Coronavirus Thread

[Techster]

 

[GT_EE78]

View attachment 8160

Why didn't you just wipe your hands and the clorox cannister at the same time?

 

[GT_EE78]

You are writing as if this medicine is 100% proven to be effective. There are other medicines being tested. What if this one is not effective, but another one is. Are you responsible for killing someone by giving them this medicine instead of the effective one?

You have posted many articles touting: someone who never was in the hospital saying this medicine brought her back from the brink of death: a doctor who says that this medicine cures everyone who didn't leave the study, get worse, or die: etc. How do you know for certain that this medicine isn't a placebo with respect to COVID-19.

I am not against this medicine. I am simply trying to suggest moderation in the belief in this medicine. You are treating this as a political issue instead of a science issue. I am not arguing for or against any person or political group. I am not going to let any personal, political, or religious beliefs skew my understanding of science. I will simply look at scientific evidence and see what it points to.

You don’t have to be a surgeon, pediatrician, or even veterinarian to repeat the things published by scientists and, yes, even other medical professionals, which is that there is reason to believe that chloroquine,hcQ etal may, at the very least, help patients mitigate the infection's symptoms.

Even if a study isn't a clinical trial doesn't mean that it's not being done by competent professionals. It's mostly political hacks who are trashing it.
and there are countless studies out there that didn't involve the french guy.
there's no evidence patients who choose this path are being denied anything else.
You are treating this as a political issue instead of a science issue, by bashing all the positive work that indicates it is helping.
It's a good thing that this is probably saving lives NOW and that data is being collected toward the clinical trials.

 

[LibertyTurns]

So, you mean to tell me that we are OVER-counting deaths from covid-19?????

You don’t get to pander, you don’t get $2T wasteful spending bills, etc unless you make this the biggest, baddest, most historic event ever in the history of the world. It’s what leaders do today- politics, business, sports, etc. Weird to me that people are so insecure they need to claim extraordinary events and circumstances to cover their butts in case crap doesn’t go their way. This is a bad disease but it ain’t the bubonic plague.

 

[Milwaukee]

You don’t get to pander, you don’t get $2T wasteful spending bills, etc unless you make this the biggest, baddest, most historic event ever in the history of the world. It’s what leaders do today- politics, business, sports, etc. Weird to me that people are so insecure they need to claim extraordinary events and circumstances to cover their butts in case crap doesn’t go their way. This is a bad disease but it ain’t the bubonic plague.

Many here should read this!

 

[RonJohn]

You don’t have to be a surgeon, pediatrician, or even veterinarian to repeat the things published by scientists and, yes, even other medical professionals, which is that there is reason to believe that chloroquine,hcQ etal may, at the very least, help patients mitigate the infection's symptoms.

Even if a study isn't a clinical trial doesn't mean that it's not being done by competent professionals. It's mostly political hacks who are trashing it.
and there are countless studies out there that didn't involve the french guy.
there's no evidence patients who choose this path are being denied anything else.
You are treating this as a political issue instead of a science issue, by bashing all the positive work that indicates it is helping.
It's a good thing that this is probably saving lives NOW and that data is being collected toward the clinical trials.

If one unproven medicine is being touted, then other potentially LIFE SAVING MEDICINES are being ignored and withheld from sick people. (Am I doing that correctly?)

What have I stated that is political? Please point me to at least one item. I haven't bashed any scientific work. I have been bashing innuendo. I haven't seen any other medical studies that say that it is effective. There are a few other studies that indicate there could be some benefit, and those were used in applications to the NIH to get clinical trials started. Which of those studies have I bashed?

You believe that it is saving lives. It might be. It might not be. We shouldn't base medical decisions on what someone believes, except maybe in the case that person is the one receiving treatment. Or what a group of people believe. Or what a majority of people believe. It is actually a binary question. Is the medicine effective or not. It isn't arbitrary. It isn't subjective. It isn't a matter of opinion. When conclusive data is available I will look at it. I will ignore arguments based on political allegiances for either side of what I consider a silly dispute. As I stated before, political allegiance will not decide whether this medicine is effective or not.

