Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Once again, WE NEED MORE TESTING!

Why politicians can't just restart the economy

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The media uproar over the power struggle between the president and the governors may well be focused on the wrong question.

Whether President Trump can override the likes of Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom and order their states open for business is a fascinating political and constitutional clash, but essentially beside the point.

In reality, it’s up to the people.

If they decide to stay home by the millions, no legal order can reverse that.

If they don’t feel comfortable going into department stores and pizzerias, those businesses will continue to crater.

If they don’t feel safe from the virus, no amount of political rhetoric can change that.

The stakes could hardly be higher with yesterday’s news that 22 million people have now applied for jobless benefits in just four weeks, numbers that the Washington Post says are reminiscent of the Great Depression. This is scary stuff. And the longer America is on lockdown, the greater the chances that some of those jobs--and businesses--are never coming back.

Trump told governors on a call Thursday that “you’re going to call your own shots”-- reversing his previous rhetoric, which caused an uproar--as the White House issued guidelines for gradually reopening the economy in phases. The idea is to protect the most vulnerable Americans and distinguish the hardest-hit areas, such as New York, from regions that are less affected by the virus. At an unusually sober briefing, Trump urged the governors to move swiftly, perhaps before May 1, and said 29 states could swing into action soon.

But that doesn’t mean, to paraphrase a baseball movie, if you open it they will come.

As a piece in the Dispatch puts it, “Most people just aren’t going to start piling into movie theaters and restaurants again until they’re confident they won’t be bringing a superbug back home with them.”

Here’s a bit of evidence:  “It wasn’t until March 15 that Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Cincinnati and New York City all officially announced that their bars and restaurants would be limited to takeout orders and delivery. But the day before those orders were announced, sales at restaurants in those cities had already dropped more than half from the same date a year earlier...Why? Because people were already choosing to stay home based on what they had learned about the pandemic regardless of what the government mandated.”

In a Gallup poll in early April, 71 percent said that if government lifted restrictions and businesses and schools were reopened, they would “wait and see what happens with the coronavirus before resuming” their daily activities. Another 20 percent said they would resume immediately, while 10 percent said they would continue to limit their contacts with other people indefinitely.

Andrew Cuomo made a nod in this direction yesterday while extending New York’s shutdown to May 15. “The policies I communicate are not worth the paper they are printed on,” the governor said, unless people voluntarily follow them, because there’s no way he can enforce them on 19 million people. Fortunately, he said, “people are choosing to do the right thing,” and that is helping to flatten the curve of the coronavirus.

The missing link here is testing. The delays and missteps in getting reliable testing up and running in the United States are depressing, and the upshot is that we’re flying blind. More than 3 million tests have been conducted, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the pandemic. With more than 645,000 confirmed cases and about 30,000 deaths in this country, we still don’t have a handle on how many people are sick and could potentially infect others.

That means reopening America for business prematurely could lead to a second wave of virus deaths over the summer once social distancing fades.

Meanwhile, the $349-billion loan fund created by Congress to bail out small businesses has already been depleted.

“A growing number of economists warn that recovering from the ‘Great Lockdown’ is going to take a long time, and millions of Americans are likely to remain out of a job through the end of the year,” the Post says. “Even after parts of the economy reopen, unless there is widespread testing or a vaccine, people are going to remain fearful of venturing out again to restaurants or offices, many experts say.”

And that is the heart of the crisis. Politicians have to offer their best judgment as to the gradual thawing of an economy that remains in a deep freeze. But having been told early on that the virus would not be a big problem, Americans are understandably wary of reassuring talk and are going to do what they think is best to protect themselves and their families. And that could keep the shutdown going for a painfully long period of time.

This is absolutely the truth...as someone who lives in a Georgia suburb with friends who own businesses that will have the ability to re-open, for the most part they’ve taken a ‘thanks for the guidance approach’ but are doing their own thing.  Some re-opening...some waiting.

