26
   

Coronavirus

 
 
Region Philbis
 
  3  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 09:24 am

Limited gatherings quietly emerge as source of coronavirus infections

Contact tracing yields information about the sources of infections as the USA, by far the world leader
in total COVID-19 cases and deaths, grapples with how to keep its population safe while propping up a
flagging economy. More than 182,000 Americans have been killed by the disease.

The hasty reopening of businesses across much of the nation after the spring shutdown was largely
blamed for a summer surge in infections, but social functions of various sizes among relatives, friends
and co-workers may have been a contributing factor as well.

Plenty of anecdotal evidence supports the notion that getting together with people outside the
immediate household, even in fairly limited numbers, can lead to a rash of infections...
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
engineer
 
  4  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 11:10 am
@Glennn,
A few thoughts on your endless posting of this.

- The government is not restricting this treatment, it has been pushing it extremely hard, even to the point of purchasing large amounts of it and testing it on veterans in VA facilities. The idea that the government is somehow obstructing it is humorous. If not for the continuous pushing of the US government, no one would even be talking about this.
- The government is in no way preventing individual doctors from prescribing any medicine they want to their patients. In the US, doctors have the ability to prescribe for off label uses. They could prescribe Oxytocin to treat Covid19 if they wanted.
- An open letter is ALWAYS political. If these doctors wanted to collect data on patients and publish the results, they could but instead they make unsupported general statements. They could respond to peer reviewed journals or even kick off new studies. For some reason they have chosen not to do this but instead issue a fact free screed for you to repost. When the Portland mayor wrote an open letter to Trump, it wasn't to persuade him, it was a political act. When MLK wrote the Letter from the Birmingham jail, it was a political act. When Chris Evert wrote an open letter to Serena Williams, again, it was a political act. If she wanted to really advise Williams on her career, she could have just called her. These doctors are not trying to engage in a medical debate, they are trying to enter into a political one.

There are plenty of doctors who looked at this treatment with an open mind and went about doing studies to prove the claims made about it. They came up with results varying from "might be something here" to "looks harmful, not helpful". Sure you could say "but they weren't taking ginseng root" or "they weren't standing on their heads". If you think that is an important variable, so do the study. There are infinite variables you could bring up if you want. I will say that any scientist will ask you for a hypothesis if you say something is an important variable. Why do you think Zinc is important? Exactly what do you hypothesize the Zinc is doing and how does it interact with the other treatments? I get using an antibiotic, but Zinc?
Glennn
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 11:40 am
@engineer,
Quote:
An open letter is ALWAYS political. If these doctors wanted to collect data on patients and publish the results, they could but instead they make unsupported general statements.

Those doctors were not being political. They were sharing their knowledge of, and experience with, the use to the hydroxychloroquine cocktail. You've said nothing to negate any of their claims.
Quote:
The government is in no way preventing individual doctors from prescribing any medicine they want to their patients. In the US, doctors have the ability to prescribe for off label uses. They could prescribe Oxytocin to treat Covid19 if they wanted.

So, you're claiming that if doctors want to prescribe the hydroxychloroquine cocktail for people testing positive for the virus, they're free to do so?
Quote:
If these doctors wanted to collect data on patients and publish the results, they could but instead they make unsupported general statements. They could respond to peer reviewed journals or even kick off new studies. For some reason they have chosen not to do this but instead issue a fact free screed for you to repost.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, let's see. It's a pandemic, and doctors were using the hydroxychloroquine cocktail to great effect when given early on, and you want to call them liars because they don't stop treating people to complete a study.

Do you believe that they are the only doctors who have successfully treated covid? Because if that is what you believe, I'm prepared to post all of the statements from doctors claiming the successful use of the HCQ cocktail against covid.
Quote:
There are plenty of doctors who looked at this treatment with an open mind and went about doing studies to prove the claims made about it. They came up with results varying from "might be something here" to "looks harmful, not helpful".

