they were not going to help was not the proper course of action. Both Dr. Fouci and the Trump administration have made some mistakes, but that should be expected because we have never been in a situation like this before. After all, hindsight is 20/20 right? A surgical mask will not keep an airborne virus out, but it will help keep infected individuals from coughing it all over the place.

F A U C I....Fauci

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.
On 7/17/2020 at 7:30 PM, Susie2310 said:

I was thinking the same. Alcoholism is an enormous societal problem that often ruins the lives of family members of alcoholics just as it does the lives of alcoholics. Add to that drink-driving and alcohol related violence. Secondhand smoke has been shown to cause heart disease, lung cancer, severe respiratory problems, asthma, bronchitis, and more.

Which is why there are laws against drunk driving, alcohol-related violence, alcohol-related child neglect, etc. -- laws that the public accepts as appropriate laws. Also, smoking is against the law in many public places where the second-hand smoke would be harmful to others. That was the point of my earlier post.

People can sit at home alone and drink and smoke and drink and smoke all they want -- and that is legal. But at the point where it starts hurting others, the public accepts laws to curtail the bad behavior.

The public should accept similar laws about wearing a mask. At home, among family and friends, you can choose to wear of not wear a mask. But out in public, where you can be spreading your virus to others, you should accept rules/laws that prevent you from hurting others.

Finally ... on another track ... wearing masks will open up the economy sooner. The sooner we can get everyone taking appropriate precautions (such as masks), the sooner the level of infection will go down and business can open up more. Choosing to not wear a mask, forces businesses to stay closed, people to be laid off, etc.

7
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care; Cardiac; Professional Development.
21 minutes ago, llg said:

Which is why there are laws against drunk driving, alcohol-related violence, alcohol-related child neglect, etc. -- laws that the public accepts as appropriate laws. Also, smoking is against the law in many public places where the second-hand smoke would be harmful to others. That was the point of my earlier post.

People can sit at home alone and drink and smoke and drink and smoke all they want -- and that is legal. But at the point where it starts hurting others, the public accepts laws to curtail the bad behavior.

The public should accept similar laws about wearing a mask. At home, among family and friends, you can choose to wear of not wear a mask. But out in public, where you can be spreading your virus to others, you should accept rules/laws that prevent you from hurting others.

Finally ... on another track ... wearing masks will open up the economy sooner. The sooner we can get everyone taking appropriate precautions (such as masks), the sooner the level of infection will go down and business can open up more. Choosing to not wear a mask, forces businesses to stay closed, people to be laid off, etc.

Not to mention the enormous economical cost that is going to come home to roost in treating all the people who do get sick enough to need hospitalized care because of the undeterred spread from people refusing to perform basic maneuvers to minimize it. If people aren't willing to do those things for this particular illness, what will it be like when we have something like ebola or other such high percentage of illness, high death rate pandemic come on scene?

7
Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 7/12/2020 at 7:38 PM, A Hit With The Ladies said:

Did you know that thousands of Americans die annually from drunk driving accidents? Maybe we ought to go back to Prohibition times and ban alcoholic beverages!

Haha. Dude. You DO know that drinking and driving IS illegal, right? Try again.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
13 hours ago, Sydney2011 said:

Haha. Dude. You DO know that drinking and driving IS illegal, right? Try again.

Plus, if alcohol were ever to come up again for a vote, it would be handled as a schedule II drug now that we know how much it costs society:)

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion