Covid 19 thread

[OldSchool]

Not sure if this was posted already or not.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLkN0zHiRfs

 

[Mackeyser]

Idk. I really don’t. Shit, half of the stuff peddled on TV has small print at the bottom that says “these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA”. I’d err on the side of caution and say yes though.

I kinda agree and kinda don't.

If the FDA were properly funded, conducted thorough and independent testing and there wasn't that damn revolving door between the regulators and the companies they regulate, then I'd be all for Drs having the freedom to go off script...literally.

The problem is that the FDA in most instances simply asks for companies to submit their own testing and it's not until crap goes wrong that the class action lawyers get involved that we find out through discovery about all the shenanigans. The story about how aspartame got approved by Reagan one day after his inauguration is downright horrifying. And the system was actually trying to work by banning it... and it's only gotten worse since.

Honestly, if we were all dealt straight, I think so many of our disagreements as a society would be far less intense.

But from everything from foreign policy to drugs to incarceration to...well, anything corps are making a ton of money on... the regulators have been co-opted and that leaves us fractured as a people.

It's frustrating.

Was it better when it was illegal to use drugs off-label? I don't think so.

I also don't think having drugs have barely more oversight than nutritional supplements is great, either.

Unfortunately, that's about what we have. Which leaves Drs with incomplete or outright false information and having to base sound medical decisions on that.

Puts Drs and other clinicians in a no win situation and patients being on the barrel end of drug Russian roulette. For those on multiple meds... that becomes a literal trial by error where the error can mean death. Been close and spent many years doing that "okay, let's try THIS combo for six months..." That's no good for anyone and besides the patients that are not finding relief, Drs are the most frustrated of all.

What should be science is becoming something much less... and we're all the poorer for it.

 

[RamBall]

How many have had to go to hospital or Doctor during all of this? What a pain and an uneasy feeling. I had to go to hospital to Gallblader out April 1st then today I had to get a knee drained at the Orthopedic surgeon. Just an uneasy feeling in those settings.

I went to my Dr 11 days before symptoms started and had lab work done 7 days after Dr appt. I also went to a Dr for acupuncture every Thursday for a couple months before being sick. Before coming down with covid I thought those settings were fairly safe since they checked everyones temperature before allowing entry. But after testing positive and never having a temperature, I am a little less confident that temperature checks make it safe.

I finally get to go back to work tomorrow, been off for 22 days. Symptom free for 9 days.

 

[-X-]

I am a little less confident that temperature checks make it safe.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I guess it's just the bare minimum thing they can do to find symptoms, while simultaneously being the most they can do. It's weird. I was actually having trouble breathing one day (because I was stuffed up), and I told that to one of the people at the entrance to the hospital I was working in. She asked if I was having trouble breathing, and I said yes, so she says, "Okay, well let's get your temperature." It was fine, so they let me in. The whole process is useless, kinda, but again - that's the best they can do.

 

[Raptorman]

Went to the doctor, the nurse asked me if was having trouble breathing. I said yes but it had nothing to do with being sick.

 

[Mackeyser]

Not sure if this was posted already or not.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLkN0zHiRfs

Just watched.

Raised more questions than gave answers and some of her assertions don't match the data. I'm not in a position to argue empirically, but how are we exploding with cases throughout the South if surface contact is essentially impossible at this time of year since the virus basically is supposed to die on contact? Why are we sanitizing grocery carts when it's a million degrees outside and def above 70 inside? Heck, even the surface of the skin is warmer than that.

As for this being a "nursing home disease" I think she called it... that's not what those working in COVID units are saying... Those working in those units are painting a very different picture.

So I dunno. Drs in COVID units are saying mostly one thing. ER Drs who see most of these patients initially are sometimes saying different things and we can't get unfettered scientific opinion from the gov't because there is the arrogance that ANY President knows fuck all compared to the experts who literally study nothing, but infectious disease.

Not that we'd know because apparently all it took to "flatten the curve" was to take the monitoring of the disease from the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL and pass it to Health and Human Services...

I believe the HHS numbers like I believe politicians are honest...

So I dunno.

I'm basically at the point where I just don't want to die from this. That's pretty much it. But even that doesn't seem reasonable, anymore.

Seems our only option is to just YOLO this and whoever makes it...makes it.

We used to be better than this... in every respect.

So... I guess the video is kinda helpful?

It's no more authoritative to me than vids put out by Respiratory physicians who are traumatized by this watching vital people in their 30s - 50s die after weeks on a ventilator...

It may sound conspiratorial, but I honestly think that there's big money out there working to impugn experts en toto so that whatever propaganda they want to sell can be unimpeachable...because no one will be allowed to be an expert on anything and worse, experts will be seen with disdain. Then they can just say whatever shit they want. I guess we're kinda there already.

As just regular people trying to be responsible and lead responsible lives... it becomes nearly impossible to do that without reliable information.

So even a video by an ER physician laying out what should be basic information... isn't. Where's that leave us?

I dunno.

 

[Mackeyser]

It's not like current FDA standards are super rigorous. Drug companies are required to have 2 studies that prove a benefit regardless of how many show no benefit at all. There's a bunch of other things that must be provided, I'm not exactly an expert here in this area, but the standard for what constitutes a "successful" drug isn't super high.

And the people who work for the FDA often rotate back to the Pharma companies just like SEC regulators just go back to Wall Street...

 

[Mackeyser]

I went to my Dr 11 days before symptoms started and had lab work done 7 days after Dr appt. I also went to a Dr for acupuncture every Thursday for a couple months before being sick. Before coming down with covid I thought those settings were fairly safe since they checked everyones temperature before allowing entry. But after testing positive and never having a temperature, I am a little less confident that temperature checks make it safe.

I finally get to go back to work tomorrow, been off for 22 days. Symptom free for 9 days.

Yeah, temp checks aren't a very good way at all to suss out who has it as many who have it and are spreading it show little or no symptoms. I don't recall the number, but even among the symptomatic, less than half show fever? I think that was it...

Anyway, it was a large and significant portion didn't show fever...ever. Just like you.

I'm so very glad you've gotten through this and hopefully unscathed. Some in your position have found they end up with myocarditis afterwards.

I'm hoping Drs are checking for that, especially in follow ups for those that have tested positive and survived.

 

[OldSchool]

Just watched.

Raised more questions than gave answers and some of her assertions don't match the data. I'm not in a position to argue empirically, but how are we exploding with cases throughout the South if surface contact is essentially impossible at this time of year since the virus basically is supposed to die on contact? Why are we sanitizing grocery carts when it's a million degrees outside and def above 70 inside? Heck, even the surface of the skin is warmer than that.

As for this being a "nursing home disease" I think she called it... that's not what those working in COVID units are saying... Those working in those units are painting a very different picture.

So I dunno. Drs in COVID units are saying mostly one thing. ER Drs who see most of these patients initially are sometimes saying different things and we can't get unfettered scientific opinion from the gov't because there is the arrogance that ANY President knows fuck all compared to the experts who literally study nothing, but infectious disease.

Not that we'd know because apparently all it took to "flatten the curve" was to take the monitoring of the disease from the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL and pass it to Health and Human Services...

I believe the HHS numbers like I believe politicians are honest...

So I dunno.

I'm basically at the point where I just don't want to die from this. That's pretty much it. But even that doesn't seem reasonable, anymore.

Seems our only option is to just YOLO this and whoever makes it...makes it.

We used to be better than this... in every respect.

So... I guess the video is kinda helpful?

It's no more authoritative to me than vids put out by Respiratory physicians who are traumatized by this watching vital people in their 30s - 50s die after weeks on a ventilator...

It may sound conspiratorial, but I honestly think that there's big money out there working to impugn experts en toto so that whatever propaganda they want to sell can be unimpeachable...because no one will be allowed to be an expert on anything and worse, experts will be seen with disdain. Then they can just say whatever shit they want. I guess we're kinda there already.

As just regular people trying to be responsible and lead responsible lives... it becomes nearly impossible to do that without reliable information.

So even a video by an ER physician laying out what should be basic information... isn't. Where's that leave us?

I dunno.

