Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Government Response To The Coronavirus (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter James Daulton
- Start date
- Status
What does it being a Political thread and about COVID mean that posting a bad study and making non-useful remarks should be the standard? I would think it would mean analyzing and commenting on the given study would be a good thing. Guess since he wasn't your guy you feel slighted I pointed out it was a bad study. Sorry about that.
Now for my contribution to the Political Forum.
Trump Bad, Bad Man Trump. Bad, Bad, Bad Trump. He no make the decision smarts he has.
Don't fart.
belljr
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Great example.
If the President spent the next week telling people not to fart, then arguing with reporters about what he meant, and spent time leveraging other countries for their national suppllies of Beano I think it would be worthwhile to discuss in here.
After the snide remark "The General" made I could see where people think they are cheering for it to fail. Quoting me pointing out that the study is very flowed with a Trump quote is useless. Seems like he hung on to that Quote to use it in here. I tend to write off most stupid things people say so don't recall a lot of what trump says but do get the points he tries to make most of the time.
The best study so far is the In Vitro. All others for or against are flawed and do more damage than good. Once the big formal studies are out we will know.
The last one is not good just bigger than normal so far. My guess we will have a lot more information by middle of June that will tell us one way or the other.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Being dead is very underrated. Mainly because they aren't alive to rate anything.Amused to Death said:
belljr
Footballguy
The point is most want good information but the leader of the Free world has been pimping that drug for 2 weeks or more...
You want good information, tell that to the leader....
Maybe it works maybe it doesn't.....
The General
Footballguy
That still has nothing with discussing good studies versus flawed ones. If you posted a bad article on the impact of Beano I would hope people would point it out. That would be beneficial to discussing Covid versus just wanting to bast on Trump.
My contribution to the Forum
Bad Trump....Bad Man Trump....Trump say bad things.
Toe Fungus spreads CornoVirus
Still doesn't make sense. A flawed study is posted. I point out it is flawed. You respond with a Trump comment.
What does Trump have anything to do with you or anyone else posting or providing good data points. What does Trump have anything to do with you responding with points about why it was a good study like a few others did.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
We are discussing the political aspects of this.
Your point is taken that we don't know how effective this is and again the issue here is that the president made this an issue.
Would you have been it disturbing if the president during his daily propaganda press briefings spent time discussing your toe fungus or you fart article? That the medical expert speaking to the nation would have to take time to explain that about toe fungus study?
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Has Washington had a downward trend for 14 days?
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS895US895&sxsrf=ALeKk00m6CWNCZu7sdLEJBXvUwj-8XSXCw%3A1587478532544&ei=BACfXuDfIKWeytMPsOKDEA&q=washington+covid+cases&oq=washingcovid+cases&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAxgBMgQIABANMgQIABANOgQIABBHOgYIABAHEB5Q8ZqZDFj8pJkMYJq0mQxoAHADeACAAW6IAcsFkgEDMi41mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS895US895&sxsrf=ALeKk00m6CWNCZu7sdLEJBXvUwj-8XSXCw%3A1587478532544&ei=BACfXuDfIKWeytMPsOKDEA&q=washington+covid+cases&oq=washingcovid+cases&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAxgBMgQIABANMgQIABANOgQIABBHOgYIABAHEB5Q8ZqZDFj8pJkMYJq0mQxoAHADeACAAW6IAcsFkgEDMi41mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab
I'm disturbed in some way each day with what he says. The man is not a good communicator.
The In Vitro looked promising and it hasn't shown one way or the other.
I'm pretty sure he will never mention the Fart study or the Toe Fungus study. I'm pretty sure he has a little higher level of understanding of the Cornovirus than that. So no real need to discuss it.
The studies I saw that showed that used two doses that were both twice the daily recommended dosage and included other heart accelerating drug in the cocktail.
This does show why we need good solid research as views can be tainted both ways with bad studies.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Exactly how many times did you come in to post this sentiment when all the crap studies posted by Trump supporters touting the drug’s efficacy?
If it’s more than zero please post a link.
If there’s a silver lining, it is good to finally see Trump supporters give a glancing thought to research design and methods
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The thing about the chloroquine discussion is that - in case no one noticed - Trump has dropped it several pressers running now. - It's happened before, he makes a claim, which his supporters carry and carry and carry, but Trump feels no need to defend or support or backup what he says, ever. Everything is transactional. The point was to make noises to reassure the market and to say "stuff" to pesky journalists. It also fit his world view which usually concerns magic cost free solutions to nasty problems that he has created. - So yes all that positive stuff about off label use and continuing trials applies - alongside the other 17 or so therapeutics - but that's where it belongs, in that bucket. Usually clinical or pharmacological subjects are not a matter of intense partisan debate. I'm not blaming anyone just recognize that Trump himself has completely forgotten about it and he may even have internal strategy at this point to abandon it.
What does that matter? I commented on the one I saw. I also linked 3-4 other studies that I assume the...what did you call them...Trumpers would have posted saying they were also flawed.
See the four links I have added since I was on today which I called flawed.
So since I disagree with a post you assume I'm a Trump supporter? You seem very blind to the real world my friend.
