Will the Coming Season be Different Because of COVID-19?

[steelreserve]

The point actually is to change the number, not just spread it out over time. If everybody had COVID-19 parties like chickenpox parties in the 70's, then the death toll would be maximized. By putting measures in place to reduce the spread, it will allow time for treatment or a vaccine to vastly reduce the number of deaths as opposed to an outright strategy of herd immunity.

To date there is no vaccine for HIV virus, but there are treatments that allow people with that virus to live almost normal lives. The strategy at the outset of HIV and AIDS wasn't to tell everybody to go about reusing their IV needles, share them with other users and continue to have unprotected sex, especially if you are in a risk group.

What evidence is there that 20% of NYC had the Coronavirus as you mention? That would mean 1.6million people would be positive. According to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, the US has a total of 1.2 million cases to date. That is actual evidence here. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...rk-update.html

See above. Random testing of New York city and state. Very official and reputable. It would actually suggest more like 4-5 million positive cases, given that the population of NYC metro area is 21 million, not just the technical city limits which are 8 million. The entire point is that the virus is much more widespread than the official reported numbers and therefore orders of magnitude less deadly. Like, 0.1% instead of 4% or 5%. Similar official studies in California producing nearly identical results about the extent of undiscovered cases, though there it is more like 4%-5% came up positive in random tests and 0.1% or less of the population was "officially" diagnosed when they had active infections. Like, MILLIONS of infections, with the result being that it went completely unnoticed until they found evidence of it later through random testing.

All of this was widely expected by The Experts, since the main reason for getting tested would be because you had reason to believe you were infected, creating a huge selection bias. But the important part here is that is is simply not very deadly, and presents almost no danger at all to the vast majority of people. Meaning that the strategy of isolating the relatively small portion of high-risk people ought to be simple and extremely effective.

I do not even understand what you are getting at with the HIV comparison. Once again, it is completely backwards. You don't "recover" from HIV and come out with immunity. Of course it would be stupid to try creating a widespread outbreak of a chronic lifelong disease. It is the exact opposite of COID-19 or the chicken pox.

I keep saying it because it is true. Like an indisputable truth of how the world around us works. Almost all of the catastrophic models that you have pushed back hard against since the beginning were based on the scenario that there was NO social distance. We then social distanced...that totally changes the variables and therefore the model. Which is basically exactly what was said by most reasonable people. You are staking an odd position that you did some back of the envelope math that said if we did nothing the outbreak would be this and that. We then did something totally different than what you said and the outbreak somewhat met your guesstimate math. This is then used to support an hypothesis that doing nothing would have had the same result. If you can not see how that is flawed reasoning and connecting things that don't connect; there is not much else to say.

My counter to your repetitive gross misuse of math and statistics is not necessarily that you are wrong, but that if you have, in fact, stumbled into the right answer -- it is so far divorced from being due to the reasons that you think that it isn't even in the same neighborhood.

I've never contended that you, I, or anyone else can't understand this. The information is largely out there. The science is complex but not mystery of the universe stuff. The statistics are not intuitive but, again - not incalculable mysteries of the universe stuff. But I have continually attempted to reason and discuss that if you change one variable there is a cascading/ripple effect on every other variable and therefore each predicted/modeled outcome. This is basic experimental design/mathematical modeling stuff.

No matter how much you or I want it to be true; you can not say that the current infection rate, death rate, times the average person wanks it, or whatever that is being tracked with high social distancing would be the EXACT same with no distancing.

I can only believe that you refuse to acknowledge how math stuff works is that is allows you to gloat about how you were some visionary prophet that saw all this coming and us mere sheeple were unable to perceive the pearls of wisdom you laid before us.

Nobody is saying that, and nobody has ever been saying that. But you are still using the mysterious unknown to justify a position that is grossly out of step with reality.

There were grave predictions with no social distancing. Those were wildly incorrect. There were grave predictions that included social distancing. Those were wildly incorrect as well. There are real-world examples of both strategies being practiced to varying degrees, and every instance confirms that the no-distancing and full-lockdown predictions were both completely wrong.

To use your language, it is no longer a multivariate equation. The variables are being revealed, and they are all much lower than we were told. This comes as no surprise to me, as it should not to most, because it was obvious from the very beginning that the variables being proposed were preposterous by any standard, which again should have been obvious to anyone.

It is not that I am some visionary prophet - more like you need to be the opposite of a visionary prophet in order to simply go with the flow and shut up. But no, that's what everyone was shamed and silenced into doing, and look where it got us. You can rail against the evidence all you want, proclaiming a black box, but the outcome is the outcome. There wasn't a cataclysm and there was never going to be a cataclysm. The curtain is pulled back now, and people should be PISSED.

