Post #895: A few words on room humidifiers

Source:  That well-known font of medical knowledge, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.  This is from the 2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment (SI), Chapter 22:  Humidifiers.

I started to look up the standards, if any, for room humidifiers, and stumbled across the graph above in, of all places the AHSRAE HVAC engineering standards manual.  I thought that was such an odd coincidence, given my last post, that it deserved special mention here.  HVAC engineers start their discussion of calculations for humidifiers by summarizing the significant health implications of maintaining proper indoor humidity.  The impact of humidity on flu mortality was demonstrated experimentally, thirty years ago, on mice.  And, sure enough, 40% to 60% is the zone that prevented the most flu deaths.

And now, a few words on room humidifiers:

I hate them.  All types of them.  Each in their own separate way.

If you already own and use a humidifier or two, the opinions in this posting are probably irrelevant.  Either you’re satisfied with what you have, or you aren’t.  But if you’ve never bought a humidifier before, you might find a useful tip or two here. Let me get you oriented.

1:  There are no standards, so buy big.

2:  The humidifier is an appliance that increases household work.

3:  Noisy, dusty, stinky, and/or expensive:  Pick one or more.

Think of all the worst properties of every appliance you’ve ever had, and they come together in the average room humidifier.  There are no standards.  They are built as cheaply as they can possibly be built.  You fill them by hand, in any of several awkward ways, frequently.  In some cases, you need to clean them frequently, again by hand.  Some require using distilled water, others require you to dump poison in the water.  Replacement items are expensive.  And so on.

Over the years, I’ve tried more-or-less every type of humidifier there is.  I have grudgingly settled on a fixed-pad evaporative humidifier with use of bacteriostat (bacteria-suppressing solution).  In particular, my go-to humidifier is this one.   For reasons that I’ll eventually get to in this posting.

 


1:  There are no standards, so buy big.

Pretty much every humidifier on the market will tell you how many square feet it is capable of humidifying.  And if you think about that for even thirty seconds, you’ll realize that, whatever that number is, it’s not well-defined.

  • What outdoor temperature and humidity do they assume?
  • What ceiling height do they assume?
  • How leaky or tight is the construction being humidified?
  • What level of indoor relative humidity do they guarantee?
  • Is that the max output — do you have to run it on high all the time to get that?

And so on.  Let’s face it.  Something that will effectively humidify 1000 square feet of housing in Virginia is going to be inadequate for 1000 square feet in Bismark or Cheyenne.  So that one-size-fits-all rating has to be taken with a grain of salt.

If you look at an actual engineering discussion of humidifiers (as in the ASHRAE manual), you soon realize that the whole subject is pretty tricky.   It’s all about the amount of water that you need to put in the air, per hour, to maintain humidity.  And that’s affected by lots of factors and lots of limits.

Just to give one example, in colder climates, the type of window glazing sets an upper limit on how well you can humidify an indoor space.  Set the humidity too high, and the water simply condenses on the insides of the windows.  If it’s freezing out (32F), and you have single-glazed windows, you’ll get condensation on the windows if you try to maintain anything above 30% relative humidity.

Arguably, the single largest contributor to your humidification load is the number of air changes per hour for your home.  The air in your home is being continuously replaced with outside air.  The current US standard is that all the air in your home should be replaced at least once every three hours.  Most modern building codes aim for roughly one change every two hours.  A typical value for an older home would be one air change per hour.

If you have an older home, the upshot is that you need to re-humidify the entire air volume of your home, once per hour.  In a more modern home, that might be once per two hours, or even three hours.

Let me now do a little calculation to show you just how much water that might entail, in the dead of winter, in this area.  In January, in Washington DC, the average outdoor air temperature is 36F and the average relative humidity is about 61% (per this source).  Let’s say you have an older home, 3000 square feet, with 8′ ceilings.  And, finally, you want to maintain 40% relative humidity inside your home, at 68F.

Under those assumptions, you need to put 0.75 gallons of water, per hour, into the air.  Or 18 gallons per day.  Just to overcome that one air change per hour.  This doesn’t count moisture that literally escapes through the walls of your house.  But it also doesn’t count the modest amount of moisture added to the house by cooking, showers, and so on.

If you have a tightly-constructed modern home, you’d need far less.  Or a smaller home.  But if you have a bigger, older house, of the type described here, you need somewhere around that 18 gallons of water per day to maintain 40% relative humidity in the dead of winter.