Preconceptions will lead us to hear what we want from videos. The best thing about people in this covid mess has people taking sides with some experts or others instead of their neighbors. They then tell them stuff like follow the science. People then listen to experts that contradict somebody else's favorite experts and they start to argue. I'm not laying this all at your feet by any stretch of the imagination but one thing is abundantly clear in this and in just about anything else is you listen to the experts who voice the opinions that match your preconceptions. I've had people of many political affiliations and walks of life tell me this is a great video and more people should watch it and learn from it. I've also had people like you doubt it for their own reasons. I can find a hundred experts that will agree with this lady and another hundred that disagree. I don't know who's right I have no expertise in this other than my ability to read people and I don't get the impression that this lady is fake or phony. There are a lot of people that I do get that vibe from. One thing I do completely agree with is a lot of people that are called experts have flipped and flopped their ideas and directions and that above anything IMO is one of our biggest problems from the start of this.

 

[RamBall]

Just watched.

Raised more questions than gave answers and some of her assertions don't match the data. I'm not in a position to argue empirically, but how are we exploding with cases throughout the South if surface contact is essentially impossible at this time of year since the virus basically is supposed to die on contact? Why are we sanitizing grocery carts when it's a million degrees outside and def above 70 inside? Heck, even the surface of the skin is warmer than that.

As for this being a "nursing home disease" I think she called it... that's not what those working in COVID units are saying... Those working in those units are painting a very different picture.

So I dunno. Drs in COVID units are saying mostly one thing. ER Drs who see most of these patients initially are sometimes saying different things and we can't get unfettered scientific opinion from the gov't because there is the arrogance that ANY President knows fuck all compared to the experts who literally study nothing, but infectious disease.

Not that we'd know because apparently all it took to "flatten the curve" was to take the monitoring of the disease from the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL and pass it to Health and Human Services...

I believe the HHS numbers like I believe politicians are honest...

So I dunno.

I'm basically at the point where I just don't want to die from this. That's pretty much it. But even that doesn't seem reasonable, anymore.

Seems our only option is to just YOLO this and whoever makes it...makes it.

We used to be better than this... in every respect.

So... I guess the video is kinda helpful?

It's no more authoritative to me than vids put out by Respiratory physicians who are traumatized by this watching vital people in their 30s - 50s die after weeks on a ventilator...

It may sound conspiratorial, but I honestly think that there's big money out there working to impugn experts en toto so that whatever propaganda they want to sell can be unimpeachable...because no one will be allowed to be an expert on anything and worse, experts will be seen with disdain. Then they can just say whatever shit they want. I guess we're kinda there already.

As just regular people trying to be responsible and lead responsible lives... it becomes nearly impossible to do that without reliable information.

So even a video by an ER physician laying out what should be basic information... isn't. Where's that leave us?

I dunno.

Going off the numbers for my county, which I know are running behind on cases and recoveries but death numbers are accurate to the day. People 49 and under make up 8.3% of the deaths or 15 of 180. 50-64 is 26.7% and 65+ is 65% of the deaths. At 51 I was fairly safe as far as the odds of becoming a part of the death statistic, but my parents would not be. I was visiting them often before all this started, but dont visit during my work shift anymore. So our numbers support what the video above was stating as far as mostly a "nursing home disease" I know that there are a few nursing homes that I have done several jobs at before covid that have been hit very hard. At 1 point most of the covid deaths in our county were from 3 nursing homes. I was in 1 of them and about 15 mins after checking my temp and allowing me inside a nurse came and told me they were on lock down and I had to leave. That home has not allowed visitors for any reason since late March when I was there. Not sure how many patients that home lost, but I was told that they lost more than just a few.

 

[Mackeyser]

Going off the numbers for my county, which I know are running behind on cases and recoveries but death numbers are accurate to the day. People 49 and under make up 8.3% of the deaths or 15 of 180. 50-64 is 26.7% and 65+ is 65% of the deaths. At 51 I was fairly safe as far as the odds of becoming a part of the death statistic, but my parents would not be. I was visiting them often before all this started, but dont visit during my work shift anymore. So our numbers support what the video above was stating as far as mostly a "nursing home disease" I know that there are a few nursing homes that I have done several jobs at before covid that have been hit very hard. At 1 point most of the covid deaths in our county were from 3 nursing homes. I was in 1 of them and about 15 mins after checking my temp and allowing me inside a nurse came and told me they were on lock down and I had to leave. That home has not allowed visitors for any reason since late March when I was there. Not sure how many patients that home lost, but I was told that they lost more than just a few.

I get that, I really do.

What gets me, I guess, is how cavalierly we are treating what we don't know.