[Mojouw]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...rk-update.html

See above. Random testing of New York city and state. Very official and reputable. It would actually suggest more like 4-5 million positive cases, given that the population of NYC metro area is 21 million, not just the technical city limits which are 8 million. The entire point is that the virus is much more widespread than the official reported numbers and therefore orders of magnitude less deadly. Like, 0.1% instead of 4% or 5%. Similar official studies in California producing nearly identical results about the extent of undiscovered cases, though there it is more like 4%-5% came up positive in random tests and 0.1% or less of the population was "officially" diagnosed when they had active infections. Like, MILLIONS of infections, with the result being that it went completely unnoticed until they found evidence of it later through random testing.

All of this was widely expected by The Experts, since the main reason for getting tested would be because you had reason to believe you were infected, creating a huge selection bias. But the important part here is that is is simply not very deadly, and presents almost no danger at all to the vast majority of people. Meaning that the strategy of isolating the relatively small portion of high-risk people ought to be simple and extremely effective.

I do not even understand what you are getting at with the HIV comparison. Once again, it is completely backwards. You don't "recover" from HIV and come out with immunity. Of course it would be stupid to try creating a widespread outbreak of a chronic lifelong disease. It is the exact opposite of COID-19 or the chicken pox.




Nobody is saying that, and nobody has ever been saying that. But you are still using the mysterious unknown to justify a position that is grossly out of step with reality.

There were grave predictions with no social distancing. Those were wildly incorrect. There were grave predictions that included social distancing. Those were wildly incorrect as well. There are real-world examples of both strategies being practiced to varying degrees, and every instance confirms that the no-distancing and full-lockdown predictions were both completely wrong.

To use your language, it is no longer a multivariate equation. The variables are being revealed, and they are all much lower than we were told. This comes as no surprise to me, as it should not to most, because it was obvious from the very beginning that the variables being proposed were preposterous by any standard, which again should have been obvious to anyone.

It is not that I am some visionary prophet - more like you need to be the opposite of a visionary prophet in order to simply go with the flow and shut up. But no, that's what everyone was shamed and silenced into doing, and look where it got us. You can rail against the evidence all you want, proclaiming a black box, but the outcome is the outcome. There wasn't a cataclysm and there was never going to be a cataclysm. The curtain is pulled back now, and people should be PISSED.

I have no idea how you are putting that together. Because that is exactly what I am talking about. You are taking results from one set of conditions and attempting to use them to support the speculation that another totally different set of conditions would produce the exact same results. That just isn't how any of this works.

[steelreserve]

I have no idea how you are putting that together. Because that is exactly what I am talking about. You are taking results from one set of conditions and attempting to use them to support the speculation that another totally different set of conditions would produce the exact same results. That just isn't how any of this works.

Are you saying that you are unaware of the dire predictions that were made which incorporated the effects of social distancing, and that those turned out to be completely inaccurate in light of the results from actually practicing social distancing?

And that you are also unaware that there are places, both inside this country and overseas, where social distancing was practiced to a much lesser extent, if at all, and that the outcome from that also shows the no-lockdown predictions to be completely inaccurate?

And that you are unaware of the well-documented scientific studies showing that the disease was actually very widespread and likely running unchecked for months, without social distancing of any kind, but without any of the disastrous results predicted by the black-box models?

There are predictions for both aproaches and results from both approaches, and every last one of them shows that the crisis we were told to expect was completely overblown, with full precautions or with no precautions.

[Mojouw]

Where are these neo-liberal no social distancing Utopias?

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Where are these neo-liberal no social distancing Utopias?

I think Sweden is supposed to fit that bill.

50% of Stockholm residents live in single person home, so they distance somewhat culturally already. Still, they are the 7th highest mortality rate per capita of COVID19 in the world.

[steelreserve]

Where are these neo-liberal no social distancing Utopias?

Unless you've lost the ability to use search engines, I'm going to assume that question was put there so you can lie in wait and tell me one of "Place X actually DID do a lockdown" or "Place Y has unreliable information," etc. So let's just skip past that part, and I'll give you an easy one.

Show me ONE place - it can be anywhere in the entire Universe - where more than a small fraction of one percent of the population has died from this virus. Like, a SMALL fraction. Call it about 1 in 1,000 people. Double bonus points if it is not confined almost exclusively to the oldest and sickest.

I'll save you some time: You can't do it. No such place exists.

The Horror of New York - small fraction of 1 percent. The Apocalypse of Northern Italy - small fraction of 1%. And those are the worst it's gotten anywhere, with a completely blown response, and all kinds of contributing factors to make it worse.

The clear, absolutely inescapable conclusion is that it simply is not that dangerous, and those who continue to insist otherwise are just grasping at what-ifs and the emotional factor. Why is it so difficult to take the loss and move on.

Oh, right, that little bit about bankrupting half the world with the hysteria. Gotta go down fighting for that one.

[Mojouw]

Unless you've lost the ability to use search engines, I'm going to assume that question was put there so you can lie in wait and tell me one of "Place X actually DID do a lockdown" or "Place Y has unreliable information," etc. So let's just skip past that part, and I'll give you an easy one.

Show me ONE place - it can be anywhere in the entire Universe - where more than a small fraction of one percent of the population has died from this virus. Like, a SMALL fraction. Call it about 1 in 1,000 people. Double bonus points if it is not confined almost exclusively to the oldest and sickest.

I'll save you some time: You can't do it. No such place exists.

The Horror of New York - small fraction of 1 percent. The Apocalypse of Northern Italy - small fraction of 1%. And those are the worst it's gotten anywhere, with a completely blown response, and all kinds of contributing factors to make it worse.

The clear, absolutely inescapable conclusion is that it simply is not that dangerous, and those who continue to insist otherwise are just grasping at what-ifs and the emotional factor. Why is it so difficult to take the loss and move on.

Oh, right, that little bit about bankrupting half the world with the hysteria. Gotta go down fighting for that one.

Ummm....all those places went through or are currently under strict lockdowns. I Googled and the only thing I found was Sweden and they are starting to bunker in a bit because of a spiking infection rate.

Like if you could dial back the arrogance and drawn out statements about how smart you are; I might be able to follow your argument. But as I can track it now you have a core thesis that goes along these lines:

1. The models were wrong because they predicted catastrophic death with or without social distancing.
2. The numbers are in and this thing is over and it was a far lower butcher's bill than modeled.
3. SteelReserve is a genius and everyone else is a socially cowed moron.
4. I don't care that I am taking predictive math from Scenario 1 and using the outcomes of a totally different Scenario 2 to "disprove" the dire predictions from Scenario 1.
5. Any attempt to point out the problems with bolting parts from two different cars together and calling it a day is just shouted down with how the experts are wrong and something something something?

- - - Updated - - -

I think Sweden is supposed to fit that bill.

50% of Stockholm residents live in single person home, so they distance somewhat culturally already. Still, they are the 7th highest mortality rate per capita of COVID19 in the world.

I was just reading this past week or so about how that might be not going the way they wanted...But there are plenty of interesting discussion points regarding what is the intersection between health priorities and economic priorities? How does one impact the other? Is it better to take a massive dose of economic shock all at once or slow burn it over time? But I can't seem to find the traction to understand the overall argument to have any useful discussion(s).

People largely feel like this thing is over (whether it is nor not) and it is just now going to be divided into 3 predictable camps (the government was wrong; the government was right; and doesn't matter - Jesus took the wheel) and become a ton of shouting of random things.

[steelreserve]

Ummm....all those places went through or are currently under strict lockdowns. I Googled and the only thing I found was Sweden and they are starting to bunker in a bit because of a spiking infection rate.

Like if you could dial back the arrogance and drawn out statements about how smart you are; I might be able to follow your argument. But as I can track it now you have a core thesis that goes along these lines:

1. The models were wrong because they predicted catastrophic death with or without social distancing.
2. The numbers are in and this thing is over and it was a far lower butcher's bill than modeled.
3. SteelReserve is a genius and everyone else is a socially cowed moron.
4. I don't care that I am taking predictive math from Scenario 1 and using the outcomes of a totally different Scenario 2 to "disprove" the dire predictions from Scenario 1.
5. Any attempt to point out the problems with bolting parts from two different cars together and calling it a day is just shouted down with how the experts are wrong and something something something?

I don't know how you continue to make this mistake. The predictions from Scenario 1 were completely wrong in cases where Scenario 1 was what happened. The predictions from Scenario 2 were completely wrong in cases where Scenario 2 was what happened. There is a huge amount of evidence - namely, all of it - that verifies this.

In other words, what we were once told was the best case with social distancing appears to be more like it was far worse than the actual worst case without precautions at all. Not that I was ever advocating for zero precautions, but somehow it keeps regressing back to that claim, so I feel the need to reiterate that.

Points 1, 2, and the second half of 3 are right on, while the first half of 3 is open for interpretation.

The problem that any dire prediction runs into at this point, thanks to the widespread cases discovered in random testing, is that the disease appears to have a survival rate approaching 99.9 percent with no medical treatment at all. That by itself is just going to bulldoze all of the worst-case models, as it is going to be there regardless of almost any other variable you can mess with.

I guess you could make it worse if people weren't getting enough to eat, or there was no medical care for other conditions, but they're working on that.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I was just reading this past week or so about how that might be not going the way they wanted...But there are plenty of interesting discussion points regarding what is the intersection between health priorities and economic priorities? How does one impact the other? Is it better to take a massive dose of economic shock all at once or slow burn it over time? But I can't seem to find the traction to understand the overall argument to have any useful discussion(s).

People largely feel like this thing is over (whether it is nor not) and it is just now going to be divided into 3 predictable camps (the government was wrong; the government was right; and doesn't matter - Jesus took the wheel) and become a ton of shouting of random things.

You appear to be searching for an answer of " what is better"? with respect to variables of health/economic? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, then its honestly up to each individual and their particular set of values. So there is really no correct answer of what is better, just what is better based on their values.

I personally value life and health over money, but I am in a financially stable position based upon a lifetime of fiscal responsibility and paying off all my debt. But maybe if I lived beyond my means and had hundreds of thousands of dollars owing, I would prioritize money over health of others.

I don't think its over. There is no vaccine or treatment other than intra-vascular Lysol, chlorquiine and maybe this Remdesivir drug. So people are going to continue to get it. The careless idiots will continue to spread it and somewhere around 0.5-0.7% of the total population will die because of it.

[Mojouw]

You appear to be searching for an answer of " what is better"? with respect to variables of health/economic? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, then its honestly up to each individual and their particular set of values. So there is really no correct answer of what is better, just what is better based on their values.

I personally value life and health over money, but I am in a financially stable position based upon a lifetime of fiscal responsibility and paying off all my debt. But maybe if I lived beyond my means and had hundreds of thousands of dollars owing, I would prioritize money over health of others.

I don't think its over. There is no vaccine or treatment other than intra-vascular Lysol, chlorquiine and maybe this Remdesivir drug. So people are going to continue to get it. The careless idiots will continue to spread it and somewhere around 0.5-0.7% of the total population will die because of it.

Pretty much. The difficult thing is that while the judgement does come down to individual values; there are real world scenarios where my values suffer because of someone elses' values and vice versa.

I agree that this is far from over - both medically and economically. This is going to reverberate for 12-18 more months, minimum. It has become and will become the only issue in national discourse for the upcoming election cycle; so that will turn the volume on all this up even more.

[tom444]

We aren't out of the 2nd inning with this thing:

A Trump administration projection and a public model both predict deaths rising as states reopen.

As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of coronavirus cases and deaths over the next several weeks. The daily death toll will reach about 3,000 on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double the current number of about 1,750.



The projections, based on government modeling pulled together in chart form by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forecast about 200,000 new cases each day by the end of the month, up from about 25,000 cases a day currently.



The numbers underscore a sobering reality: While the United States has been hunkered down for the past seven weeks, significant risks remain. And reopening the economy will make matters worse.


“There remains a large number of counties whose burden continues to grow,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/u...e-updates.html

[vader29]

[tom444]

Sure pal.

Dr. Eric Berg, DC is a chiropractor and health educator who is an expert in Healthy Keto™ and intermittent fasting

[Craic]

Living must have begun since you are typing this. To quote Eastwood...."Dyin' aint much of a livin." Regular life wont happen until there is a vaccine, immunity or significantly better treatments, which could take 6 months or longer.

I've driven 75MPH, I've seen many people drive 75MPH or faster....but I've never seen, heard or read in the New England Journal of Medicine, anybody contracting "Lead-Foot" from somebody driving 75MPH or faster.

I wonder what our resident policemen and women would agree.

"Honestly, officer, I was just following the flow of traffic!"

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Sure pal.

Let the believers take the stuff the Chiropractor is saying works. It's kind of Darwinian.

University of Virginia study, supported by the National Inst of Health and submitted to New England Journal of Medicine for peer review and publishing says something different.


Hydroxychloroquine as treatment for COVID-19 shows no benefit and more deaths in VA study

Published: April 21, 2020 at 2:16 p.m. EThttp://Hydroxychloroquine as treatme...t 2:16 p.m. ET

[tom444]

Let the believers take the stuff the Chiropractor is saying works. It's kind of Darwinian.

University of Virginia study, supported by the National Inst of Health and submitted to New England Journal of Medicine for peer review and publishing says something different.


Hydroxychloroquine as treatment for COVID-19 shows no benefit and more deaths in VA study

Published: April 21, 2020 at 2:16 p.m. EThttp://Hydroxychloroquine as treatme...t 2:16 p.m. ET

Yeah, I just don't like to see misinformation getting spread around.

[tom444]

[pczach]

Hydroxychloroquine Has About 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients

In a letter to Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) presents a frequently updated table of studies that report results of treating COVID-19 with the anti-malaria drugs chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, Plaquenil®).
To date, the total number of reported patients treated with HCQ, with or without zinc and the widely used antibiotic azithromycin, is 2,333, writes AAPS, in observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically. There were 63 deaths, all but 11 in a single retrospective report from the Veterans Administration where the patients were severely ill.
The antiviral properties of these drugs have been studied since 2003. Particularly when combined with zinc, they hinder viral entry into cells and inhibit replication. They may also prevent overreaction by the immune system, which causes the cytokine storm responsible for much of the damage in severe cases, explains AAPS. HCQ is often very helpful in treating autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Additional benefits shown in some studies, AAPS states, is to decrease the number of days when a patient is contagious, reduce the need for ventilators, and shorten the time to clinical recovery.

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

This is a linked article, plus two Youtube videos on the subject at the bottom of the page.

I don't claim to have answers, but there are credible people that believe hydroxychloroquine does help in the treatment of COVID-19, and they have numbers to back up their claims.

[Mojouw]

Hydroxychloroquine Has About 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients

In a letter to Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) presents a frequently updated table of studies that report results of treating COVID-19 with the anti-malaria drugs chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, Plaquenil®).
To date, the total number of reported patients treated with HCQ, with or without zinc and the widely used antibiotic azithromycin, is 2,333, writes AAPS, in observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically. There were 63 deaths, all but 11 in a single retrospective report from the Veterans Administration where the patients were severely ill.
The antiviral properties of these drugs have been studied since 2003. Particularly when combined with zinc, they hinder viral entry into cells and inhibit replication. They may also prevent overreaction by the immune system, which causes the cytokine storm responsible for much of the damage in severe cases, explains AAPS. HCQ is often very helpful in treating autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Additional benefits shown in some studies, AAPS states, is to decrease the number of days when a patient is contagious, reduce the need for ventilators, and shorten the time to clinical recovery.

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

This is a linked article, plus two Youtube videos on the subject at the bottom of the page.

I don't claim to have answers, but there are credible people that believe hydroxychloroquine does help in the treatment of COVID-19, and they have numbers to back up their claims.

These are not credible people. It is an organization that exists to lobby for private practice doctors, defeat health care reform laws, and get rid of medicare. It is largely a lobbying group that exists to allow docs to prescribe as much high value meds as possible.

From Wikipedia, but other sources back this up: "The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism#Vaccines"]causal relationship between vaccines and autism.."

I am not trying to attack anyone or stake out a political position on healthcare reform laws here. I just think that there is starting to be a bewildering array of contradictory and confusing information out there. I happen to be aware of who/what the AAPS is from another discussion - so I thought I would offer it here. Again, strip away the political commentary and you have an organization that has repeatedly advocated for medically incorrect and dangerous positions in the past. I hesitate to extend them much, if any, credibility on this issue.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Yeah, I just don't like to see misinformation getting spread around.

I hear ya, but some folks don't want to listen to actual data and evidence, they just want to hear what they want to hear.

I've been around the medical field for almost 20 years and I understand clinical papers and statistical significance of outcomes. Hydroxycloroquine is shown to reduce the risk of blood clotting and that is good for immobile patients on ventilators for reducing the risk of pulmonary embolism. The adverse events in the Virginia study as well as discontinuing of a Brazilian study due to deaths, as well as studies in other parts of the world point to it not being a viable therapeutic drug for COVID19.

Again, I am still fine with those that don't understand Darwinism taking it all they want. That's just some irony there that cant be avoided.

[tom444]

I hear ya, but some folks don't want to listen to actual data and evidence, they just want to hear what they want to hear.

I've been around the medical field for almost 20 years and I understand clinical papers and statistical significance of outcomes. Hydroxycloroquine is shown to reduce the risk of blood clotting and that is good for immobile patients on ventilators for reducing the risk of pulmonary embolism. The adverse events in the Virginia study as well as discontinuing of a Brazilian study due to deaths, as well as studies in other parts of the world point to it not being a viable therapeutic drug for COVID19.

Again, I am still fine with those that don't understand Darwinism taking it all they want. That's just some irony there that cant be avoided.

I leaning in your direction. They can think what they want.

Review: Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine Likely Ineffective For COVID-19


APR 30, 2020 | RACHEL LUTZ


Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine likely are not effective against the novel coronavirus, according to a paper published in the May issue of The FASEB Journal. The journal is published by the Federation of the American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which has 28 societies and more than 130,000 members.

Investigators from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital conducted a comprehensive literature review of clinical experiences with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in order to determine these drugs’ potential safety and efficacy in fighting COVID-19. They also reviewed anecdotal reports and poorly controlled clinical trials that raised the initial optimism about these therapeutic treatments.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are effective against malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus, but likely not COVID-19, investigators wrote.

The lead study author, Mark Poznansky, MD, PhD, said he worked in the intensive care unit at Massachusetts General as an infectious disease attending physician and noticed that there were both risks and benefits to treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. He saw patients who appeared to be doing poorly when given the drug, he said. Because of this, he wanted to “create a science-based awareness of this subject,” he explained in a statement.

“Beyond the known cardiac side effects of this drug, we aimed to reveal those aspects of the anti-viral and immune modulatory activities of hydroxychloroquine that could potentially help or, as importantly, impair a patient’s response to the virus,” he said. “The goal was to help physicians make data-informed decisions about how to use this drug for patients with COVID-19 infection within carefully designed clinical trials.”

The analysis resulted in significant skepticism for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine therapy for COVID-19 treatment. Specifically, data through April 22 showed that these drugs reduced viral uptake by cells cultured in a lab rather than in patients.


Additionally, investigators noted, the immunosuppressive action of the drugs is also troublesome. While effective for the purposes of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, they have failed in treating other respiratory outbreaks such as influenza.

https://www.contagionlive.com/news/c...ctive-covid-19

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

These are not credible people. It is an organization that exists to lobby for private practice doctors, defeat health care reform laws, and get rid of medicare. It is largely a lobbying group that exists to allow docs to prescribe as much high value meds as possible.

From Wikipedia, but other sources back this up: "The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.."

thanks for looking it up. I was going to, because that story sounded as shady as the letter I got from a Nigerian Prince that had a fortune to send to me a couple years ago.

AAPS is an abbreviation that is designed to sound like a credible organization, but I have never heard of them before, let alone in any credible medical journals or publications. I think I know why people want to believe this, but still don't understand why they do.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I leaning in your direction. They can think what they want.



https://www.contagionlive.com/news/c...ctive-covid-19

There you go quoting Doctors from Harvard Med and Mass General that are "creating a science-based awareness" of this topic. Next you are going to try and post something from The Mayo Clinc or Johns Hopkins Medical Centre, or the Cleveland Clinic, or UCLA School of Medicine that is published in the JAMA (Journal of American Medical Assoc.) that is based on clinical evidence of a level 1 trial. Why bother to listen to credible sources of information when it comes to your health?

Let the folks that want to listen to Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew go ahead. The principal of natural selection points to society being better off in the long run.

[Mojouw]

thanks for looking it up. I was going to, because that story sounded as shady as the letter I got from a Nigerian Prince that had a fortune to send to me a couple years ago.

AAPS is an abbreviation that is designed to sound like a credible organization, but I have never heard of them before, let alone in any credible medical journals or publications. I think I know why people want to believe this, but still don't understand why they do.

I think I get exactly why people want things like this to be true -- it alleviates fear and anxiety if nothing else. But I am just continually struck dumb by the total devaluation of expertise and professionalism that has taken place in this country over the last while. This current crisis is just bringing it to the forefront. Even if you find the political leanings of mainstream media reprehensible, they still have minimal standards of professionalism and confirmation that they attempt to adhere to -- YouTube? Twitter? Not so much. If the only place you can find the "data" you are looking at is on a self-published social media platform; then it is probably garbage information. Further, if you hear 8 out of 10 people/sources saying A and only 2/10 saying B -- take an extra 5 minutes and read up on who/what the 2/10 are or represent. Almost always you can see the reason for their "alternative" take in their organizational or personal goals. It almost always isn't altruism or the pursuit of knowledge.

Apparently the AAPS biggest issues are that evidence based medicine is a waste of time and government regulations.oversight based on that should be abolished and the elimination of insurance companies (both public and private) so that fee restrictions can be lifted.

[pczach]

These are not credible people. It is an organization that exists to lobby for private practice doctors, defeat health care reform laws, and get rid of medicare. It is largely a lobbying group that exists to allow docs to prescribe as much high value meds as possible.

From Wikipedia, but other sources back this up: "The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism#Vaccines"]causal relationship between vaccines and autism.."

I am not trying to attack anyone or stake out a political position on healthcare reform laws here. I just think that there is starting to be a bewildering array of contradictory and confusing information out there. I happen to be aware of who/what the AAPS is from another discussion - so I thought I would offer it here. Again, strip away the political commentary and you have an organization that has repeatedly advocated for medically incorrect and dangerous positions in the past. I hesitate to extend them much, if any, credibility on this issue.

I wasn't trying to take a side. I just posted one of many articles on the subject and the groups that are in favor of using the drug. There are ongoing studies trying to figure out if there advantages to using it. The people that are arguing against it know literally nothing about how well the drug does or doesn't work, but they sure are quick to post everything and anything to discredit it to attack the president. That in itself is an irresponsible political act. Any "professional" that has insufficient data, yet makes definitive statements on a new medical approach that hasn't been studied enough to truly know, is irresponsible.

I have no idea if it is a better treatment for COVID-19 or not. What I'm not doing is dismissing it out-of-hand by listening to people and groups who also happen to have political agendas who haven't conducted detailed studies, yet declare with certainty that it is not effective...and maybe dangerous.

There are ongoing studies that don't have definitive answers yet, but you do hear some encouraging reports that give some hope that maybe it can be an effective treatment and save lives. Only time will tell. Here's an example of an ongoing study that might provide some answers. https://www.healio.com/cardiology/va...h-care-workers

[pczach]

Here's a very simple breakdown of what we know about Hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavi...search-studies

No opinions. Just a statement about what is known, and the few studies that show some promise but with a sampling size that is far too small to definitively answer the question.

People here on both sides seem to want a definitive answer to a question that cannot be answered yet. Only time and much more detailed and complete studies will determine whether the drug can help. It is an ongoing process. Those that say that it can't help know as little as anyone else, yet they have no problem trying to tell everyone that it can't work. No organization....medical, scientific, or otherwise knows the answer to the question, yet are fighting on a side of the argument. My point is that there shouldn't be any sides. The only position should be, let the studies and trials continue and we will know.

[Mojouw]

Here's a very simple breakdown of what we know about Hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavi...search-studies

No opinions. Just a statement about what is known, and the few studies that show some promise but with a sampling size that is far too small to definitively answer the question.

People here on both sides seem to want a definitive answer to a question that cannot be answered yet. Only time and much more detailed and complete studies will determine whether the drug can help. It is an ongoing process. Those that say that it can't help know as little as anyone else, yet they have no problem trying to tell everyone that it can't work. No organization....medical, scientific, or otherwise knows the answer to the question, yet are fighting on a side of the argument. My point is that there shouldn't be any sides. The only position should be, let the studies and trials continue and we will know.

I mean posting these types of links and information sources is a horse of a totally different color than the original message. I really don't want to personalize this or politicize it in any way. I was simply pushing back against the idea that the post was an example of "credible" people advocating for a treatment protocol. It wasn't. If you read the other information in the links that you have subsequently posted - no one has any useful numbers to back up any claims of efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine as either a treatment or preventative option.

While it would be awesome if an off the shelf medicine could be adapted to be either a treatment or a preventative for a new illness (or even both!), right now, the numbers say that any positive numbers are not different than "noise" you get in any data set. Even if I had this thing I would be extremely cautious about pumping myself full of a chemical that appears to have minimal impact.

As for attacking or supporting the President - I wouldn't know. I haven't paid attention to anything he has or hasn't said in months. He lost me for good after he went on long rambling tirade over the differences between a "beautiful swab" and a Qtip. I am only "attacking" Hydroxychloroquine based on the initial garbage science that was used to advocate for it. If the science gets better, then I will be totally willing to change my opinion.

[pczach]

I mean posting these types of links and information sources is a horse of a totally different color than the original message. I really don't want to personalize this or politicize it in any way. I was simply pushing back against the idea that the post was an example of "credible" people advocating for a treatment protocol. It wasn't. If you read the other information in the links that you have subsequently posted - no one has any useful numbers to back up any claims of efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine as either a treatment or preventative option.

While it would be awesome if an off the shelf medicine could be adapted to be either a treatment or a preventative for a new illness (or even both!), right now, the numbers say that any positive numbers are not different than "noise" you get in any data set. Even if I had this thing I would be extremely cautious about pumping myself full of a chemical that appears to have minimal impact.

As for attacking or supporting the President - I wouldn't know. I haven't paid attention to anything he has or hasn't said in months. He lost me for good after he went on long rambling tirade over the differences between a "beautiful swab" and a Qtip. I am only "attacking" Hydroxychloroquine based on the initial garbage science that was used to advocate for it. If the science gets better, then I will be totally willing to change my opinion.

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not on either side of this thing. I had no idea who that organization was. I have never heard of them before. They were just one example of people pushing for more usage based on their findings that came up using a search engine. I had zero political intent with the post. There are others that believe the drug has promise. I stated at the bottom of my post you quoted that "I don't have any answers". I'm just quoting people or groups that believe it has merit and putting it out there that these conversations here have way too little middle ground and are based more on what we don't know, rather than what we do know.

I think people that want to get their hands on this drug and use it as a prophylactic for COVID-19 or to treat themselves are idiots. I would never advocate something that reckless. I think if someone wants to take the medication under hospital care or as part of a clinical trial, that should be available to them. That's the only way it should be administered.

With that said, you may not be paying attention to the President, but most of everything in this thread has been political in some way. When it comes to subjects like this, politics shouldn't matter...yet politics frames what many think, and even cause people to believe or disbelieve information based on where it came from because they feel it helps one party or another. I think it was wrong of Trump to throw the drug out there as a savior drug with no real data to back that up. If he just said that the drug is something that is being looked into, I would be OK with that. Instead, he touted it as if he had a potential cure that was being denied to patients...and that's simply not true.

What I posted is just to point out that anyone that completely dismisses the drug before all the testing is complete are being just as irresponsible and political as anyone else, regardless of them wearing a lab coat and having credentials. Only those that are truly saying, "we don't know enough yet" are telling the truth.

[Mojouw]

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not on either side of this thing. I had no idea who that organization was. I have never heard of them before. They were just one example of people pushing for more usage based on their findings that came up using a search engine. I had zero political intent with the post. There are others that believe the drug has promise. I stated at the bottom of my post you quoted that "I don't have any answers". I'm just quoting people or groups that believe it has merit and putting it out there that these conversations here have way too little middle ground and are based more on what we don't know, rather than what we do know.

I think people that want to get their hands on this drug and use it as a prophylactic for COVID-19 or to treat themselves are idiots. I would never advocate something that reckless. I think if someone wants to take the medication under hospital care or as part of a clinical trial, that should be available to them. That's the only way it should be administered.

With that said, you may not be paying attention to the President, but most of everything in this thread has been political in some way. When it comes to subjects like this, politics shouldn't matter...yet politics frames what many think, and even cause people to believe or disbelieve information based on where it came from because they feel it helps one party or another. I think it was wrong of Trump to throw the drug out there as a savior drug with no real data to back that up. If he just said that the drug is something that is being looked into, I would be OK with that. Instead, he touted it as if he had a potential cure that was being denied to patients...and that's simply not true.

What I posted is just to point out that anyone that completely dismisses the drug before all the testing is complete are being just as irresponsible and political as anyone else, regardless of them wearing a lab coat and having credentials. Only those that are truly saying, "we don't know enough yet" are telling the truth.

I don't know. I have just reached a point that because far too many people are incapable of reasoning and/or distinguishing utter bullshit when they see it; most of the internet is full of nonsense. For instance, the entire GoodRX post is basically a pharmacist gently telling worried folks that are not able to understand things for themselves that whatever they heard about this medicine is untested, untried, mostly unscientific crap. So we get to this point where everyone is trying to be "fair and balanced" and we get totally nonequivalent things being elevated to the same platform. Then, frankly, idiots use that to determine these two things are of equal value. It is a self-reinforcing cycle of stupidity and bullshit.

As to the usefulness of this thing; I guess we can go with "don't know enough yet" but there are people (with the same level of credibility as those making claims for Hydroxychloroquine) that crystals cure diseases and common household chemicals prevent AIDs. Technically, the ability to Lysol applied directly to the genitals has never been subjected to a Peer Reviewed double-blind study; so we really can't say for sure that it won't work!

Me, personally, I am just going to go old school on it and drink a staggering and irresponsible amount of Gin and Tonics. Time tested manner (excuse?) of getting quinine into the system. I anticipate being invincible to both malaria and COVID-19 by the end of June. I am starting to have an odd desire to colonize and exploit resources in India...weird. Odd side effect.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Here's a very simple breakdown of what we know about Hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavi...search-studies

No opinions. Just a statement about what is known, and the few studies that show some promise but with a sampling size that is far too small to definitively answer the question.

People here on both sides seem to want a definitive answer to a question that cannot be answered yet. Only time and much more detailed and complete studies will determine whether the drug can help. It is an ongoing process. Those that say that it can't help know as little as anyone else, yet they have no problem trying to tell everyone that it can't work. No organization....medical, scientific, or otherwise knows the answer to the question, yet are fighting on a side of the argument. My point is that there shouldn't be any sides. The only position should be, let the studies and trials continue and we will know.

True, all these studies noted in that link are flawed. Either too small, single arm, or the one in france compares patient groups at 2 different hospitals. The one study with the largest patient group of 368 patients is obviously better than the ones with only 30-80 patients. It was the one funded by Univ of Virginia and NIH. It concluded:

CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....16.20065920v2

Basically its saying that prophylactically taking a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, would be as beneficial as Hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin) in reducing the risk of being put on a ventilator with COVID19. Although, you have a higher risk of death by taking the Hydroxychlorquine, than the Reese's.