You’d need four or five of  my go-to humidifier, running at top speed (four gallons/day), all day long, to maintain 40% relative humidity.  (Whereas, if I went by the rating on the box, I’d only need three. And I want to avoid running at top speed, due to the noise.)

The upshot of that is:  Think big, and buy a hygrometer (humidity meter) or two.  If you’re planing to humidify your entire house, buy somewhat more humidification capacity than you think you’ll need.  You can always turn the humidifiers down to a lower speed, if you don’t need that capacity.  But you will be surprised how frequently you will exceed your humidification capacity in the dead of winter.

It is possible to over-humidify a home.  Particularly if you have a modern, well-sealed home.  But if you live in an older home, over-humidification is tough to achieve unless you really go overboard.


2:  The humidifier is an appliance that increases household work.

I don’t need to belabor this, I think.  In the example above, that theoretical 3000 square foot older house needed 18 gallons of water per day.  That you, the homeowner would have to carry to the humidifier.  That’s 150 pounds of water, per day, carried by hand.  Inside your house.  Every winter day.

That gets really old, really fast.  Needless to say, Rule #1 is to locate any large humidifier near a source of water.

The only other thing to mention is routine cleaning.  If you have an evaporative humidifier, at a minimum, even if you put chemicals (“bacteriostat”) into the water, you have to inspect it weekly.  And take it apart and clean it every couple of weeks or so.  Maybe soak the evaporative pads to remove the mineral buildup.  And so on.

Just understand that it’s not like your other appliances.  Your other appliances, they reduce the amount of work you do.  Humidifiers increase it.


3:  Noisy, dusty, stinky, and/or expensive:  Pick one.

There’s no such thing as an inexpensive low-maintenance humidifier.  At least, not that I’ve come across, for humidifying a large area.

Cool mist humidifiers break water up into tiny droplets using ultrasound or some mechanical (“disk”) means.  They are quiet and reasonably energy efficient.  In my experience, they rarely have problems with mold or bacteria.

But 1:  But you’ll probably want to use distilled water.  And that’s expensive.  And environmentally unfriendly, for the energy required to produce and ship distilled water.  If you break down and use tap water, they produce mineral dust.  This is not just unsightly, it’s arguably bad for your lungs.  Some units have “de-mineralization” systems, allowing you to avoid distilled water, but I question the effectiveness of those.

But 2:  They are typically small, single-room units capable of producing no more than a gallon per day.  So if you’re of a mind to humidify your whole house, count the number of these you’ll need before you buy.  And every one of them will need to have the water reservoir filled periodically.

But 3:  In my experience, the interlock mechanism that keeps the water in the reservoir is tricky, fragile, and effectively impossible to replace.  It’s typically a spring-loaded contraption with plastic parts, and so is destined for the landfill one way or the other.

Warm mist (a.k.a.) steam humidifiers simply boil water.  They are quiet and you can typically use tap water.

But 1:  They are not energy-efficient.  You are literally using an electric resistance heating element to boil water, which is the least efficient and most carbon-intensive heat source you could choose.

Just as an example, boiling 18 gallons of water requires about 45 KWH of electricity/day, which would work out to about $200/month at $0.15/KWH.

(I could use an extras-for-experts here, because all the other humidifiers also use heat, but indirectly.  “Cool mist” isn’t a feature of the ultrasonic humidifiers, it’s an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect.  Without getting into the physics of sensible versus latent heat, cool mist (and evaporative) humidifiers more-or-less suck heat out of the air.  They require your heating system to work harder to maintain a given temperature.  Whereas warm mist humidifiers put that heat directly into the water at the outset.  So it’s not that warm mist humidifiers are inefficient because they require heat input.  They’re inefficient because they use a particularly inefficient heat source (resistance electric heat) for that heat input.)

But 2:  As with cool mist humidifiers, you’d be hard-pressed to find one capable of humidifying more than one small room.  So, as with cool mist, you’re going to need a lot of these if you’re going to humidify a house.

But 3:  As with cool-mist humidifiers, the interlock mechanism that keeps the water in the reservoir is tricky, fragile, and effectively impossible to replace.  The only exception is “baby humidifiers” where the electric unit just inserts into the top of the reservoir.

Evaporative humidifiers simply blow air over wet pad.  The air picks up moisture from the pad.  Some of them (“console” humidifiers) might have that pad in the form of a moving belt that dips down into a water reservoir.  Others have the pads fixed in place.  Some have to be filled (e.g.) by carrying pitchers of water to them.  Others have detachable reservoirs that can be filled at the sink, similar to cool mist and warm mist humidifiers.  You can use tap water with these humidifiers.  These are made in large sizes capable of humidifying several rooms.