Uh huh. Bring those studies forward so that we can see whether or not patients in the study were given the HCQ cocktail within the prescribed time rather than in a hospital setting much later.
Glennn
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 11:43 am
Just a note for others here. You can hide out in the bushes and thumb my post out of view if you wish. But I'm going to repost it. And I'm going to repost it as a means of protest against what can reasonably be called censorship.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 11:46 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
They were sharing their knowledge of, and experience with, the use to the hydroxychloroquine cocktail. You've said nothing to negate any of their claims.
Family doctors and orthopaedic surgeons are treating Corvit patients in hospitals the USA?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 01:28 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
An open letter is ALWAYS political. If these doctors wanted to collect data on patients and publish the results, they could but instead they make unsupported general statements.

Those doctors were not being political. They were sharing their knowledge of, and experience with, the use to the hydroxychloroquine cocktail. You've said nothing to negate any of their claims.

They haven't made any claims other than handwaving, and again all open letters are political. They could just as easily made their observations in a journal or even a phone call. As for real data, how did their patients do compared to a control group? What was the percentage of improvement? There is nothing more here than a statement of disbelief in the existing evidence, some anecdotal stories and vague anti-government conspiracies (even though the government has been the biggest proponent of the treatment).
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
The government is in no way preventing individual doctors from prescribing any medicine they want to their patients. In the US, doctors have the ability to prescribe for off label uses. They could prescribe Oxytocin to treat Covid19 if they wanted.

So, you're claiming that if doctors want to prescribe the hydroxychloroquine cocktail for people testing positive for the virus, they're free to do so?

Yes.
Glennn wrote:

Well, let's see. It's a pandemic, and doctors were using the hydroxychloroquine cocktail to great effect when given early on, and you want to call them liars because they don't stop treating people to complete a study.

Do you believe that they are the only doctors who have successfully treated covid? Because if that is what you believe, I'm prepared to post all of the statements from doctors claiming the successful use of the HCQ cocktail against covid.

Where are their published results? You seem to think that there is a monopoly on medical publications controlled by a cabal of doctors. Doctors have numerous avenues to publish their results and there are lots of other doctors with open minds out there to interpret the results. There are plenty of studies out there already. You say "bring those studies forward so that we can see whether or not patients in the study were given the HCQ cocktail within the prescribed time rather than in a hospital setting much later." They are already out there although why you assume you are capable of making informed judgements about them is unknown. If there are reputable doctors able who suggest a different approach, great, let them discuss it. Your interpretation of when and where to treat patients is not all that valid unless you have a lot more experience in epidemiology than you have displayed heretofore.
Glennn
 
  -4  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 02:08 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
They are already out there although why you assume you are capable of making informed judgements about them is unknown. If there are reputable doctors able who suggest a different approach, great, let them discuss it. Your interpretation of when and where to treat patients is not all that valid unless you have a lot more experience in epidemiology than you have displayed heretofore.

Oh but I'm not the one who has made an informed judgement concerning the effectiveness of the hydroxychloroquine cocktail. The doctors who have used it to great effect are doing the informing.


AAPS Sues the FDA to End Its Arbitrary Restrictions on Hydroxychloroquine

https://aapsonline.org/hcqsuit/

Why would they do that?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

While HCQ alone has been found by numerous studies to reduce mortality rates, severity of symptoms, and length of hospital stays, it also can be combined with zinc and either azithromycin or doxycycline, followed by corticosteroids (prednisone, dexamethasone), and in some cases anticoagulants - all working together for improved outcomes. For each one of these drugs, there is both a good scientific rationale and either early clinical trials completed or planned with sufficient promise.

Of these drugs, only HCQ was singled out as a political football early in spring - right after President Trump urged the medical community to consider HCQ. At the time, one of Trump's top medical advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci, stated that if a COVID-19 patient were under his care, he would use HCQ, preferably in a clinical trial protocol. Fauci, however, has since backed away from that statement and his opposition has become a rallying cry of the left-leaning mainstream media's "Hydroxy Hysteria."

