D&D Coronavirus thread

A lot of people get their "news" from FOX and, so, vis-a-vis, Scump. Up until a couple weeks ago many were still saying Covid-19 is a hoax and they "don't believe anything the Democrats say".

Since this is hitting urban centers hardest, of course, many of those rural Trump loyalists may still just turn to Trump Jesus until someone they know gets hit with the virus. Which I don't wish on anybody. But it's the messed up world we live in.

 

There hasn't been any kind of trial completed against a control, no legit doctor is saying this is effective yet. You are spreading misinformation.

 

Destruction of public health services is a collective problem, but very much a Republican feature. It's one of their signature policy positions of the last decade.

Republican attorneys general are trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act (and remove protection and for those with preexisting conditions... like COVID19) in the Supreme Court as we speak, this very second.

 

They should sue him. Make sure you bankrupt that sob

 

Emergency authorization is not an approval!!!

From the HHS statement: " Anecdotal reports suggest that these drugs may offer some benefit in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Clinical trials are needed to provide scientific evidence that these treatments are effective."

You need to stop being so irresponsible with your posting of misleading information and ignorance of context, politics and details. You are putting people's lives at risk.

 

You need to stop being a jerk about this medicine. You are not a doctor and you are a die hard Trump hater. It is clear. You tie this drug to him and that's irresponsible. My post are balanced in their representation and I am sorry if you don't like the wording of things you see, but given your track record on word usage I can't honestly say you know what the hell you're talking about. Idiots like you who dismiss a safe medical treatment option that is available are what is going to get people killed. The FDA did approve it as the article says. Doctors are using it as well. This is all independent of Trump and whatever bee got into your bonnet regarding this treatment. If you get Covid 19 and a doctor tells you to take this drug, I wonder what you're going to do.

 

So wrong - this has nothing to do with Trump or politics but about people's lives. The only relevance that Trump has is that like you he is also peddling dangerous info.

Your posts are not balanced cos they present Chloroquine as some likely treatment for Covid19, which is unfortunately far from reality. There is no scientific evidence that it is effective but yet people like you push misleading information that it is.

As to safety, even if effective, Chloroquine has a lot of risks, including cardiac arrests and vision loss.

BTW an emergency authorization is not an approval. It simply authorizes the use of drug for patients who have no other alternative than a clinical trial.

Like I said earlier, this is not about politics. Let the experts do their job and stop peddling dangerous info

 

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ck-up-nose-while-inventing-coronavirus-device

 

I have already debunked you on all this stuff bro. You are just mad I know. The truth is you frame things in a dishonest way. This drug is not a cure all and no one said that. And no one is telling anyone to go out and take it. And talking about potential treatments IS NOT DANGEROUS. You are going off those Trump hit pieces that said that falsely about Trump, because some idiot took Fish Tank Cleaner. Sorry but you're just a parrot and I've seen this argument you're making in media pieces. You don't actually have an original thoughts. Talking about medicines is not dangerous and my information is sourced and valid and comes from whats going on in the medical community.

Also you are saying my posts present it as a likely treatment for Wuhan CCP Virus. Well, it is. I am seeing companies donate the drug to the US for use and doctors are hoarding the pills. The initial studies also pointed to its validity and likelihood as a good treatment scenario. You're just anti-Chloroquine because Trump said it and you read some shitty think pieces that gave you your argument.

And guess what? The article, which you didn't read, explained all that. The approval was given for emergency authorization. That is a type of approval. You're harping because it hasn't had lengthy studies. No duh it hasn't. In what universe do you really expect that to be done yet?

You've repeatedly gotten your ass handed to you on this topic. When will you just give up this act like you know what the hell you're talking about? Hey go read some VOX or watch some partisans on CNN and get some more misinfo on it and come back and repeat their arguments.

Obviously no. But initial studies are promising. And doctors are hoarding it. I'll take that as a positive sign. Also if you actually know what the medicine does, you wouldn't be shocked. Though, I really think that's beyond your ability to understand because I've had countless back and forths with you.

 

Thank you for this. Something funny.

 

Since it is a 'likely treatment', I hope that when someone vulnerable that is dear to you is infected with the virus, that they are treated with that 'likely treatment'

 

I find it distasteful that you would wish that upon me and my dear ones because it's a treatment you don't think would work and you find dangerous (not because I think it wouldn't work, because likely, it could help). But really, you need to control your anger. That negative energy could come back at you and hit your loved ones and I don't want that. I don't wish that upon you. I would never in fact create that desire because it's just not the type of thing a good person things. In fact wishing something you find dangerous upon a person who hasn't even interacted with is evil. If getting your ass kicked in a debate upsets you, then you shouldn't debate me on something with talking points you got from other places. And I think you're trying to be clever... trying... because you'll likely try to say oh it's not a bad wish upon them because you think it works. But obviously you think it's dangerous man, so not cool. Not nice. Definitely distasteful and not what a real adult would say.