But 1:  The use of a fan makes these noisy, particularly on their highest settings.  I’ve never had one that I would call “quiet”.

But 2:  These are prone to mold and bacteria problems.  You (IMHO) MUST use chemicals (“bacteriostat”) in the water reservoir to suppress mold.  You MUST inspect the pads weekly for any sign of growth.  You typically have to replace the pads at least once per heating season, at a cost of a few tens of dollars.  Barring that, you may need to take them out and soak them once per season to remove mineral build-up.  And it’s not a bad idea to empty these out and scrub the interior at least once per heating season, just to be on the safe side.


Summary:  What I use, and why.

Source:  Amazon.

I use the simplest, high-volume evaporative humidifier that I have found.  Because:

a)  I’m too cheap to buy massive quantities of distilled water.  That, and the size of the space to be humidified rules out cool mist humidifiers.

b) The inefficiency of resistance electric heat, and the small size of warm mist humidifiers, rule them out.

So I’m left with evaporative humidifiers.  The lesser of three evils.

The model I prefer has a few nice features.

First, few moving parts.  In particular, it has removable reservoirs for re-filling, but they have no mechanical seal mechanism.  Instead, they just sit on the humidifier the way a water jug sits on a water cooler.  And you “flip” them into place the same way you would put a jug onto a water cooler. It’s one of those bulletproof systems that is clever for its lack of cleverness.

Second, if forces you to look at the evaporative pads every time you refill the reservoirs.  So you can’t accidentally overlook mold growth, or skip required cleanings.  The pads are right where you can see them, all the time.

Third, all the electronics simply lift off, which makes it easy to scrub down the plastic base and sides.

When it comes to humidifiers, they are all made just as cheaply as they can be made.  In that situation, the less there is to them, the more robust they’ll be.  This is the least humidifier I could buy that gets the job done for me.

Post #894: Why is flu seasonal? Humidity and COVID-19 spread, final version

Source:  Graph from blog.sas.com, original data from CDC Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality Surveillance.

Source:  Potential impact of seasonal forcing on a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20224 Publication Date: 16.03.2020 Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20224 Neher Richard A., Dyrdak Robert, Druelle Valentin, Hodcroft Emma B. Albert J.

This is a followup to Post #879 and Post #880.  It is, in fact, little more than an expansion of the literature review for Post #879.

Continue reading Post #894: Why is flu seasonal? Humidity and COVID-19 spread, final version

Post #893: Iowa governor implements mask mandate, and she did it before Iowa hospitals ran out of beds.

This morning I see that the Governor of Iowa has issued a mask mandate.  After some research, I found one thing about this change that is absolutely exceptional.  She did this, as far as I can tell, even though Iowa has not yet run out of hospital or ICU beds. 

That makes the governor of Iowa exceptionally forward-thinking relative to her Republican peers (see Post #890), for whom the norm is to act only when their hospital system has reached capacity.  For example, we have yet to see movement toward a mask mandate in South Dakota, which has far higher new infection rates than Iowa, and appears to have a similar level of slack in their hospital system at the moment.

But otherwise, the Iowa mask mandate fits the standard pattern for Republican governors (with apologies to cousin Larry).  Let’s see that this ticks all the boxes.

Freely and publicly disparaged mask used within the past month.  Check.  The governor of Iowa apparently called face masks a “feel good measure”.

All of that history goes down the memory hole, with no mention of it, let alone any apology for it.  Check.

Grudgingly implemented a weak mask order.  Check.  This one applies if you are indoors and will be at less-than-six-foot-distance from others for 15 minutes or more.  So, it doesn’t really apply to (e.g.) just going to the store, I guess.  And more-or-less any venue that can maintain six-foot distancing remains open.

Limited duration, as if this is all going to be over in a couple of weeks.  Check.  This one lasts just over three weeks, to December 10.  That’s the shortest I’ve seen so far.  And the clearest exercise in wishful thinking.

No means of enforcement.  Check.  Near as I can tell, the only entity mentioned was the Iowa Department of Public Health.  So, as with Virginia’s initial mask mandates, any enforcement would be on establishments (such as bars), not individuals.  For sure, there is no mention of penalties or fines for failure to comply.

Exempted any sort of religious service.  Check.