As for me as a resident consumer, I doubt my modus operandi will be changing much over the next week or two.

Edited by TheDirtyWord
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TripItUp said:

It takes an advanced understanding of global politics and economics, but as I've stated in several threads...the significant loss of American economic power could potentially cost the world far more lives than just 100K American virus related deaths.

That didn't happen during the Great Depression, and I'm fairly sure it won't happen now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff84 said:

That’s great if he did, I’m not watching. Again consistency is key. If he comes out praising the protesters who are against the restrictions, it defeats the point.

Chaos is the point. Always has been. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Is anyone actually against more testing?  I don't understand why this is hard.

It is starting to be portrayed as a left wing talking point. Plenty will be against it. Call it unreasonable, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSNBC is making some very serious charges against Donald Trump. Very specifically, quoting exact information they have from the New York Times, they are arguing that Trump’s decision to ignore experts on the virus during the month of February resulted in 10,000 or more needless deaths. These people’s lives would have been saved had Trump acted sooner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kwille said:

It is starting to be portrayed as a left wing talking point. Plenty will be against it. Call it unreasonable, etc.

Definitely going to happen. Liberals just want us to keep testing so that they have an excuse to shut down the economy again. When reality is that we need extensive testing to open and keep the economy open.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sand said:

Straight up totolinariasm.   I don't agree with these protestors but to quash any 1st amendment rights on a blanket basis with regards to these citizens is reprehensible.

I think you meant totalitarianism, in which case...come on Sand. Refusing to issue permits for protests is hardly authoritarianism, much less totalitarianism. And it’s been a regular practice in California since Ronald Reagan was Governor- he actually sent national guardsmen in with tear gas when the Vietnam protesters wouldn’t quit “People’s Park”, and later on when Native Americans seized Alcatraz. And none of that was totalitarianism either. 

The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say what you want on your own property and sometimes in public- but public protests can be regulated. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I think you meant totalitarianism, in which case...come on Sand. Refusing to issue permits for protests is hardly authoritarianism, much less totalitarianism. And it’s been a regular practice in California since Ronald Reagan was Governor- he actually sent national guardsmen in with tear gas when the Vietnam protesters wouldn’t quit “People’s Park”, and later on when Native Americans seized Alcatraz. And none of that was totalitarianism either. 

The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say what you want on your own property and sometimes in public- but public protests can be regulated. 

Just want to pop back in and say I'm horribly embarrassed over that misspelling.  

That was bad, even for me.  My apologies to all for having to see that.

:bag:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

MSNBC is making some very serious charges against Donald Trump. Very specifically, quoting exact information they have from the New York Times, they are arguing that Trump’s decision to ignore experts on the virus during the month of February resulted in 10,000 or more needless deaths. These people’s lives would have been saved had Trump acted sooner. 

That is why they correctly get called fake news

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

MSNBC is making some very serious charges against Donald Trump. Very specifically, quoting exact information they have from the New York Times, they are arguing that Trump’s decision to ignore experts on the virus during the month of February resulted in 10,000 or more needless deaths. These people’s lives would have been saved had Trump acted sooner. 

Has Biden's portrayal of the China flight ban as xenophobic been called out yet on MSNBC?  That was (easily) Trump's best decision through this whole mess.

Until then, :coffee:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

MSNBC is making some very serious charges against Donald Trump. Very specifically, quoting exact information they have from the New York Times, they are arguing that Trump’s decision to ignore experts on the virus during the month of February resulted in 10,000 or more needless deaths. These people’s lives would have been saved had Trump acted sooner. 

And they are 100% correct. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shader said:

Update?

Update what, you troll? 

