Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

It’s so crazy, they will stop at nothing to discredit anything Trump. How many weeks invested in this drug now?🤯

Had  they not started with the bogus Russian claims and then the follow up bogus impeachment for the last 3 1/2 years perhaps the left would have some credibility...at this point all credibility has been lost.  

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

1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

It’s so crazy, they will stop at nothing to discredit anything Trump. How many weeks invested in this drug now?🤯

Its not discrediting Trump...thats the point.  The effectiveness of the drug is legitimately in question.  That isn't agenda driven...its the fact of the matter.

Quit with the completely false narratives....and all the “they” crap.

Edited by sho nuff
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 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.

This is just so factually untrue, it IS BEING HELD TO THE STANDARDS OF LITERALLY EVERY OTHER DRUG ADMINISTERED TO PATIENTS which is why no one in their right minds wants to widely use it to treat this based on 2 ####### months of limited trials. And for the record, if you read that sentence I wrote, there is absolutely nothing political about it.

Edited by Northern Voice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Its not discrediting Trump...thats the point.  The effectiveness of the drug is legitimately in question.  That isn't agemda driven...its the fact of the matter.

Quit with the completely false narratives....and all the “they” crap.

It's so sad that being pro-science, pro-academia, pro-actually testing something before widely using it is seen as being anti-Trump but that's the state of it for you guys these days. God bless.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Northern Voice said:

This is just so factually untrue, it IS BEING HELD TO THE STANDARDS OF LITERALLY EVERY OTHER DRUG ADMINISTERED TO PATIENTS which is why no one in their right minds wants to widely use it to treat this based on 2 ####### months of limited trials. And for the record, if you read that sentence I wrote, there is absolutely nothing political about it.

Stunning that you would post this right now. A study literally cherry picked high risk patients and withheld the drug until it was too late as a way to try and discredit the drug and you're here saying it's being held to the same standard as others. Simply stunning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

Stunning that you would post this right now. A study literally cherry picked high risk patients and withheld the drug until it was too late as a way to try and discredit the drug and you're here saying it's being held to the same standard as others. Simply stunning.

No one study one way or another means anything right now. And saying that isn't discrediting Trump, it's saying we just don't know. Stop pretending you or anyone else does. It needs to be studied in much much greater detail and until it is, it's not political, it's nothing at all, it's one of dozens of maybes and it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said:

When the facts shift, let's shut down the conversation. Par for the course. You people had no problem trashing this drug all day. 10 minutes after that bashing is exposed to be based on a fraudulent study and it's all "let's stop the discussion!"

Because the discussion in here is inherently political and at this point in time pointless. No one knows. No one. Not you, not me, not Fauci, not Dr. Oz, not FoxNews, not Trump, not even the people who have conducted the limited, inconclusive testing that has come out and is being debated in here with no possible positive/conclusive resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Northern Voice said:

Goalposts have always been the same, run it through the same level of standards and clinical testing/trials as every other drug on the market.

Then why didn't you care when these people were ranting about how terrible this drug was all day? It didn't seem to bother you then. Now suddenly it's a discussion not fitted for this topic. What changed? Oh, that's right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydroxychloroquine has proven to be the most effective drug to distract from actual discussion realted to Government Response To The Coronavirus. Side effects may vary. I get headaches and the urge to binge drink. Do not recommend.

  • Like 11
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

Then why didn't you care when these people were ranting about how terrible this drug was all day? It didn't seem to bother you then. Now suddenly it's a discussion not fitted for this topic. What changed? Oh, that's right...

It's not terrible, it's unproven, which has been the point all along. Which should have been the point people were making in here today - it's what I said this morning but I haven't been in here all day.

I know we won't agree on "which side" tried to run with it and score points for political purposes, and I can see asking you to wait for further clinical trials and testing before debating to the death for it is a lost cause, so yes, this conversation is going absolutely nowhere.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kwille said:

Hydroxychloroquine has proven to be the most effective drug to distract from actual discussion realted to Government Response To The Coronavirus. Side effects may vary. I get headaches and the urge to binge drink. Do not recommend.

You're right, I won't engage further. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 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.

How does one determine what "optimistic" is versus "too optimistic"?

should Trump just be pessimistic about everything? Would that make you guys happy? Or would people just complain that he's always pessimistic and never optimistic?

From what I've seen, people have been optimistic about it. There is absolutely zero people saying this is a cure.

Mr anonymous himself has repeatedly said that this is not a cure but a possible treatment that we could be optimistic about. Yet, the mob continues accuse him of saying things he never said.

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

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

4 minutes ago, Northern Voice said:

It's not terrible, it's unproven, which has been the point all along. Which should have been the point people were making in here today - it's what I said this morning but I haven't been in here all day.

I know we won't agree on "which side" tried to run with it and score points for political purposes, and I can see asking you to wait for further clinical trials and testing before debating to the death for it is a lost cause, so yes, this conversation is going absolutely nowhere.

The side that is accusing Trump of having blood on his hands is now accusing the other side of using this for political purposes?