I doubt he has forgotten about it but there has been nothing to prove it works one way or the other. I think he has moved on to other glorious things that have been done he can take credit for. You know if a study comes out stating it works there will be weeks of stating how right he was two months ago.
NIH Panel Recommends Against Drug Combination Trump Has Promoted For COVID-19
A panel of experts convened by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommends against doctors using a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients because of potential toxicities.
"The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with QTc prolongation in patients with COVID-19," the panel said.
QTc prolongation increases the risk of sudden cardiac death.
The recommendation against their combined use would seem to fly in the face of comments made by President Trump suggesting the combination might be helpful. On March 21, for example, the president described them in a tweet as having a "real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."
huh - go figure.
A panel of experts convened by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommends against doctors using a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients because of potential toxicities.
"The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with QTc prolongation in patients with COVID-19," the panel said.
QTc prolongation increases the risk of sudden cardiac death.
The recommendation against their combined use would seem to fly in the face of comments made by President Trump suggesting the combination might be helpful. On March 21, for example, the president described them in a tweet as having a "real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."
huh - go figure.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Seems like a good recommendation when everyone including Trump has said we don't have enough data. I would hope there is always a risk based approach to these things. I can see where certain people may want to push forward with using it if there is even a slight chance it might help.
Overall they made the right decision.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Trump is going to personally talk to these massive businesses that are pillaging the PPP Program and make it right.
Yeah, I have a lot of confidence in that.
Yeah, I have a lot of confidence in that.
Safety has been a concern prior to COVID. It is know to cause a condition that affects the heart rhythm. It also gets worse if it is mixed with other medications. So not new but there is a risk with all drugs.
Meanwhile, Trump Organization is asking the federal government for rent relief for the Trump Hotel in DC...
cobalt_27
Footballguy
I applaud anytime I see someone think about research design and methods. And if you were as hardliner about truth with a capital T and objective as you try and present yourself here, would have been helpful had you raised those same concerns last week and the week before and the week before when this thread was littered with pro Trump pro HCQ/chloroquine studies.
The best you could muster at the time was a
when the French study came out, asking if it was so bad why did they publish it, somehow ignoring the massive deficits in the study and the ethical train wreck of the coauthor being the editor of the journal. So I respectfully reject this revisionist history and suggestion that you’ve applied equal weight to your critiques. Friend.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
The obvious answer to me is to vote them out of office as soon as possible.bigbottom said:
What did you think the obvious answer was?
BladeRunner
Footballguy
I'm asking for you to clarify your statement. How is that trolling? So when you don't want to answer directly then that makes the questioner a troll? Lighten up, Francis.Skoo said:
I think the obvious answer is that he meant to vote them out of office as soon as possible.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
The obvious answer is that Trump will be gone from office before the governors.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
That's what they thought when they rigged an impeachment trial to get him.
I hope you're at least preparing for the worst. That way you won't be so ready to jump of the ledge when he wins again.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is true, there are a lot of sad tales out there. A friend of mine just lost his aunt and they're debating how to bury her and his mother (80s+) is insisting on going to the funeral hell or high water. Stressful times.
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Isn't making assumptions on what people are thinking against the rules? Also, isn't that also what got y'all into trouble in the first place?
Try dealing in just facts, please.
moleculo
Footballguy
the painfully obvious answer is that Trump saw people protesting and waving pro-Trump flags. He knows these are his electorate and instinctively backs them up, even if their protests are counter his own policies. The gravy is that they are protests against democrat governors - who doesn't like turning up pressure on political rivals?
LIBERATE MICHIGAN very obviously means to support protests against stay at home orders. I'm literally shuked that anyone would read it differently.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
That's the problem: You guys assume too much into what people are thinking or what YOU THINK they might be saying.
My advice would be that unless you hear it from the horses mouth itself, don't assume anything. You know what happens when you ###-U-ME?
beef
Footballguy
Wisconsin legislature sues to block enforcement of governor's stay-at-home order
but...
Tony Evers defends reopening plan and chides Republicans for opposing measures based on Trump administration policy
Everything I've seen seems to suggest Evers is following Trump's CV Task Force's plan.
but...
Tony Evers defends reopening plan and chides Republicans for opposing measures based on Trump administration policy
Everything I've seen seems to suggest Evers is following Trump's CV Task Force's plan.
moleculo
Footballguy
let the records show that the day before SC opened, we had 4409 (62 new) cases and 124 (4 new) deaths.
Bookmark for later - let's revisit how we are doing in 4 weeks (5/19/20).
Challenge Everything
Footballguy
Alternative Facts are the only things to be believed. You know this Ham. Four legs good, two legs better.
moleculo
Footballguy
I feel like you are assuming meaning too. "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" leaves a lot of room for interpretation....you kind of have to make assumptions here.Thought I would weigh in on the latest chloroquine news since the topic has resurfaced.
zDragon is right that the latest VA study is flawed. He is wrong to suggest that because it is flawed, we should completely discount it. ALL studies have flaws. Research studies are really, really hard to do well, and there are no perfect studies. You could give me the most favorably received studies out of the NEJM and I could completely rip them to shreds.