Nothing changed other than another doctor trying to hold a drug up to a standard that is absurd. Dr Bright didn't want patients to even get it until it was likely too late to do any good. No drug out there is working at a high rate when introduced as a last resort. Someone impeding the usage of any of these drugs at early stages when DOCTORS WHO ARE USING THEM think they'll do good, probably should see themselves out. Literally nothing changed from what I've said yet you couldn't contain your glee to try and point out something negative. I'll say again I could care less what drug works. And right now it still stands that more doctors are choosing this drug than any other. And that goes especially outside the U.S. where it hasn't sadly been politicized. If another drug takes the lead - Great! The people like you so eager for it not to work simply because Trump got excited by it have some really pathetic thoughts and emotions running through your minds. Again, I brought up hydroxychloroquine here before Trump said one word about it. Why? Because I was hopeful something would work. Then Trump speaks of it and suddenly people like you can't contain your eagerness to uncover every cherry picked report you can latch on to against it. If it's so ineffective why do doctors keep using it? No one has a gun to their head. They go with what they perceive is working and what their peers tell them they're having success with. Why do you want a drug DOCTORS are choosing to use to fail so badly?

Edited by Mr Anonymous
  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sand said:

Has Biden's portrayal of the China flight ban as xenophobic been called out yet on MSNBC?  That was (easily) Trump's best decision through this whole mess.

Until then, :coffee:.

I hope that's not his best decision through this whole mess. People from China just took connecting flights to get here. Oof!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a bunch of people here who don't know a darn thing about these drugs, jumping on misleading news on them to serve a sick agenda. The doctor in New York who was touting his 100% success rate indicated that it came with people who made it to 5 days on the drug. He is using it as an immediate treatment. That's when it's most effective. And so it goes with every other drug - THEY'RE TREATMENTS, NOT CURES.  All of them require early introduction to be of any positive use. None have shown an ability to bring people consistently back from the brink of death, though some have including hydroxychlorquine have done just that on occasion. Yet it's only hydroxychloroquine which is being measured by some very agenda driven people on how it performs as a last resort. They're saying a 60 year old drug with a very safe track record is too risky to introduce when the symptoms are manageable. By the time the roadblocks towards using it are removed, its odds of making a difference have cratered. Then when it inevitably fails to save everyone under those dire circumstances they shout out about it's spotty record. And that shouting is like drugstore candy for the media and people like shader. Newsflash - no drug is providing consistently good results when measured on how it performs as a last resort.

Like I said before, get the agendas and politics out of this. No drug in use has shown to be the magic cure. And when weighed equally, hydroxychloroquine is still the drug used by the most doctors. We all should just hope doctors reach a consensus on a drug soon and start administering it when it can do some good instead of keeping it from people early on because of an agenda.

Edited by Mr Anonymous
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Got a bunch of people here who don't know a darn thing about these drugs, jumping on misleading news on them to serve a sick agenda. The doctor in New York who was touting his 100% success rate indicated that it came with people who made it to 5 days on the drug. And so it goes with every other drug - THEY'RE TREATMENTS, NOT CURES.  All of them require early introduction to be of any positive use. None have shown an ability to bring people consistently back from the brink of death, though some have including hydroxychlorquine have done just that on occasion. Yet it's only hydroxychloroquine which is being measured by some very agenda driven people on how it performs as a last resort. Then when it inevitably fails to save everyone under those dire circumstances they shout out about it's spotty record. And that shouting is like drugstore candy for the media and people like shader. Newsflash - no drug is providing consistently good results when measured on how it performs as a last resort.

Like I said before, get the agendas and politics out of this. No drug in use has shown to be the magic cure. And when weighed equally, hydroxychloroquine is still the drug used by the most doctors. We all should just hope doctors reach a consensus on a drug soon and start administering it when it can do some good instead of keeping it from people early on because of an agenda.

Did I mention that good news/results does not fly well in here as long as Trump is POTUS?

You better believe that if this was happening under Obama every single on of these posters would be touting how great it is and glad that Obama was talking about it.  It's only because Trump is in office that they are ridiculing it.  In absolutely no way would they be accusing Obama of having blood on his hands. 