I mean personally I think the treatment wouldn't actually hurt that person in this hypothetical, especially if a doctor recommends it, so I don't think it would turn out any worse than not treating the virus and letting it rampage through my dear ones' lungs. I think I am OK with trying the pills out myself if I get it. Also the pill has been approved for safety of other treatments by the FDA and the side effects of the medicine are well known. The serious ones actually are rare and occur after over doses or treatment periods that go into multiple years. Honestly I hope that if you get it, then you accept whatever treatment the doctor recommends; even if it's something you feel is dangerous like chloroquine or whatever else they throw at it because hey maybe there are better alternatives and likely area. Because I want you to live mate. And I don't have bad feelings toward you like that or your loved ones. I hope you don't get it in fact and that we can have another back and forth in the future about something less dark.

 

Good article about how politics and science are having difficulties mixing:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-mathematics-of-predicting-the-course-of-the-coronavirus/

The Mathematics of Predicting the Course of the Coronavirus
Epidemiologists are using complex models to help policymakers get ahead of the Covid-19 pandemic. But the leap from equations to decisions is a long one.​

IN THE PAST few days, New York City’s hospitals have become unrecognizable. Thousands of patients sick with the novel coronavirus have swarmed into emergency rooms and intensive care units. From 3,000 miles away in Seattle, as Lisa Brandenburg watched the scenes unfold—isolation wards cobbled together in lobbies, nurses caring for Covid-19 patients in makeshift trash bag gowns, refrigerated mobile morgues idling on the street outside—she couldn’t stop herself from thinking: “That could be us.”

It could be, if the models are wrong.

Until this past week, Seattle had been the center of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States. It’s where US health officials confirmed the nation’s first case, back in January, and its first death a month later. As president of the University of Washington Medicine Hospitals and Clinics, Brandenburg oversees the region’s largest health network, which treats more than half a million patients every year. In early March, she and many public health authorities were shaken by an urgent report produced by computational biologists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Their analysis of genetic data indicated the virus had been silently circulating in the Seattle area for weeks and had already infected at least 500 to 600 people. The city was a ticking time bomb.

The mayor of Seattle declared a civil emergency. Superintendents started closing schools. King and Snohomish counties banned gatherings of more than 250 people. The Space Needle went dark. Seattleites wondered if they should be doing more, and they petitioned the governor to issue a statewide shelter-at-home order. But Brandenburg was left with a much grimmer set of questions: How many people are going to get hospitalized? How many of them will require critical care? When will they start showing up? Will we have enough ventilators when they do?

There’s no way to know those answers for sure. But hospital administrators like Brandenburg have to hazard an educated guess. That’s the only way they can try to buy enough ventilators and hire enough ICU nurses and clear out enough hospital beds to be ready for a wave of hacking, gasping, suffocating Covid-19 patients.

That’s where Chris Murray and his computer simulations come in.

Murray is the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. With about 500 statisticians, computer scientists, and epidemiologists on staff, IHME is a data-crunching powerhouse. Every year it releases the Global Burden of Disease study—an alarmingly comprehensive report that quantifies the incidence and impact of every conceivable illness and injury in each of the world’s 195 countries and territories.

In February, Murray and a few dozen IHME employees turned their attention full-time to forecasting how Covid-19 will hit the US. Specifically, they were trying to help hospitals—starting with the UW Medicine system—prepare for the coming crisis. Brandenburg says the collaboration could turn out to be, quite literally, life-saving. “It’s one thing to know you may be getting a surge of patients,” she says. “If you can make that more tangible—here’s what it’s actually going to look like—then we’re in a much better place in terms of being able to plan for the worst.”

But it’s a big if. During a pandemic, real data is hard to find. Chinese researchers have only published some of their findings on the spread of Covid-19 in Hubei. The ongoing catastrophe of testing for the virus in the United States means no researcher has even a reliable denominator, an overall number of infections that would be a reasonable starting point for untangling how rapidly the disease spreads. Since the 2009 outbreak of H1N1 influenza, researchers worldwide have increasingly relied on mathematical models, computer simulations informed by what little data they can find, and some reasoned inferences. Federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health have modeling teams, as do many universities.

As with simulations of Earth’s changing climate or what happens when a nuclear bomb detonates in a city, the goal here is to make an informed prediction—within a range of uncertainty—about the future. When data is sparse, which happens when a virus crosses over into humans for the first time, models can vary widely in terms of assumptions, uncertainties, and conclusions. But governors and task force leads still tout their models from behind podiums, increasingly famous modeling labs release regular reports into the content mills of the press and social media, and policymakers still use models to make decisions. In the case of Covid-19, responding to those models may yet be the difference between global death tolls in the thousands or the millions. Models are imperfect, but they’re better than flying blind—if you use them right.

More at link​

 

Whats negative about hoping someone gets a 'likely treatment'?

I just dont see Chloroquine in the same light that you do (and definitely wont be posting misleading info like you are doing) when there are other promising drugs that have scientific evidence of being effective againts the Corona viruses. If Chloroquine (or any other readily available drug) turns out to be effective, I will be one of the happiest people about it, cos it means that a lot of lives will be saved, particularly in poorer countries. But I will wait for scientific and/or concrete info on it.

Whatever my opinion is, it is only my opinion and has no bearing on the reality of the effectiveness of the drug. So dont let my opinion dampen your enthusiasm about Chloroquine (and if you are ever infected, please put your health where your mouth is and make sure to ask to be treated with it)?

 

Disregard. That was too long of an article​