French officials: No, cocaine does not protect against coronavirus
Thank God, France is right on top of this. Valuable information for the self medicated.
Quote:
“No, cocaine does not protect against #COVID-19,” France’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health said on Twitter. “It’s an addictive drug that causes serious adverse and harmful effects.”
Just adding that this claim was first posted on facebook by an US-user on January 30, 2020.
It's not France, the UK government has set up a government unit designed to counter these false information being shared about the coronavirus.
Evidently, some drug dealer thought he could use the scare to spread a rumor and whip up sales. It's just one of the many unbased rumors spreading, that need to be actively fought. This is a public health issue of some dimension and it's well within the State's role to remind everyone of the obvious, and of the not-so-obvious about this disease.
0 Replies
layman
-1
Reply
Mon 9 Mar, 2020 12:58 pm
I went to my local quack yesterday to get myself checked for coronavirus.
Mama, she done told me...
Papa told me, too...
Them skanks that you been runnin with....
They gunna be the death of you.....
But, that's all right....
That's all right, now, Mama....
Any old way you do
Here's good ole Big Boy the year before he up and died.
0 Replies
coldjoint
0
Reply
Mon 9 Mar, 2020 01:10 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Just adding that this claim was first posted on facebook by an US-user on January 30, 2020.
I posted what the French said about it, not where it came from. It does not change the fact the French government thought is was necessary to counter the rumor. Stop nitpicking.
0 Replies
oralloy
1
Reply
Mon 9 Mar, 2020 01:24 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Hmmm, says there:
Quote:
The American Hospital Association said the webinar reflects the views of the experts who spoke on it, not its own...."The slides you shared reflect the various perspectives of field experts and should not be attributed to the AHA."
I did not attribute the slide to the American Hospital Association. I attributed the slide to this guy:
Yeah, but the site you cited was sponsored by them. They seemed to want to make a point of disassociating themselves from that Asst. Prof. at Nebraska.
As noted in the post above, a precise calculation of mortality rate is unwarranted at this point. Likewise, "expectations" are presumably premature.
Interview with Warren on Maddow. Lots of talk about radical Sanders supporters. It's clear the online harassment she's received has made a difference in her thinking.
Both an EPIC-MRA poll and Monmouth University poll on Monday showed former vice president Joe Biden building a double-digit lead on Sanders. Biden led 51 percent to 27 percent in the former and 51-36 in the latter.
Doctor Lawler estimated people with heart conditions have a one in 10 chance of dying from the disease, compared to less than one in a 100 among healthy individuals.
For that matter, his figures were seemingly based primarily on speculation about a "worst case scenario" based on extremely limited data.
Quote:
A spokesperson for the University of Nebraska Medical Center said those figures were "his interpretation of the data available" at that point in late February, and it's "possible that forecast will change as more information becomes available".
The slides called it a "best guess", at a time when the US had only a few dozen confirmed cases and zero deaths.
Interesting. A couple of excerpts from the Vox article:
Quote:
Many mainstream Democrats see the behavior of Sanders’s dirtbag left fans as a reflection on the campaign and link their rhetoric to Sanders supporters’ harassment....many Democrats believe as Warren does: that Sanders should have done more to rein his fans in.
The perception that Sanders’s partisans are a fount of online nastiness and harassment is a real problem for Bernie. They make it harder to position himself as a potentially unifying leader at a time when his campaign needs to stop treating Democrats like the enemy.
In the interview, it’s clear that Sanders’s disavowals of online harassment ring a little hollow in Warren’s ears. Given that the candidate and his staff have appeared on Chapo, you can understand her thinking. It might seem like Sanders is speaking out of both sides of his mouth: vaguely disavowing online anger in public statements while his campaign reaches out and appeals directly to the people purveying it.
And what people like Warren think about this matters. If Democratic politicians see the Sanders campaign as a fount of negativity and anger, and a source of direct attacks on them and people they admire, they’re less likely to see it as something they’re comfortable lining up behind
Fivethirtyeight.com is predicting based on current polling that Biden wins the nomination 24 out of 25 times, 1 out of 25 no one gets sufficient delegates.
At future rallies, Burnie should clear out a 100 foot diamwter circle around his platform. Make it into a lane about 10 feet wide and fill it with Bernie Bros, Antifa, and various commie radicals. Then have them march in that circle carrying signs while Burnie is pontificating.
The signs should all say "Vote for Bernie or we will kill you."
That should REALLY haul in the votes, eh!?
0 Replies
layman
-1
Reply
Mon 9 Mar, 2020 02:54 pm
Quote:
The dirtbag left sees the race in such starkly moral terms — either you support Bernie or you want poor people to get sick and die — that they’re willing to countenance abusive tactics in order to get people on board. They don’t understand how anyone could disagree with Sanders in good faith, or how treating someone viciously might be counterproductive to the cause they profess to care about.
So true. But it aint just Burnie supporters, its the left in general. That includes the vast majority of the Democrat Party. They are very few "moderates" left notwithstanding the attempt by many "progressives" to call themselves "moderate.' They aint foolin nobody.