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

You better believe that if this was happening under Obama every single on of these posters would be touting how great it is and glad that Obama was talking about it.  It's only because Trump is in office that they are ridiculing it.  In absolutely no way would they be accusing Obama of having blood on his hands. 

Of course they would. The fact hydroxychloroquine is being used by the most doctors would be a running headline on every liberal news outlet if Obama expressed hope about it. And no one would be discrediting it because it failed as a last resort. They certainly wouldn't be trying to drum up inconsistent and unfair measures to judge it by. Come November 4th, if Biden wins, the tone of the news will change instantly. And by inauguration day, everything in the news will be spun positively. And these people will gobble it up.

Edited by Mr Anonymous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Of course they would. The fact hydroxychloroquine is being used by the most doctors would be a running headline on every liberal news outlet if Obama expressed hope about it. And no one would be discrediting it because it failed as a last resort. They certainly wouldn't be trying to drum up inconsistent and unfair measures to judge it by. Come November 4th, if Biden wins, the tone of the news will change instantly. And by inauguration day, everything in the news will be spun positively. And these people will gobble it up.

It was being discredited because the more information that came out...the more its effectiveness was in question.  It wasn't about agenda...it was the actual science.

But yeah...the agenda is all the left.  Just such a complete bogus point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I hope that's not his best decision through this whole mess. People from China just took connecting flights to get here. Oof!

They did?  Any proof of that?

And if so, is this how it always works and people get around it?  Seems like a pretty big gaping hole to not see.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

It was being discredited because the more information that came out...the more its effectiveness was in question.  It wasn't about agenda...it was the actual science.

But yeah...the agenda is all the left.  Just such a complete bogus point.

 

If you bother to look at the science, which of course you won't, you'd see that if it was held to the same standards as other drugs, not some cherry picked absurd standard, it's performing as well as any other. All of them have to be introduced before the patient is too far down the road to have the sterling results this drug is expected to have. Yes, that's an agenda. When some people are trying to warn that it's too risky to use a 60 year drug with a safe track record as an early measure, they're setting it up to fail and then running to scream about it when it does. You don't have a clue of what you're talking about. You're just parroting what's been spoon fed to you and predictably lapping it up and asking for more.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said:

If you bother to look at the science, which of course you won't, you'd see that if it was held to the same standards as other drugs, not some cherry picked absurd standard, it's performing as well as any other. All of them have to be introduced before the patient is too far down the road to have the sterling results this drug is expected to have. Yes, that's an agenda. When some people are trying to warn that it's too risky to use a 60 year drug with a safe track record as an early measure, they're setting it up to fail and then running to scream about it when it does. You don't have a clue of what you're talking about. You're just parroting what's been spoon fed to you and predictably lapping it up and asking for more.

/endOfThread.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

It was being discredited because the more information that came out...the more its effectiveness was in question.  It wasn't about agenda...it was the actual science.

But yeah...the agenda is all the left.  Just such a complete bogus point.

 

"Knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

If you bother to look at the science, which of course you won't, you'd see that if it was held to the same standards as other drugs, not some cherry picked absurd standard, it's performing as well as any other. All of them have to be introduced before the patient is too far down the road to have the sterling results this drug is expected to have. Yes, that's an agenda. When some people are trying to warn that it's too risky to use a 60 year drug with a safe track record as an early measure, they're setting it up to fail and then running to scream about it when it does. You don't have a clue of what you're talking about. You're just parroting what's been spoon fed to you and predictably lapping it up and asking for more.

Ive looked at the science and reports and studies questioning its effectiveness.  None of them were about Trump or politics.  They were about questioning its effectiveness and safety at certain doses.

Ive posted links showing as much...so yeah, I know of what I speak and the condescension and snark isn't really needed.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Ive looked at the science and reports and studies questioning its effectiveness.  None of them were about Trump or politics.  They were about questioning its effectiveness and safety at certain doses.