Schools closed down in March, so we don't really know or have good data about how kids would transmit it when in a school setting. As many teachers have pointed out, the guidance from the federal gov't is literally impossible to follow, even if the teacher were a multi-millionaire for a plethora of reasons.

Well, and this hits very close to home for me... when folks say that kids aren't in danger, that's just wrong. Most kids will experience little to no issues, but some kids will die. That's pretty much a guarantee. Sure, we can chalk it up to co-morbidities and other factors, but it is what it is. I've had to lay one of my children to rest and being the "1 in a million" case doesn't make it hurt any less. And when the average citizen starts talking about risk mitigation like the CEO of GM... well, that rubs me the wrong way. Because then the response to the death is "well, that's within the risk parameters, so... it's just the cost of doing business/reopening the economy/getting back to school..." or whatever. I've had people say that to my face after hearing about how my daughter died... so I'll ask forgiveness if I'm a bit sensitive on this point. Rarity doesn't diminish the loss or ameliorate the grief.

I think we should do better by the teachers and students who'll die as a result of this... but we won't. And that bugs me. I think life should be held in higher regard.

I know that's my personal stuff, but it is what it is.

I hope it's as easy and as consequence free as they are saying it will be, but the powers that be have literally gotten nothing right all along, so... my faith is beyond tested.

 

[thirteen28]

Back to HCQ - it sounds like the sticking point is the lack of any successful blind - placebo studies that would show that it works. Take 10,000 cases - give 5,000 HCQ (and zinc, I believe) and give the other 5,000 a placebo - double blind so the patients and the doctors don’t know which is which and then see the results.

I don't know where I read it, but some doctors think it's unethical to do that in situations where the difference between getting the medicine or not could be the difference between life and death.

Then it became political. Its been on the market for over 60 years and its been considered reasonably safe. All of a sudden its risky?

Absolutely political. The drug, widely used for decades, didn't suddenly become deadly.

It should be a doctor/patient decision. Not a political one. If someone doesn't trust it or doesn't like the president, they can just decline using it. Simple as that. Their choice.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

If a doctor asked me if I want to use it, I'll ask "Am I close to dying?" If he says yes I'll say "Hell yeah!". If he says I'm not gonna die I'll probably decline it.

For those whom it has worked, most were in the early stages, so it's probably not to wait. Some have recovered with it in the hospital, but the longer you wait the less your chances, and by the time you are intubated, you're probably screwed.

 

[12intheBox]

I don't know where I read it, but some doctors think it's unethical to do that in situations where the difference between getting the medicine or not could be the difference between life and death.

I can hazard a guess that it wasn't in a medical journal.

And what is it - is this thing deadly or is it just fear mongering that we are all going to forget about in November?

 

[thirteen28]

I can hazard a guess that it wasn't in a medical journal.

And what is it - is this thing deadly or is it just fear mongering that we are all going to forget about in November?

No, it wasn't. I don't think medical journals have any particular monopoly on what is ethical.

It's not either/or. But we are clearly past peak deaths, and in fact are at a fraction of that now. And despite the increase in cases that started early/mid-June, if the disease was still as deadly to those testing positive, we would have seen a spike in deaths to go along with it, as it's been more than enough time for those to be factored in even considering deaths as a lagging indicator. When deaths were up but case numbers were lower, the narrative focus was on deaths ... now that deaths are down, the narrative focus is on raw number of cases (which, in multiple instances, have been overcounted, as demonstrated in this thread). And now we've got Fauci and Birx who (when deaths were high) said masks were useless now saying not only masks are necessary, but eye goggles or face shields. You may be the type that believes what authority tells you without reservation, but some of us are not.

If you think debate over the drug we've discussed here and the narrative regarding the pandemic is completely unaffected by politics, you are either naive or willfully blind.

 

[12intheBox]

No, it wasn't. I don't think medical journals have any particular monopoly on what is ethical.

It's not either/or. But we are clearly past peak deaths, and in fact are at a fraction of that now. And despite the increase in cases that started early/mid-June, if the disease was still as deadly to those testing positive, we would have seen a spike in deaths to go along with it, as it's been more than enough time for those to be factored in even considering deaths as a lagging indicator. When deaths were up but case numbers were lower, the narrative focus was on deaths ... now that deaths are down, the narrative focus is on raw number of cases (which, in multiple instances, have been overcounted, as demonstrated in this thread). And now we've got Fauci and Birx who (when deaths were high) said masks were useless now saying not only masks are necessary, but eye goggles or face shields. You may be the type that believes what authority tells you without reservation, but some of us are not.

