The therapy costs about £100,000 upfront and then as much as £200,000 a year to treat 50 people.
Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
21–30 of 43 posts
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which is interesting now that I think of it, nobody EVER calls New York just "York". I don't know, kind of makes sense to me why that would be the case. Something tells me there are more places that start with "York" as opposed to "Jersey", so there are more chances to cause confusion in the former case.
I'm more interested in why it never caught on regionally. There would rarely ever be any confusion, nobody in the states would think you were talking about York England. But it still never caught on for whatever reason.
When feasible, spoken English favours double syllable combinations. Three is too many, one is too few for disambiguation in a lossy environment. Hence Jersey, LA, San Fran, Philly, but not York. It’s not a hard rule, of course.
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#23[dead]
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#24> The therapy costs about £100,000 upfront and then as much as £200,000 a year to treat 50 people. Interesting that the bloodletting is so expensive. I wonder what makes it so?
For anyone who also thought that was a weird way to say the stat, it's £2,000 upfront and £4,000 a year for one person.
It does seem awfully high. Donating blood costs way less. Maybe the treatment they're saying the cost for is the drug rather than the bloodletting?
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#25The therapy costs about £100,000 upfront and then as much as £200,000 a year to treat 50 people. Isn't it a little bit expensive just for a blood letting? Basically it should be like a blood donation where you can directly throw the extracted blood. No?
Seems to me they might have been saying the cost for the drug therapy rather than the bloodletting
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#26The idea that the government settled with 3M for 2.6M is unconscionable and needs to be investigated. The paltry sum reeks of bribery and corruption.
[deleted]
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#27> The therapy costs about £100,000 upfront and then as much as £200,000 a year to treat 50 people. Interesting that the bloodletting is so expensive. I wonder what makes it so?
For anyone who also thought that was a weird way to say the stat, it's £2,000 upfront and £4,000 a year for one person. It does seem awfully high. Donating blood costs way less. Maybe the treatment they're saying the cost for is the drug rather than the bloodletting?
i assume they get a transfusion as well?
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#28All this concern about PFAs is reminding me of artificial blood made with perfluorinated chemicals. It would have utterly enormous quantities of the chemicals, circulating as a microemulsion throughout the body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitute
And you just know there are probably a bunch of ex military privates (who are probably currently being denied care) who were just drenched in the stuff to see if they could run harder faster stronger :’(
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more interested in why it never caught on regionally. There would rarely ever be any confusion, nobody in the states would think you were talking about York England. But it still never caught on for whatever reason.
I think the regional name for New York is "the city".
“The city” refers to Manhattan specifically, not New York City in general. Being in the other boroughs, you might say “I’m heading to the city later”.
Re: Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more interested in why it never caught on regionally. There would rarely ever be any confusion, nobody in the states would think you were talking about York England. But it still never caught on for whatever reason.
When feasible, spoken English favours double syllable combinations. Three is too many, one is too few for disambiguation in a lossy environment. Hence Jersey, LA, San Fran, Philly, but not York. It’s not a hard rule, of course.
Ahh that makes a lot of sense, thank you! It does feel like it's more about the syllables than anything.
> San Fran
Or SF, if you want to avoid making the people that live there mad