The politicization of HCQ is an ongoing tragedy. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has more than 60 million HCQ tablets sitting in its warehouses. Absent a new Emergency Use Authorization, FEMA cannot ship this valuable medicine for appropriate "off-label" treatment of COVID-19 patients. Nor can hospitals or clinics easily recruit patients for the kind of randomized clinical trials needed to ultimately settle the question of how HCQ might best be used in the fight against COVID-19. Should it be purely in early treatment, as a prophylactic for health care workers or senior home patients at risk, in outpatient versus hospital settings, or in other settings?

Positive HCQ studies have been dismissed in medical journal editorials as "flawed" because they were "observational" rather than randomized. The few randomized trials of HCQ reported to date have been a debacle because of the failure to distinguish clearly between early treatment (one to seven days after the onset of symptoms), when the medicine should work, versus later treatment, when it is unlikely to help. To make matters worse, in a classic "statistical type two error," many of the preventive and early illness trials of HCQ changed primary endpoints, reduced sample sizes, and became unable to see the benefit of HCQ, if indeed it was there.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-doctors-and-researchers-need-access-to-hydroxychloroquine/ar-BB17H7za

Where's the study/studies that were done on covid patients who were given the hydroxychloroquine cocktail early? By that I mean the patients not yet hospitalized?
engineer
 
  2  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 02:33 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Why would they do that?

Because the AAPS is a weird political group despite their name.
Quote:
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons might sound like another boring doctors’ group politely debating telehealth legislation. But AAPS is a small yet vociferous interest group. Like Zelig with a stethoscope, it has popped up in nearly every major health-care debate for decades, including the Affordable Care Act and opioids, and it wields a surprising amount of influence. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was outed as a member in 2010. (A Paul spokesperson told me that while the senator is no longer a member, he is supportive of AAPS’s fight against Obamacare.) When Representative Tom Price of Georgia was nominated to lead President Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services, several newspapers pointed out that he, too, was a member. (At the time, an HHS spokesperson said that not all doctors in a group believe the same thing.)

Though AAPS often takes positions that are associated with conservative groups, it sometimes goes even further, pushing fringe views that most mainstream conservatives do not endorse, such as the belief that mandatory vaccination is “equivalent to human experimentation” and that Medicare is “evil.” Over the years, the group seems to have coalesced around an ethos of radical self-determination and a belief that mainstream science isn’t always trustworthy. It’s the most curious of medical organizations: a doctors’ interest group that seems more invested in the interests of doctors, rather than public health.
farmerman
 
  2  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 02:57 pm
@engineer,
I too was on the "HCQ is toxic" group, but Ive revised my opinion as some newer (ACTUALLY PUBLISHED) research in British and Danish pubs, all about DOSAGE EFFECTS from HCQ.
The original research that adressed the toxicity of the cocktail ha neither the zinc lozenges and was usin HIGH dosage (very high it seems). The new UK and De studies were using dosages 10 times less per day. and they got some results approximate to those found using remdesever . NOW, research reports were from studies of results from actual doses(In other words these studies were NOT double blind studies so that the real and actual effectiveness could be assessed.
The fatal dysrhythmia seemed to be associated with the high dosage of HCQ.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 03:00 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
So, you're claiming that if doctors want to prescribe the hydroxychloroquine cocktail for people testing positive for the virus, they're free to do so?
Its not nearly as easy as you make it sound. There are only 2 conditions by which such prescribing or actual treatment use could be approved. HOSPITAL and RESAERCH /Teaching hospitals have these things of liablity claims that most states have laws far abov what th Fed Govt has.

engineer
 
  3  
Mon 31 Aug, 2020 03:08 pm
@farmerman,
But HCQ is not an experimental drug, it is approved by the FDA. Doctors can prescribe it today. When the first HCQ claims came out, doctors started prescribing it like mad to the point where people who actually needed it couldn't get it.