If you think debate over the drug we've discussed here and the narrative regarding the pandemic is completely unaffected by politics, you are either naive or willfully blind.

Its absolutely affected by politics - its one of the saddest parts of the whole damn thing and a complete indictment as to how far we have fallen as a country. I just suspect you and I seriously disagree as to how exactly politics has played in. And we don’t need to get into it here - I’m pretty sure I know what you think by now and I’m guessing you have a good idea what I think.

As to the first point, the idea that it may be unethical to test the efficacy of a drug using a double blind placebo test because half the people will be getting the placebo is just .... well, it ignores that the purpose is to test the efficacy of the drug. It’s also why it is double blind - the doctors don’t know who is getting the drug and who isn’t.

And yes, while skepticism is healthy, I use a mechanic to fix my car, I use surgeons for surgery, and I listen to epidemiologists for epidemics.

 

[thirteen28]

And we don’t need to get into it here - I’m pretty sure I know what you think by now and I’m guessing you have a good idea what I think.

Yeah, I think we do.

As to the first point, the idea that it may be unethical to test the efficacy of a drug using a double blind placebo test because half the people will be getting the placebo is just .... well, it ignores that the purpose is to test the efficacy of the drug. It’s also why it is double blind - the doctors don’t know who is getting the drug and who isn’t.

Again, I'm going by what I read. But it seems reasonable in the case where the difference between using the drug or not can be life or death. If you are just testing a new blood pressure drug where failure to receive it is not a death sentence, then the double blind test can be conducted without ethical considerations. But if it's life or death, choosing who gets it and who doesn't means you could potentially be choosing who lives and who dies.

You wanna be the guy making that choice? Or would you rather just give the drug to all who can safely take it an hope they get better. Where the latter might suffer some in scientific precision, it more than makes up for it in humanity.

And yes, while skepticism is healthy, I use a mechanic to fix my car, I use surgeons for surgery, and I listen to epidemiologists for epidemics.

Do you let the media filter what you hear from mechanics and surgeons? Do you talk to epidemiologists directly without any filtering?

 

[12intheBox]

Yeah, I think we do.

Again, I'm going by what I read. But it seems reasonable in the case where the difference between using the drug or not can be life or death. If you are just testing a new blood pressure drug where failure to receive it is not a death sentence, then the double blind test can be conducted without ethical considerations. But if it's life or death, choosing who gets it and who doesn't means you could potentially be choosing who lives and who dies.

You wanna be the guy making that choice? Or would you rather just give the drug to all who can safely take it an hope they get better. Where the latter might suffer some in scientific precision, it more than makes up for it in humanity.

Again - the study is double blind. the doctor does not make the choice who gets the drug and who gets the placebo - they don’t even know. And where would medicine be without this protocol? I don’t understand your proposal - if a drug company wants to try out a new drug to treat a deadly disease, the only ethical choice for doctors is to have their patients give it a go? Should they go one medication at a time trial and error style or give them a cocktail of every experimental drug at once?

Do you let the media filter what you hear from mechanics and surgeons? Do you talk to epidemiologists directly without any filtering?

Yes - there are dozens of epidemiologists on Twitter who have been trying to put out as much information as they can throughout this epidemic. Would you like some of their names so you can follow them and talk with them directly yourself?

 

[XXXIVwin]

just give the drug to all who can safely take it an hope they get better.

This is laughable. Truly.

"Just give [HCQ] to all who can safely take it and hope they get better."

You say this strategy "might suffer some in scientific precision." Gee, ya think?

And you bizarrely assert that this "more than makes up for it in humanity" when there's this pesky little fact that ... wait what was it now... there's still ZERO proof that HCQ works?!?!

Literally NO ONE in the scientific community is against conducting rigorous RDBPC trials on HCQ.

"Everybody says it works!" yells the snake oil salesman of the 1700's. Hmmm, but where's the PROOF, one might ask...

"I don't need proof! Screw the science, just give it to everybody and hope!"

Unreal.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Pravda contained some fine journalism

Sorry but anyone who can’t recognize the blatant manipulativeness of that “news source” is a hopeless case anyway.