That doesn't necessarily mean that these studies don't have value. Critical appraisal of studies isn't a binary yes/no or good/bad that makes us believe the results of a study or not. When looking at the results of the study, you look at the likelihood that two factors influenced the results: bias (this is due to methodology and is the more proper term for the "flaws" that have been mentioned) and random chance. In terms of the former, you have to consider the magnitude of the bias , the types of bias, and whether those are the types of bias that are likely to significantly change the results. For both you need to consider the magnitude of the results in order to properly interpret the study. In a study with a large effect size and minor bias, it is unlikely that bias led to the given result. In a study with a small effect difference and major bias, it is very likely that it did.
But again, in most cases it isn't a yes/no. It is more of a probability that pushes you in one direction or the other rather than completely giving you an answer. Some studies are so well done that we change practice based on a single study, but those are pretty rare. Many studies are so poorly done that they can be immediately discounted, but usually those aren't read by anyone. Most studies are in the middle and require interpretation in the proper context. Other things that would influence that decision following a treatment study are the harms of the treatment and the type of outcome or benefit you are looking at. You also have to put it into the context of a whole range of other factors like alternative treatment options, treatment costs, different patient populations, etc.
(As an aside, medical decision making is complicated. Which is probably why reality-show-hosts-turned-politicians shouldn't be commenting on it one way or another).
Specifically in terms of this VA study, I would say it is a middle of the road study. Any observational study has inherent limitations, but as far as those studies go, this one was pretty well done. It is by far the best study I have read on this topic, but that isn't saying much given how bad the current literature is.
Alone this study probably wouldn't be enough to say we shouldn't use chloroquine. But taken in totality with everything we already know about the drug, it is probably the end of the line. Even though many doctors were using it as a last ditch effort, I don't think many actually believed it works. The pharmacologic basis was not convincing and the few studies that showed potential benefit were the types of studies that are so flawed that they can be effectively ignored. Beyond that, the risk is high. Despite the mixed messages from the media about its safety, this is a fairly toxic drug,. Our toxicologists were horrified when people started to promote this because we have always known it is fairly dangerous.
This doesn't mean for certain that there won't be new studies to come out supporting its use, but that would surprise me. I think most doctors, even those who have used it, were leaning in the direction of it not being a good idea. This will probably push it over the line. Which is why you are seeing new recommendations from national organizations discouraging its use.
zDragon is right that the latest VA study is flawed. He is wrong to suggest that because it is flawed, we should completely discount it. ALL studies have flaws. Research studies are really, really hard to do well, and there are no perfect studies. You could give me the most favorably received studies out of the NEJM and I could completely rip them to shreds.
That doesn't necessarily mean that these studies don't have value. Critical appraisal of studies isn't a binary yes/no or good/bad that makes us believe the results of a study or not. When looking at the results of the study, you look at the likelihood that two factors influenced the results: bias (this is due to methodology and is the more proper term for the "flaws" that have been mentioned) and random chance. In terms of the former, you have to consider the magnitude of the bias , the types of bias, and whether those are the types of bias that are likely to significantly change the results. For both you need to consider the magnitude of the results in order to properly interpret the study. In a study with a large effect size and minor bias, it is unlikely that bias led to the given result. In a study with a small effect difference and major bias, it is very likely that it did.
But again, in most cases it isn't a yes/no. It is more of a probability that pushes you in one direction or the other rather than completely giving you an answer. Some studies are so well done that we change practice based on a single study, but those are pretty rare. Many studies are so poorly done that they can be immediately discounted, but usually those aren't read by anyone. Most studies are in the middle and require interpretation in the proper context. Other things that would influence that decision following a treatment study are the harms of the treatment and the type of outcome or benefit you are looking at. You also have to put it into the context of a whole range of other factors like alternative treatment options, treatment costs, different patient populations, etc.
(As an aside, medical decision making is complicated. Which is probably why reality-show-hosts-turned-politicians shouldn't be commenting on it one way or another).
Specifically in terms of this VA study, I would say it is a middle of the road study. Any observational study has inherent limitations, but as far as those studies go, this one was pretty well done. It is by far the best study I have read on this topic, but that isn't saying much given how bad the current literature is.
Alone this study probably wouldn't be enough to say we shouldn't use chloroquine. But taken in totality with everything we already know about the drug, it is probably the end of the line. Even though many doctors were using it as a last ditch effort, I don't think many actually believed it works. The pharmacologic basis was not convincing and the few studies that showed potential benefit were the types of studies that are so flawed that they can be effectively ignored. Beyond that, the risk is high. Despite the mixed messages from the media about its safety, this is a fairly toxic drug,. Our toxicologists were horrified when people started to promote this because we have always known it is fairly dangerous.
This doesn't mean for certain that there won't be new studies to come out supporting its use, but that would surprise me. I think most doctors, even those who have used it, were leaning in the direction of it not being a good idea. This will probably push it over the line. Which is why you are seeing new recommendations from national organizations discouraging its use.
- Status
Similar threads