Included all the usual suspects such as closing restaurants and bars early, limiting the number of people in gatherings, and so on.  Check.

In a novel twist, high school and college sports are exempted.  In fact, pretty much every activity you can think of may continue, as long as people are six feet apart.

Those points are based on reporting in today’s Washington Post and a local Iowa news agency., as well as the proclamation itself.  You can read that here (.pdf).

As crazy as this sounds, I just don’t think they’re taking this very seriously yet.  What stands out clearly is the total lack of acknowledgement that aerosol spread might occur.  For example, you can still go to the gym and (e.g.) work out on a treadmill, so long as your treadmill is at least six feet away from the next one.

I mean, I guess this is better than nothing.  But if I were to follow those rules, here, I’d never wear a mask anywhere.  I can get all my shopping done without standing within six feet of another customer for 15 minutes or more.  Near as I can tell, in Virginia, these rules would amount to not having a mask mandate.  Add in a high level of non-compliance with what little restrictions this embodies, and it’s hard to imagine this could have much material effect.

And so, you come back to the question of what it will take, to make these folks take this seriously.  If ever.  And I come back to the same answer:  Bodies stacked in refrigerated trailers (Post #888).  So for the time being, all I can do is keep an eye out for the first failure of that criterion.

In the meantime, I guess I need to write up the relationship between humidity and flu season in temperate climates.  Again.  Because it sure seems like either all of the modern scholarly literature is wrong, or people are just plain ignoring what’s in front of their faces:  Low humidity + low mask use is now a recipe for disaster.  A public policy encouraging humidifier use (shooting for minimum 40% relative humidity indoors) might be as effective as a mask policy.  Particularly if Iowa is an example of the sort of mask policy that we can expect to see in the coming weeks.

Post #892: Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine appears effective.

Today Moderna announced that its COVID-19 vaccine is 94.5 percent effective.  As with the Pfizer announcement earlier, it’s hard to tell exactly what that means.  But, based on the article cited just above, it appears to be 95% effective in preventing disease severe enough that the infected person sought medical treatment and was tested and found to have COVID-19.

This is based on a total of five COVID-19 cases diagnosed among persons vaccinated, versus 90 among the placebo (non-vaccinated) group in their clinical trial.

Up to now, no information suggested that the Moderna vaccine would be this effective.  And, certainly, their lack of track record (at ever having produced a successful vaccine) did not bode well for success.  Accordingly, I had assumed that Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine would be just as (un) successful as all their prior attempts at making a vaccine.

I was wrong.

That said, I am still puzzling over an event that occurred two months ago. 

Two months ago, we got news that (some) vaccine sponsored by the US had just 70% immunogenicity.  See Post #815, dated September 16, 2020.  That is, just 70% of persons treated with the vaccine produced the appropriate antibodies against COVID-19.  That would have set an upper limit on effectiveness of no more than 70%, and set a likely effectiveness of (perhaps) 55%.

This was the episode in which the director of the CDC talked, on camera, about masks providing better protection against COVID-19 than a vaccine.  That was when he announced the 70% immunogenicity of (whatever) vaccine he was referring to.

The common assumption was that this was the Moderna vaccine.  I.e., both the Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer vaccines had published their immunogenicity data months earlier, per Post #827, and showed virtually 100% immunogenicity.)

Now that I look a little harder, I have no clue what the CDC director could possibly have been talking about.  By the date of that news conference, Moderna had also published its immungenicity data and showed high immunogenicity of its vaccine.

In any event, these results are not coming from the manufacturers, but from the Federal panel chosen to oversee the clinical trials.  So, absent some wacky conspiracy theory, we have to take them at face value.  Whatever-it-was that the CDC director was discussing two months ago is now just an odd and unexplained footnote.   As was the fairly common expectation among infectious disease professionals that the COVID-19 vaccines would be far less effective than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines appear to be.

As a final footnote, you cannot compare the effectiveness of these vaccines, as stated, with the effectiveness of the seasonal flu vaccine.  The COVID-19 research is using a different measure than the flu vaccine research.  For flu, they count as failures all persons with any evidence of infection with flu at any point, based on antibodies found in their blood.  The “ineffective” flu cases include a significant fraction of individuals who were never sick with flu, and were only known after-the-fact to have been infected with flu, based on a blood test.  By contrast, the COVID-19 results appears to be based on counts of individuals who had symptoms severe enough to prompt them to seek medical treatment, and then to get tested for COVID-19.  Asymptomatic infections are never counted.  Because of that, the effectiveness measures for the COVID-19 vaccines will appear higher than the effectiveness numbers for the seasonal flu vaccine.

