OT: Coronavirus

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: I think that may stem from rehab patients historically going to these facilities for surgery recovery etc...So kinda grand-fathered in systems and practices. 

That said, putting Covid patients in elderly care facilities strikes me about as wise as putting mice in a snake cage and wondering what will happen.

A lot of things that we did historically prior to covid 19 were suspended in the name of safety,   this is just plain criminal IMO.

That could infringe on some folks rights, that's the current zeitgeist

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: I think that may stem from rehab patients historically going to these facilities for surgery recovery etc...So kinda grand-fathered in systems and practices. 

That said, putting Covid patients in elderly care facilities strikes me about as wise as putting mice in a snake cage and wondering what will happen.

A lot of things that we did historically prior to covid 19 were suspended in the name of safety,   this is just plain criminal IMO.

That could infringe on some folks rights, that's the current zeitgeist

im pretty sure that 99 out 100 people would be ok with keeping covid away from the confined elderly regardless of how we would have typically handled rehab patients in the past,  and I dont really remember the part of the constitution that spoke to medical recovery rights of the patient.   

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: I think that may stem from rehab patients historically going to these facilities for surgery recovery etc...So kinda grand-fathered in systems and practices. 

That said, putting Covid patients in elderly care facilities strikes me about as wise as putting mice in a snake cage and wondering what will happen.

A lot of things that we did historically prior to covid 19 were suspended in the name of safety,   this is just plain criminal IMO.

That could infringe on some folks rights, that's the current zeitgeist

im pretty sure that 99 out 100 people would be ok with keeping covid away from the confined elderly regardless of how we would have typically handled rehab patients in the past,  and I dont really remember the part of the constitution that spoke to medical recovery rights of the patient.   

That would be nice to believe, and if it keeps you sleeping at night, its good.  I just don't trust folks with long term or wide scope vision.  There are politicians saying it's an honor to die for your economy, and plenty of righteous folks falling in line when they are not effected.

@"Ralphie" said:

Shit just got real... I just read that most of the CO2 used in carbonated beverages is bottled at ethanol plants ( it's a by product of the process)  and with nobody traveling during the covid crisis about 75% of the countries ethanol plants are shuttered...long story short,  there is now a looming shortage of CO2 which will be hitting the beer and soda markets.

Also a pending aluminum shortage on the horizon....Congress needs to act NOW!

@"JimmyinSD" said: Shit just got real... I just read that most of the CO2 used in carbonated beverages is bottled at ethanol plants ( it's a by product of the process)  and with nobody traveling during the covid crisis about 75% of the countries ethanol plants are shuttered...long story short,  there is now a looming shortage of CO2 which will be hitting the beer and soda markets.

Also a pending aluminum shortage on the horizon....Congress needs to act NOW!

Ain't just soda markets, check your local water processing plant, CO2 is part of the filtration process, if your is worth a crap.  The last month local city entities, IA, have been negotiating with ethanol plants to run, some joke, you funny guy.

@"BigAl99" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said: Shit just got real... I just read that most of the CO2 used in carbonated beverages is bottled at ethanol plants ( it's a by product of the process)  and with nobody traveling during the covid crisis about 75% of the countries ethanol plants are shuttered...long story short,  there is now a looming shortage of CO2 which will be hitting the beer and soda markets.

Also a pending aluminum shortage on the horizon....Congress needs to act NOW!

Ain't just soda markets, check your local water processing plant, CO2 is part of the filtration process, if your is worth a crap.  The last month local city entities, IA, have been negotiating with ethanol plants to run, some joke, you funny guy.

Hydroxychloroquine drug in University of Minnesota trial does little to prevent COVID-19The first-of-its-kind trial adds badly needed evidence to the politicized debate over whether hydroxychloroquine treats or prevents COVID-19.

The results of the nation’s first randomized trial with the drug, hydroxychloroquine, against COVID-19 will disappoint doctors who had hoped for new therapies amid the pandemic. Many prescribers had given it off-label to COVID-19 patients — in the absence of other options — and President Donald Trump had been an early champion of the drug and disclosed in mid-May that he was taking it for the preventive benefit that the U study could not verify.
“While we are disappointed that this did not prevent COVID-19, we are pleased that we were able to provide a conclusive answer,” said Dr. David Boulware, the leader of the U trial. “Our objective was to find an answer.”
Results published online Wednesday, by the New England Journal of Medicine, showed little difference in the onset of COVID-19 in 414 people who took hydroxychloroquine and a comparison group of 407 that took only folic acid vitamins. All participants had at least moderate risk for COVID-19 due to being exposed to others in their homes or workplaces who had the illness.
There was a small difference, as only 11.8% of people taking the drug developed COVID-19, compared to 14.3% of those taking vitamins, the study showed. However, that difference was considered statistically insignificant.
Even if valid, the small difference means that 42 people would have to take the drug prophylactically to prevent one COVID-19 case. That would be costly and expose people to drug side effects. The study showed that 40% experienced mild side effects such as nausea, but it allayed fears that widespread use of the drug could result in cardiac and other complications
https://www.startribune.com/anti-malaria-drug-in-u-of-m-trial-does-little-to-stop-covid-19/570989342/

Yale Epidemiologist: Hydroxychloroquine Should Be 'Widely Available And Promoted Immediately' As Standard Treatment
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/yale-epidemiologist-hydroxychloroquine-should-be-widely-available-and-promoted-immediately

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

Oh jeeze.  

Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company
Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, (lmao! the company had 4 employees) provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

My memory may be wrong but I thought the drug was being promoted as a treatment along with an antibiotic + zinc, not as a preventative...  The U of Mn study was testing it's use as a preventative.  Doesn't appear to prevent the disease but that doesn't mean it's worthless as a treatment.