 

[takethepoints]

Well it’s like a broken clock. You say it every year for 100 years and you’ll be right a few times. The part that really bothers me is that these same people did nothing about it. If you get hit with a pandemic, what are you going to need? The ability to run tests, PPE, etc. the CDC/NIH/FDA has done literally nothing to allow for tests to be developed and ramped up in a quick manner during a pandemic.

Hospitals and states apparently did little to nothing to maintain emergency supplies. The federal government can’t hold enough for the entire country. They totally missed the fact that even in cold areas, they’re going to start wanting to wear PPE just to be safe. I’ve still seen none of the health experts acknowledge that. So nobody had any extra to share.

And the final issue comes back to panic. Governors tried to unnecessarily hoard supplies, and people were not honest about what they really needed. Because nobody could/would share with them.

Hopefully they’ll finally have a basic framework when we’re done, but I’m not holding my breath. Testing in particular has been a well known problem. Anybody seen journalists get interviews with the FDA and CDC and really drill into their shortcomings? Not me.

And actually finally, none of these health experts take economics into their recommendations. We did the full lockdown because they thought we might have hundreds of thousands of deaths. What if it would have been 100,000? 50,000? 10,000? At what point is the economic misery put on hundreds of millions worth it?

What you are describing is a government without a plan in place. And one that cast the entire business as a state and locality problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, the reason we created a federal government in the first place was to do national level planning about possible risks and to provide the leadership and resources to take on national problems that the states and their localities were then and are now incapable of handling with either efficiency or dispatch. I've already posted here about why the national stockpile was depleted - sequestration - and that pretty much nobody in government wanted that to happen. I've also posted about why the private hospital chains weren't ready for something like this: doing so ate into profits.

And, actually, I think we will learn from this. There will be a substantial sub-set of opinion that will tend to brush it off as a black swan event and want to go back to business as usual. This time I doubt they will be listened to.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

What you are describing is a government without a plan in place. And one that cast the entire business as a state and locality problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, the reason we created a federal government in the first place was to do national level planning about possible risks and to provide the leadership and resources to take on national problems that the states and their localities were then and are now incapable of handling with either efficiency or dispatch. I've already posted here about why the national stockpile was depleted - sequestration - and that pretty much nobody in government wanted that to happen. I've also posted about why the private hospital chains weren't ready for something like this: doing so ate into profits.

And, actually, I think we will learn from this. There will be a substantial sub-set of opinion that will tend to brush it off as a black swan event and want to go back to business as usual. This time I doubt they will be listened to.

I hope we do learn. As far as I can tell, the federal government is the only entity who maintained an emergency stockpile. I haven’t heard a single success story at the state level, although I do acknowledge I may have missed it. This is yet another example in a line of zillions where we learn we should never be utterly dependent on the federal government. There is only so much they can do, and we can’t even manage a Cash for Clinkers program LOL.

 

[684Bee]

I hope we do learn. As far as I can tell, the federal government is the only entity who maintained an emergency stockpile. I haven’t heard a single success story at the state level, although I do acknowledge I may have missed it. This is yet another example in a line of zillions where we learn we should never be utterly dependent on the federal government. There is only so much they can do, and we can’t even manage a Cash for Clinkers program LOL.

Please let us return to valuing local decision making over central planning at the federal level.

also, I hope the CDC and FDA get a long, full audit after this is over.

 

[wrmathis]

So, you mean to tell me that we are OVER-counting deaths from covid-19?????

I’m not saying that. Just that I have seen it pop up a few places on the inter webs.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some people are over counting and others are under counting.

 

[Boaty1]

Here is another example of researchers working under the assumption that we are only identifying a fraction of those infected.