Post #890: North Dakota acts, using the now-standard playbook.

My last two posts were about the situation in the Dakotas (and much of the upper Midwest), where some governors simply would not take significant actions to reduce spread of COVID-19.

For North Dakota, infections were spreading so fast that (by my estimate) they were going to achieve herd immunity (70% of the population having been infected) by the end of the year.  Merely by keeping up the current rate of infection.  (See just-prior post.)

That seemed like a wonderful natural experiment, and I applauded the people of North Dakota for leading the way.  They would be able to show the entire world just exactly how a policy of “let ‘er rip” (a.k.a. rapid transition to herd immunity) would work out.

Sacrifice in the pursuit of knowledge is a noble thing.  As long as it’s somebody else’s sacrifice.

But, unfortunately, instead of pursuing this natural experiment to its conclusion, they’ve decided to follow the standard Republican-state drill.  (Apologies to sane Republicans like cousin Larry.)  Which is:  Take no significant actions until hospitals are full.  And then, once the hospitals are full, like clockwork, they put all prior rhetoric down the memory hole and start doing what public health experts recommend.

And that’s what happened yesterday in North Dakota.  The Governor of North Dakota announced a mask mandate.  It only runs for one month.   It exempts religious services.  As with Virginia’s mask mandate, there is potentially a stiff fine for non-compliance, but no specified means of enforcement.  (See Post #881).

And it fits the pattern, emphasis mine:

"The order, signed by interim State Health Officer Dirk Wilke, takes effect immediately and runs through Dec. 13. It is intended to help alleviate hospitals overwhelmed by virus patients, a news release from the governor said.

“Our doctors and nurses heroically working on the front lines need our help, and they need it now," Burgum, a Republican, said in a video message announcing the measures.

Source:  Fox News

Per the Washington Post, North Dakota was down to its last nine staffed ICU beds. 

The order does more than just mandate mask use.  It follows the now-standard set of tools for containing spread, including reduced hours and capacity limits for restaurants and bars, and curtailment of extracurricular activities (including) sports at schools.  So it is, in fact, a near-textbook example of following existing public health guidelines for COVID-19 containment.

The exemption of churches may or may not be due to legal issues.  Purely from a public health standpoint, it makes no sense, as churches have been significant sources of super-spreader events throughout this pandemic (see Post #679).  For this and other reasons, some experts place church services just below bars for riskiness (see Post #811, qualitative ranking of COVID-19 transmission risk).  Presumably churches in ND have the good sense to curtail singing (Post #708), even if they don’t have the sense to require masks themselves.


Now a bit of realpolitik:  A policy triggered by hospital capacity limits is simply CYA.

First, we need to admit that the standard Republican-state strategy toward COVID-19 is to get serious only after the hospitals are full.  That has been revealed so often that this clearly should be treated as an explicit policyIt’s not some frequently-repeated accident.  It’s the way health care policy actually functions in most Republican-run states.

So let’s just say that, out loud, and walk it around a bit, to see how it functions, as a policy.

“I propose a policy of containing COVID-19 by imposing mask mandates and other mandatory measures based solely on hospital capacity.  The policy rule is to impose such measures only after hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients, and the state is running out of ICU beds.”

Is that a good policy?  Does it minimize total economic or health damage from COVID-19?

I’m pretty sure that it does not minimize damage from COVID-19.  State hospital capacity is arbitrary, in the sense that hospitals and ICU beds weren’t built for the purpose of treating COVID-19.  The capacity that a state has is an artifact of total disease burden plus propensity-to-hospitalize within a state.

In other words, the trigger point for this policy has no logical relationship to COVID-19 whatsoever.

So what is this policy?  It’s C-Y-A, pure and simple.  It’s a way for Republican governors to say “it’s out of my hands”.  It’s a way for them to remain true to political principles, and let external events force their hand.  As such, it should be self-evident that this policy has nothing to do with any rational cost-benefit analysis.  It’s just a way to avoid having to take the blame for making a tough-but-needed decision.

It’s clearly not a policy that has been optimized with some forethought.  It’s clearly not even a good policy.  It’s just a way for Republican governors to maintain political correctness within their own orthodoxy and keep their hands clean.