Quote:
Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use.


Don't get me wrong, if HCQ by itself or in combination with other drugs is shown to be safe and effective in treating COVID19, I'm all for it, just show me the science first (or better yet, show someone who knows what they are looking at the science.)
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Wilso
 
  1  
Tue 1 Sep, 2020 04:32 am
Australia’s cases surged through winter, and are now falling off again. I don’t have sufficient knowledge or information to say that the cold weather was responsible. Just to say that if it was, then the US is about to see some tough times ahead
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Tue 1 Sep, 2020 01:23 pm
@Wilso,
The former Australian prime minister – and possibly soon to be joint trade president for the UK – Tony Abbott, said in a speech in London that maybe the coronavirus had done the world a favour. (Tony Abbott: some elderly Covid patients could be left to die naturally.)

Wilso
 
  2  
Tue 1 Sep, 2020 05:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

The former Australian prime minister – and possibly soon to be joint trade president for the UK – Tony Abbott, said in a speech in London that maybe the coronavirus had done the world a favour. (Tony Abbott: some elderly Covid patients could be left to die naturally.)




Tony Abbott is a psychopath. I wouldn't pay any attention to him. He's Australia's Trump.
0 Replies
 
cherrie
 
  3  
Tue 1 Sep, 2020 06:23 pm
@Wilso,
The huge majority of Australia's cases were in Melbourne, and most of those were traced back to the quarantine hotel clusters.

I think the cold weather helped stop the spread being even worse because people weren't going out as much as they would have if the weather had been nicer. While I'm happy that winter is finally over I'm also worried about what will happen when hordes of people start going to parks and beaches again, and social distancing gets forgotten.
farmerman
 
  3  
Wed 2 Sep, 2020 06:05 pm
@cherrie,
I belive we will have a vaccine ready before end of year according to the OXford (UK) trials. They are already in the planning stages to have 2 BILLION doses by end of yer. The American and the American German trials are i=underway and I really interested in the variety that uses CRSPR to provide the bodies MRNA to code DNA to crete the immunoglobulin responses . Basically the vaccine is giving the body a set of plans to construct fighting antibodies, T cells, and B cells to stop, reconfigure , and then KILL the virus. Using CRSPR is one of those things that ,We always seem to have some new gizomo on hand dor use just at the time we need it.
The CRSPR technology os but a few years old and Im not sure that NOBEL PRIZES have been given for this research.

Imagine, if this thing had hit just 10 years ago, itd be a whole nother story. It could mean millions of deaths in the US alone.
What if this had been an even more lethal virus (like EBOLA) , that is, very easily transmitted and very lethal.

Obama had the best idea for a world pooled interdisciplanary research effort to hunt out and be ready for whatever new pestilence occurs as a ZOONOTIC disease.

The world is very crowded with all kinds of species. This time it was bats and pangolins, what about next time?? some stock animals are showing signs of new viral infection, (remember "Mad Cow"?). Hanta virus only needs a better host/transmission base, or CWD , the "mad cow" of deer, elk and moose, that could be a disease of the North if the virus hops a host r two and the DNA puzzle just fits to make it a zoonoces that infects humans.

Ill bet lotsa new sci-fi books by authors who are actually trained epidemiologists or geneticists, will be on the market faster than a TRUMP book.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 8 Sep, 2020 06:51 am
@farmerman,
The highest administrative court in my state overturned the ban on sexual services in the Corona Protection Ordinance of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.
Brothels can therefore reopen here.

The total ban on all sexual services is likely to violate the principle of proportionality, the judges announced in an emergency decision on today.
In the present situation, it is no longer a necessary protective measure justifying the interference with fundamental rights that it entails.

The judges stated that the statw had now allowed extensive relaxation in almost all social, societal and economic areas. Why it was still necessary to completely exclude the risk of infection in the provision of sexual services was not evident.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Coronavirus
  3. » Page 63
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:37:48