A study by disease modelers at the University of Texas at Austin states that "Given the low testing rates throughout the country, we assume that 1 in 10 cases are tested and reported."

https://cid.utexas.edu/sites/defaul...-risk-maps_counties_4.3.2020.pdf?m=1585958755

 

[YJMD]

I'm in the healthcare field. I'm a doctor (psychiatrist, principally working inpatient). There is a lot of misinformation here and a lot which is possibly right but based off a lot of speculation. The number infected is going to be a projection, but it is certain that the number of infections is much bigger than the number of confirmed cases. There is big variance in rate of testing, and there are known significant false negatives. How sensitive the tests are is unfortunately not well known, and some may have to do with technique as I've been told a good swab has to be so deep it feels like you're doing a brain biopsy. There have been cases with negative swabs where someone's respiratory status decompensates and they do a bronchoscopy which is positive for SARS-CoV-2. The science isn't good enough, and our collective response isn't well coordinated to really determine. Deaths are probably the most reliable stat for tracking epidemiologic progress across time even though it's a definite undercount. People are needing long hospital stays with long ventilator usage, so I suspect death count to lag behind actual cases, but I haven't seen any data on that. What we need to see is things heading in the downward direction.

I have no personal experience RE: hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, but I echo the cautions already stated. It's far from a benign drug and in particular used for lupus patients where I'm sure many are suffering from shortages. Just really dumb not to insist on real data here. Given that people are legitimately studying it, if it was anything truly miraculous we would know. That doesn't mean it might not prove useful in the end. Many effective treatments have small but measurable benefits. If it shortens hospital stay by 2 days for example, that could be a very big deal especially around the peak, but I doubt that will come to fruition.

 

[GT_EE78]

> When so many of these stories are coming out 100% and very high success rates , ya gotta believe these doctors aren't making it up to be political!
> This guy only prescribes it for seriously ill patients in order to preserve supply
> this is another one that cites Zinc as a key ingredient
> Don't eat or drink any cleaning agents if you're reading this
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."Cardillo is the CEO of Mend Urgent Care, which has locations in Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys and Burbank.He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.Chloroquine, or hydroxychloroquine, has been approved to treat and prevent malaria since 1944. Because the drug is on the market, doctors can use it for off-label purposes.
https://abc7ny.com/health/la-doctor...hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19/6079864/

 

[684Bee]

Here is another example of researchers working under the assumption that we are only identifying a fraction of those infected.

A study by disease modelers at the University of Texas at Austin states that "Given the low testing rates throughout the country, we assume that 1 in 10 cases are tested and reported."

https://cid.utexas.edu/sites/defaul...-risk-maps_counties_4.3.2020.pdf?m=1585958755

so it would stand to reason that the mortality rate we’ve been seeing should come way down.

 

[Boaty1]

I'm in the healthcare field. I'm a doctor (psychiatrist, principally working inpatient). There is a lot of misinformation here and a lot which is possibly right but based off a lot of speculation. The number infected is going to be a projection, but it is certain that the number of infections is much bigger than the number of confirmed cases. There is big variance in rate of testing, and there are known significant false negatives. How sensitive the tests are is unfortunately not well known, and some may have to do with technique as I've been told a good swab has to be so deep it feels like you're doing a brain biopsy. There have been cases with negative swabs where someone's respiratory status decompensates and they do a bronchoscopy which is positive for SARS-CoV-2. The science isn't good enough, and our collective response isn't well coordinated to really determine. Deaths are probably the most reliable stat for tracking epidemiologic progress across time even though it's a definite undercount. People are needing long hospital stays with long ventilator usage, so I suspect death count to lag behind actual cases, but I haven't seen any data on that. What we need to see is things heading in the downward direction.

I have no personal experience RE: hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, but I echo the cautions already stated. It's far from a benign drug and in particular used for lupus patients where I'm sure many are suffering from shortages. Just really dumb not to insist on real data here. Given that people are legitimately studying it, if it was anything truly miraculous we would know. That doesn't mean it might not prove useful in the end. Many effective treatments have small but measurable benefits. If it shortens hospital stay by 2 days for example, that could be a very big deal especially around the peak, but I doubt that will come to fruition.