And, to my next point, this approach of allowing hospital capacity to dictate timing of COVID-19 policy interventions should almost certainly lead to higher spikes in infection rates.  That, compared to a policy that (e.g.) imposing mandates and other measures in a more measured and continuous fashion.


But maybe this time it’s different.

Seasonality of human coronaviruses (other than COVID-19) in Stockholm, Sweden.  Source:

Potential impact of seasonal forcing on a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20224 Publication Date: 16.03.2020 Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20224 Neher Richard A., Dyrdak Robert, Druelle Valentin, Hodcroft Emma B. Albert J.

But this time, maybe that wait-until-the-hospitals-are-full policy is going to come back and bite them.  Maybe the experience of US Midwest states this winter will be qualitatively different from that of (e.g.) US Southern states this summer.  Maybe it’ll look like the green line above. 

Maybe this time you can’t stop it with a weak mask mandate and eliminating school sports for a month.  Maybe this time the factors that drive up the green line above are alive and well and working their magic in the upper Midwest.

I’ll say it one more time.  The reason for seasonality of flu in temperate climates is low humidity.  The lower the humidity, the more easily respiratory  viruses spread.  In the lab, COVID-19 shows the same attributes that make flu seasonal, including longer airborne survival times in dry air.  Areas with cold, arid winters and poor COVID-19 public hygiene are in for a very rough ride. And that pretty much describes the high plains states and the eastern slope of the Rockies.

So I suspect that, in this case, the standard Republican strategy of “wait until the hospital are full” is going to turn out to be an exceptionally poor one.  And we’ll know that the first time we see stories of bodies in reefers (Post #888).  Better late than never, and all that.  But better still not to be late.

I have never been so glad to that Virginia has a tradition of reasonably sane state government  And it’s a great time to have an M.D. for governor.

Post #889: The upside of the current COVID situation in the Dakotas: Herd immunity by New Year’s Day.

I’m the sort of guy who knows, deep in my heart, that behind every silver lining, there’s a dark cloud.  I’m going outside my comfort zone now to point out one clear upside to the high new COVID-19 infection rate in the Dakotas.  If they keep this up, they’ll be the first state in the US to achieve herd immunity, and they’ll plausibly do that before the end of the year.

Continue reading Post #889: The upside of the current COVID situation in the Dakotas: Herd immunity by New Year’s Day.

Post #888: Will we fail the reefer test?

Source:  Isaacs and Isaacs . com

Reefer being the common term for refrigerated trailer or truck of any sort.

 

 

I was going to be flip about this.  Maybe patch in a relevant clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  But in the end, it’s just not a subject that lends itself to levity.

This post refers back to Post #862, from early October.  The question then was whether we’d finally start seeing bodies stacked in refrigerated trucks, for lack of morgue space, in the Dakotas. 

I’ll call that the “reefer test”, because if we see that, we surely will be judged to have failed, about as badly as possible, in dealing with this pandemic.  Continue reading Post #888: Will we fail the reefer test?

Post #885: Catching up on recent events

 

For the first nine days of November, I took a break from posting.  This is my recap of highlights from that period.  In order:

  • Halloween went well
  • The Pfizer vaccine is going well.
  • The President is, well, going.  Maybe.
  • Pandemic is still going strong.
  • I will humidify my house well, and suggest you do the same.
  • College educations are still going on. Continue reading Post #885: Catching up on recent events

Post #884: Preparing for a hard winter, 8: A note on closed-loop and open-loop gift cards

It’s no secret that a lot of retail businesses along Maple Avenue are hurting right now. Along with small retail businesses in the rest of America.

Gift cards are frequently mentioned as a way to help your local merchants.  Buy some now, and cash them in later, and you’ve put some much-needed money into the hands of your local businesses.

Well, not so fast.  Turns out, there are two different types of gift cards.  Some of them do, in fact, put the money in the merchant’s hands.  Others don’t.  And you should be aware of this before you buy. Continue reading Post #884: Preparing for a hard winter, 8: A note on closed-loop and open-loop gift cards

Post #883: Why isn’t North Dakota running out of hospital beds?

The answer is both straightforward, and strikingly odd:  They aren’t hospitalizing many COVID-19 cases. 

For a while now, I’ve been reading that North Dakota is down to just a handful of staffed ICU beds.  That’s been going on for weeks, even as the count of new cases per day has climbed rapidly.  I keep asking myself, why hasn’t North Dakota run out of hospital beds? Continue reading Post #883: Why isn’t North Dakota running out of hospital beds?