It's true. You wouldn't believe how many people I've SIGECAPS'd during my medical training. I didn't realize this article was the beginning of this approach, but it certainly helped get care to people who previously wouldn't have received it. Though I'm sure there are also many who may require intervention that aren't captured by a SIGECAPS exam. The double edged sword of the checklist manifesto, though I overall think it has been beneficial.
SIGECAPS is an acronym taught in US medicine for the diagnosis of major depressive disorder: Sleep disturbance, Interest loss, Guilt, Energy loss, Concentration loss, Appetite changes, Psychomotor agitation, Suicidality. And must have Depressed mood or Anhedonia (inability to enjoy things previously enjoyable).
The history of the SIG E CAPS acronym is also interesting, I've heard it was short for SIG (old shorthand for "to be prescribed") Energy CAPsules.
I thought about defining it up front but decided to move it to the second paragraph.
I would say it's worth talking to a doctor about how you feel. There are many things that can help. If you are in the USA, if is likely that they will use the PHQ-9 form, so consider looking at that questionaire to see how it aligns with your mood. medcalc is a common site that many of the residents at my institution use for these questionaires and other various scoring systems.
I was taught that it was more a memory device for recognizing major depressive disorder as a state of sadness and low energy. The treatment, I presume was still SSRIs first line.
It's funny, because sales tax is considered among the most regressive form of taxation we employ from my understanding, which is supported by my econ friends. But I'm certainly not an economist.
Economists argue that they are the fairest because they tax consumption rather than production.
Also everybody pays them, including people that avoid taxes (including criminal activities and tax evaders).
The argument against this is that lower income households pay more of it as a portion of their income thus the consensus is that to be fairest you need rebates and no taxes on many essentials (which is why often medicines or milk, bread etc have very low or no sales tax/rebates).
IIRC, consumption taxes are more efficient in that, ceteris paribus, they result in the least economic distortion in terms of global wealth and productivity compared to alternatives like income taxes. But they're the least fair in the sense that those lower on the income bracket bear a higher burden in terms of marginal cost due to the higher fraction of necessary living expenses relative to income. Your first $1 of income and consumption has more marginal value to you and society then the second $1; so an X% tax on that first dollar has a higher marginal cost than X% on the second dollar. It's unfair in a very meaningful sense, not just a hand-wavy rhetorical sense; everything in economics is about marginal pricing.
Think of it this way, which has more marginal value, a) $1 spent on food required for a person to live, or b) $1 spent on a fancy fixture for a new yacht? The answer is (a), both from the perspective of the individual and society has a whole; society because $1 spent sustaining a living individual contributes more productive capacity to society than $1 spent toward a yacht fixture, even after accounting for the fact someone was paid to make the fixture.
AFAIU, it follows that efficiency and fairness (in the sense of marginal cost) are fundamentally related. But it gets really complicated from there--complexity that the "ceteris paribus" above is hiding--and drawing concrete policy conclusions much more fraught. Relatedly, consumption taxes can be structured in a progressive manner similar to income taxes, but... it's complicated; it's not so easy to ameliorate the unfairness issue, and once you start graduating rates it becomes difficult to compare schemes directly. For instance, I think just as a practical administrative and accounting matter progressive income taxation is easier to accomplish than progressive consumption taxation.
It is a good point. It depends on how regressive is defined. There are many competing arguments here, but two I am aware of are
1. Regressive deals with % of income spent.
2. Regressive deals with an ideal state where those with more excess income contribute more than those with less.
In both of these, I suppose sales tax is regressive if it applies to all items, but only 2 is regressive with sophisticated rebates and untaxed categories.
They won't. This is the same line of people that voted for Reagan and Bush II. I used to be one, most of my family still is. Whatever Democrat gets elected (if we have reasonable elections) will get the blame from them and it will be used to fuel the election of the next populist.
This is the mistake a lot of people made with Bush II and Trump I, thinking that "this will all go away" when the man at the center goes away. It won't, no man rules alone, they represent a large population of anti-intellectual isolationists who are not going anywhere. At best you can hope that the intellectuals will govern in a way that helps everyone next time they get a chance, leaving less fuel for the next populist wave.
I think one of the most interesting techniques for burn victims is using placentas. I haven't seen it too much in my current hospital system, but have seen it talked about at medical association conferences and think it's pretty exciting.
Here is a gift link for an article about them in the New York Times from about a year ago.
I’d like to use that extra processing and efficiency to get longer battery life when the phone isn’t doing anything special, and to have better performing apps.
I totally agree on all three accounts: unprocessed foods are great, organic wheats are good, and the concerning focus on abundance of red meat. I think we are going through a fad of "we need to gobble down as much protein as we can". I agree it's reasonable we need more, and especially older adults at risk of falling. I am concerned that there are so many junior residents that I work with that are throwing back protein shakes because they are "optimizing their macros". So many of these protein powders have added sugar and are contaminated with heavy metals! I will commend the guidelines for supporting lentils, beans and other pulses.
I really don't see how this is so different than what nutritionists have said for years. This reads as if the guans before was to drink soda and eat fat free candy all day. The three sentence dietary guidance still holds:
1. Eat food
2. Not too much
3. Mostly plants
Though the government's position seems to be at odds with #3. I would encourage more beans and greens, personally.
The implication of antibacterial soap is that it contains antibiotics, which leads to resistance in bacterial populations. Non-antibacterial soap is a misnomer, it is plenty effective against bacteria, but kills the bacteria mechanically.
I read this during the same time I was copyediting a good friend's Vietnam memoir. As a staff sargeant [E6], my buddy saw/did some things — including lobbing a girl's head off as she stepped in front of his rocket trajectory — but we both crossed eyes when I explained what the calculation on the last page of HP resulted in: survivor's remorse of rape & pillaging.
How many little half-Sargeants must being running around 'Nam...
Thanks. Hocus Pocus slipped past me somehow. Now I have something to look forward to reading. (I liked Cat's Cradle too but it is also on the loopier end of Vonnegut's writing spectrum—but we need some more of that.)
SIGECAPS is an acronym taught in US medicine for the diagnosis of major depressive disorder: Sleep disturbance, Interest loss, Guilt, Energy loss, Concentration loss, Appetite changes, Psychomotor agitation, Suicidality. And must have Depressed mood or Anhedonia (inability to enjoy things previously enjoyable).
The history of the SIG E CAPS acronym is also interesting, I've heard it was short for SIG (old shorthand for "to be prescribed") Energy CAPsules.
reply