@"IDVikingfan" said: My memory may be wrong but I thought the drug was being promoted as a treatment along with an antibiotic + zinc, not as a preventative...  The U of Mn study was testing it's use as a preventative.  Doesn't appear to prevent the disease but that doesn't mean it's worthless as a treatment.

Clinicians have mostly been supportive ( of hydroxychloroquine + macrolide &/or zinc. ) Especially in early/mid stages of infection.

We’ll get a definitive answer by the time it won’t matter.   ;)

@"savannahskol" said:

@"IDVikingfan" said: My memory may be wrong but I thought the drug was being promoted as a treatment along with an antibiotic + zinc, not as a preventative...  The U of Mn study was testing it's use as a preventative.  Doesn't appear to prevent the disease but that doesn't mean it's worthless as a treatment.

Researchers/studies have been all over the map on it, thus far.

Clinicians have mostly been supportive ( of hydroxychloroquine + macrolide &/or zinc. ) Especially in early/mid stages of infection.

We’ll get a definitive answer by the time it won’t matter.   ;)

MBlack,  I need to pick a side?  I have no vested interest in the product nor does it bother me if Trump was right or wrong on the issue.  I don't have TDS.  I was merely pointing out that the U of Mn study evaluated it's use as a preventative in a high risk situation versus it's use as a treatment. 

It is wrong to chortle that the drug is worthless as some are doing based solely on the Minnesota study.  Clinicians are finding it valuable in treating patients with Covid 19.

Should Trump have taken it as a preventative?  Based on the Minnesota study, no.  Was the data from the Minnesota study available when he took it?  NO  Did he take it on the direction of his physician?  Yes, it is a prescription drug.  Did his physician think it may have potential benefit as a preventative?  Apparently so.

@"IDVikingfan" said: MBlack,  I need to pick a side?  I have no vested interest in the product nor does it bother me if Trump was right or wrong on the issue.  I don't have TDS.  I was merely pointing out that the U of Mn study evaluated it's use as a preventative in a high risk situation versus it's use as a treatment. 

It is wrong to chortle that the drug is worthless as some are doing based solely on the Minnesota study.  Clinicians are finding it valuable in treating patients with Covid 19.

Should Trump have taken it as a preventative?  Based on the Minnesota study, no.  Was the data from the Minnesota study available when he took it?  NO  Did he take it on the direction of his physician?  Yes, it is a prescription drug.  Did his physician think it may have potential benefit as a preventative?  Apparently so.

 

edit and to a previous post,  yes the treatment that was touted by doctors all over was not HCQ alone,  but used in conjunction with Zpack,  its funny how some are so supportive of this, but yet some are so adamant that it doesnt work.   I even have seen pretty well recognized Dems that have come out and made supportive statements about its positive use on their loved ones.

@"IDVikingfan" said: MBlack,  I need to pick a side?  I have no vested interest in the product nor does it bother me if Trump was right or wrong on the issue.  I don't have TDS.  I was merely pointing out that the U of Mn study evaluated it's use as a preventative in a high risk situation versus it's use as a treatment.  Yes You cant agree with all of the following: - The drug does not prevent COVID-19 (at least based on that study) - The drug can treat COVID-19 - People can take it as preventative for COVID-19 That's what I meant by picking a side. if the discussion about the drug is all over the place, it is because Trump made it so.

It is wrong to chortle that the drug is worthless as some are doing based solely on the Minnesota study.  Clinicians are finding it valuable in treating patients with Covid 19.
I don't think anyone said that (maybe I am wrong). People have said there is some change it can/works but it needs to be looked into and researched further. So I don't know how you came to the conclusion about it being 'worthless'. It's the president who wants it prescribed and has been advocating people take it without further research.

Should Trump have taken it as a preventative?  Based on the Minnesota study, no. 
And this is what I am saying so thank you for agreeing. 

Was the data from the Minnesota study available when he took it?  NO.
But many experts said it was not so but he went along. And the drug was prescribed. can I ask on what grounds then?

Did he take it on the direction of his physician?  Yes, it is a prescription drug. 
And I asked on what basis it was prescribed

Did his physician think it may have potential benefit as a preventative?  Apparently so.
So we should question what made him think that. I am sure if a Dr prescribed a drug to anyone with no apparent proof (be it academic or factual) that it works that would be an issue. Don't you think? Especially a Dr for the President of the United States of America

 

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"IDVikingfan" said: MBlack,  I need to pick a side?  I have no vested interest in the product nor does it bother me if Trump was right or wrong on the issue.  I don't have TDS.  I was merely pointing out that the U of Mn study evaluated it's use as a preventative in a high risk situation versus it's use as a treatment. 

It is wrong to chortle that the drug is worthless as some are doing based solely on the Minnesota study.  Clinicians are finding it valuable in treating patients with Covid 19.

Should Trump have taken it as a preventative?  Based on the Minnesota study, no.  Was the data from the Minnesota study available when he took it?  NO  Did he take it on the direction of his physician?  Yes, it is a prescription drug.  Did his physician think it may have potential benefit as a preventative?  Apparently so.

 

HCQ has been widely used as a prophylactic for other diseases from what I have read, it was at least worth a shot and certainly not worth the fuss that has been made over it,  but again its not about the message, its about who or how it was delivered I guess so let them have their fun.

edit and to a previous post,  yes the treatment that was touted by doctors all over was not HCQ alone,  but used in conjunction with Zpack,  its funny how some are so supportive of this, but yet some are so adamant that it doesnt work.   I even have seen pretty well recognized Dems that have come out and made supportive statements about its positive use on their loved ones.