You may very well be correct. But doctors around the world are using hydroxychloroquine more than any other drug to treat the virus according to this study. And interestingly, America is using it less than other countries.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/hydro...a_quAJN84zEBeFJYcXpSymholAdcFtTe3GXLJcRjOkPkk

 

[Boaty1]

so it would stand to reason that the mortality rate we’ve been seeing should come way down.

Yes. I think we are going to have a real discussion sooner rather than later about the depth of our mitigation and it's impact on the economy compared to the number of lives saved.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Please let us return to valuing local decision making over central planning at the federal level.

also, I hope the CDC and FDA get a long, full audit after this is over.

The CDC's annual budget is several billion dollars. The NIH and others who overlap in responsibility have large budgets too. Over the last decade, the CDC has gotten over $50B. A facemask costs less than $1. Other more advanced face shields can cost dollars apiece. Gowns can cost $10 apiece. The point here is that if they had spent 1% of their entire budget on PPE, they could have stockpiled 100 million items. Given the CDC really has 1 job, the fact they couldn't even allocate 1% of their budget is pathetic. Its a total fail. And again, this excludes money that the NIH and FEMA could be pitching in too. The NIH's budget is over $30B EVERY YEAR. This incompetence is just obnoxious.

 

[MWBATL]

Sounds to me like the tide is turning and the pressure to re-open is building every day...I expect by May 1st that the country will slowly begin to re-open....but as yet I have no idea exactly what that means. Certainly no mass audiences yet (sporting events, concerts, etc) but perhaps to re-open retail with some restrictions on number of customers at any one time inside the shop...that sort of thing.

 

[YJMD]

You may very well be correct. But doctors around the world are using hydroxychloroquine more than any other drug to treat the virus according to this study. And interestingly, America is using it less than other countries.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/hydro...a_quAJN84zEBeFJYcXpSymholAdcFtTe3GXLJcRjOkPkk

That is not a study.

It's not meaningless, though. I would caution doctors having faith in it as quality evidence. Confirmation bias is extremely compelling, and those on the front lines have to be desperate right now for anything to put their faith in.

I went to med school with interest in alternative medicine. I spent time volunteering with a physician who treats autism with a variety of things with similar kinds of anecdotal evidence and no real peer reviewed research. There is probably merit somewhere in some of it, and that community is not people trying to take advantage of others principally with anything I've seen. They are well meaning, and thankfully pretty much none of it was likely to hurt anything other than a wallet. But the anchoring to people improving with a very poorly understood illness and a variety of individual courses as kids who are undergoing a natural developmental process -- I know better now. But reading it is still very compelling even though I recognize the mental processes at play.

Truthfully I hope plaquenil works. We need a win.

 

[takethepoints]

You may very well be correct. But doctors around the world are using hydroxychloroquine more than any other drug to treat the virus according to this study. And interestingly, America is using it less than other countries.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/hydro...a_quAJN84zEBeFJYcXpSymholAdcFtTe3GXLJcRjOkPkk

To second YJ, I re-post this:

Remember the old Harvard Med School story:

A famous surgeon is addressing a meeting of new students and describing a new surgical technique that he says saves lives.

Student in the back: “What were your controls?”

Famous Surgeon: “You mean did I use the technique on half of my patients and not on the other half?”

Student in the back: “Well … yes, I did mean something like that.”

Famous Surgeon pounds the lecture and shouts: “That would have meant condemning half of my patients to death!”

Student in the back (in a small voice): “Which half?”

There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that using different drugs or treatments on COVID-19 patients helps. So far we don’t have any solid evidence that any of them helps, but, of course, the doctors are trying everything. Problem = as YJ points out, some of the drugs in question can be very harmful and some are needed to treat other diseases (lupus is the main example). We’ll get the evidence on this soon; med researchers are working overtime to find something that works consistently.

Until then, we can expect doctors to throw the kitchen sink at the disease and keep using what seems to work, regardless of whether there is proof it does or not. We want them to do that, but thinking that the sheer volume of clinical practice will give us sound evidence on treatments is naive and can be quite harmful.