Ive posted links showing as much...so yeah, I know of what I speak and the condescension and snark isn't really needed.

And it's being forced in higher doses in opposition to the protocol of the doctors singing its praises because there are people restricting its use early on. They're literally setting it up to fail. Which you'd know about if looked further beyond the nose you're being led around by.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

And it's being forced in higher doses in opposition to the protocol of the doctors singing its praises because there are people restricting its use early on. They're literally setting it up to fail. Which you'd know about if looked further beyond the nose you're being led around by.

Alright...bye, I don’t need the bogus personal crap because I dared disagree with you painting the opposition to this.

Have fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Got a bunch of people here who don't know a darn thing about these drugs, jumping on misleading news on them to serve a sick agenda. The doctor in New York who was touting his 100% success rate indicated that it came with people who made it to 5 days on the drug. He is using it as an immediate treatment. That's when it's most effective. And so it goes with every other drug - THEY'RE TREATMENTS, NOT CURES.  All of them require early introduction to be of any positive use. None have shown an ability to bring people consistently back from the brink of death, though some have including hydroxychlorquine have done just that on occasion. Yet it's only hydroxychloroquine which is being measured by some very agenda driven people on how it performs as a last resort. They're saying a 60 year old drug with a very safe track record is too risky to introduce when the symptoms are manageable. By the time the roadblocks towards using it are removed, its odds of making a difference have cratered. Then when it inevitably fails to save everyone under those dire circumstances they shout out about it's spotty record. And that shouting is like drugstore candy for the media and people like shader. Newsflash - no drug is providing consistently good results when measured on how it performs as a last resort.

Like I said before, get the agendas and politics out of this. No drug in use has shown to be the magic cure. And when weighed equally, hydroxychloroquine is still the drug used by the most doctors. We all should just hope doctors reach a consensus on a drug soon and start administering it when it can do some good instead of keeping it from people early on because of an agenda.

Your first clue that the doctor that touted a 100% success rate shouldn’t be listened to, is that he touted a 100% success rate. 
 

You have an annoying habit of talking as if the doctors and experts that YOU listen to are experts, and everyone else is political and have agendas.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CQ & HCQ have shown to inhibit infection of cells by SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus strain that causes COVID-19. The mechanism of action isn't clearly understood, but it changes the pH of endosomes, possibly preventing viral entry. 

Hydroxychloroquine, the sister drug of chloroquine, is the drug Trump got excited about. HCQ is much less toxic than CQ & has also been used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases like Lupus & RA.

I'm pretty much over the chloroquine debate until more is known, but it's far from a stretch to say it could work in some patients. 

 

Edited by Football Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:

Has Biden's portrayal of the China flight ban as xenophobic been called out yet on MSNBC?  That was (easily) Trump's best decision through this whole mess.

Until then, :coffee:.

Biden didn't call the ban xenophobic.

He said that Trump's history of xenophobia made him a bad leader.

Like, just for example, someone with a history of xenophobia might think that he could just slap a partial ban on certain brown-skinned foreigners, then clap his hands like a blackjack dealer and walk away, thinking that he did all that he needed to do. (Because why on Earth would you ever need to screen American travelers, amiright?? It's not like any of them would ever visit Wuhan or Italy...)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Ive looked at the science and reports and studies questioning its effectiveness.  None of them were about Trump or politics.  They were about questioning its effectiveness and safety at certain doses.

Ive posted links showing as much...so yeah, I know of what I speak and the condescension and snark isn't really needed.

:lmao:  Screaming the word "SCIENCE!!!!" to whine about doctors prescribing a drug they believe will work to treat a patient would indicate otherwise.  

  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, the study these people are hanging their hopes on to discredit hydroxychloroquine is showing to be complete bunk. It's amazing how quick @shader is to talk about peer review and then never cares to wait and see if a study he jumps on is legitimate or not. Well done jumping on an agenda driven study that turned out to be scientific fraud. 

From Dr Didier Raoult...

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Response-to-Magagnoli.pdf

 

Quote

The study published in pre-print on 04/21 on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al has three major biases which invalidate its conclusions, in any case absurd and incompatible with the literature.

 

Quote

 

In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

 

So they cherry picked HIGH RISK PATIENTS for their study.

 

And then this...

Quote

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Just as I said, they withheld it until it had very little chance of working.

 

Quote

 

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).

All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.

 

 

AGENDA MUCH?

Edited by Mr Anonymous
  • Like 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Got a bunch of people here who don't know a darn thing about these drugs, jumping on misleading news on them to serve a sick agenda. The doctor in New York who was touting his 100% success rate indicated that it came with people who made it to 5 days on the drug. And so it goes with every other drug - THEY'RE TREATMENTS, NOT CURES.  All of them require early introduction to be of any positive use. None have shown an ability to bring people consistently back from the brink of death, though some have including hydroxychlorquine have done just that on occasion. Yet it's only hydroxychloroquine which is being measured by some very agenda driven people on how it performs as a last resort. Then when it inevitably fails to save everyone under those dire circumstances they shout out about it's spotty record. And that shouting is like drugstore candy for the media and people like shader. Newsflash - no drug is providing consistently good results when measured on how it performs as a last resort.

Like I said before, get the agendas and politics out of this. No drug in use has shown to be the magic cure. And when weighed equally, hydroxychloroquine is still the drug used by the most doctors. We all should just hope doctors reach a consensus on a drug soon and start administering it when it can do some good instead of keeping it from people early on because of an agenda.

Opposed to someone who doesn’t know a darn thing about the drug and overly positive, almost obsessed about the drug?

What are your qualifications again? Mine include 4 years of schooling, a PharmD, a decade of working in a retail pharmacy, dispensing hundreds if not thousands of prescriptions for the medications and had several conversations with doctors about interactions and side effects of the drugs most centering around the very heart issues that have caused issues during use with COVID patients.

But no, I’m one of the people who doesn’t know anything about the drug. You can go back and look at my posting history and see that I consistently preached caution about being too optimistic about hydroxychloroquine’s use in COVID. I wish I was here apologizing for my skepticism because it saves thousands of lives but right now that doesn’t seem like the case.

And there is no need to respond, I won’t see it. I have you on ignore because your obsession with this drug made this thread very hard to read. I only saw your post because of the glitch in the software that has ignored posts show up with new posts. Move on, it’s over. This drug isn’t the savior you hoped it was. Find some other reason to not take it seriously. I’ve heard ‘it’s not as bad as the flu’ is making a comeback.

  • Thanks 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

Opposed to someone who doesn’t know a darn thing about the drug and overly positive, almost obsessed about the drug?

What are your qualifications again? Mine include 4 years of schooling, a PharmD, a decade of working in a retail pharmacy, dispensing hundreds if not thousands of prescriptions for the medications and had several conversations with doctors about interactions and side effects of the drugs most centering around the very heart issues that have caused issues during use with COVID patients.

But no, I’m one of the people who doesn’t know anything about the drug. You can go back and look at my posting history and see that I consistently preached caution about being too optimistic about hydroxychloroquine’s use in COVID. I wish I was here apologizing for my skepticism because it saves thousands of lives but right now that doesn’t seem like the case.

And there is no need to respond, I won’t see it. I have you on ignore because your obsession with this drug made this thread very hard to read. I only saw your post because of the glitch in the software that has ignored posts show up with new posts. Move on, it’s over. This drug isn’t the savior you hoped it was. Find some other reason to not take it seriously. I’ve heard ‘it’s not as bad as the flu’ is making a comeback.

Ooof, you were a little too slow bud. Might want to take a look one post up from yours.

Edited by Mr Anonymous
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...