Are we serious?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Its not discrediting Trump...thats the point.  The effectiveness of the drug is legitimately in question.  That isn't agemda driven...its the fact of the matter.

Quit with the completely false narratives....and all the “they” crap.

🚔 You are making false statements and don’t seem to understand facts and are cursing which Joe doesn’t appreciate. Be better. 🚔 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

🚔 You are making false statements and don’t seem to understand facts and are cursing which Joe doesn’t appreciate. Be better. 🚔 

Nothing i stated was false...nor was there any cursing.  Try again...

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

I raised the NBC story as a question, but nobody seems willing to discuss the details. A couple of Trump critics here seem to believe it’s true. A couple of Trump supporters called it fake news and one asserted that the New York Times can’t be trusted, which is a comment I don’t take seriously. 

I also don’t take seriously anyone who believes that President Trump deliberately didn’t act in February because he cared more about his ratings and the stock market than he did about the health of the American people. I don’t like the man at all but that takes it too far. I think that based on what we know it sure sounds like he made a bunch of bad decisions. I don’t think he performed competently. 

Is he performing competently now? I wrote this morning that I thought he was moving in the right direction. But his press conferences are so defensive, so full of nonsense that it’s impossible to tell for sure. 

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

HHS chief Alex Azar tapped ex-professional Labradoodle breeder to coordinate the coronavirus response.
 

yes...you read that right.  
 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-hhschief-speci-idUSKCN2243CE

Slow news day for you?

What's next? You going to post a link about Trump not returning his VHS movies back to Blockbuster on time back in the day?  That should really get the masses riled up.  Keep the outrage going, that's what I say!

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

How does one determine what "optimistic" is versus "too optimistic"?

should Trump just be pessimistic about everything? Would that make you guys happy? Or would people just complain that he's always pessimistic and never optimistic?

From what I've seen, people have been optimistic about it. There is absolutely zero people saying this is a cure.

Mr anonymous himself has repeatedly said that this is not a cure but a possible treatment that we could be optimistic about. Yet, the mob continues accuse him of saying things he never said.

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Coming out of ignorant Trump’s mouth it it basically snake oil.  Pretty much everything he says is gibberish.  

is the drug efficacious against covid? Who knows?  Looks like not, but who knows. 

Trump, the president leading a federal response to the biggest pandemic we’ve seen in our lifetimes, was selling this snake oil in March.  

Reckless, pathetic and of course he was.  Rub that rabbit foot.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I raised the NBC story as a question, but nobody seems willing to discuss the details. A couple of Trump critics here seem to believe it’s true. A couple of Trump supporters called it fake news and one asserted that the New York Times can’t be trusted, which is a comment I don’t take seriously. 

I also don’t take seriously anyone who believes that President Trump deliberately didn’t act in February because he cared more about his ratings and the stock market than he did about the health of the American people. I don’t like the man at all but that takes it too far. I think that based on what we know it sure sounds like he made a bunch of bad decisions. I don’t think he performed competently. 

Is he performing competently now? I wrote this morning that I thought he was moving in the right direction. But his press conferences are so defensive, so full of nonsense that it’s impossible to tell for sure. 

You don’t think he prioritized his ratings (and his re-election )?  

that's adorable.  The man is a raging narcissist.   He only cares about himself.  I’m on the fence about whether he is a sociopath.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Slow news day for you?

What's next? You going to post a link about Trump not returning his VHS movies back to Blockbuster on time back in the day?  That should really get the masses riled up.  Keep the outrage going, that's what I say!

Are you being serious?   This administration is a complete and total joke.  Just tune into the daily briefings.  Embarrassing.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

outrage

*****

Two months ago, on February 20, neither US nor South Korea had yet recorded a death from the virus. On March 20, South Korea had 100 total covid deaths, and US had 150. Today, April 20, South Korea has had a total of 236 deaths. The US has passed 40,000
****
Data

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Football Jones said:

At what point would we need to make the ugly decision to let Darwin take over? I'm talking about the nation & its people, as a whole.

I agree with you that we're facing a tough dilemma. Lots of people are going to die regardless of what we do, so we're in a bit of a "trolley problem" situation.

So how about this: Can we try? Can we mobilize all our resources into creating a reality where we have a better handle on the situation through testing, contact tracing, etc. and can more safely open up? It's like the house is on fire and we're having a debate over whether to huddle in the back room and slowly die of smoke inhalation or run into the living room where there are flames everywhere and the roof is collapsing, and it's like, hey, maybe before we run out there we try to get our hands on a fire extinguisher?

I think the conservative argument that we need to open up the economy come hell or high water is incredibly reckless, but I also think some liberals have become too passive in saying that we have to wait to open up until conditions are better. We shouldn't be waiting, we should be demanding that the government start doing more to address the situation.

There will be plenty of time later on to assess Trump's performance during the months of February and March, but his refusal to marshal resources around expanded testing is an ongoing failure that, IMO, he's not getting nearly enough grief over. It's not realistic to test all 300M Americans? Fine, tell me what number is realistic and then see if we can double that number, then double it again. Challenge companies and research institutions to dramatically expand testing capabilities. Hire people who have lost their jobs to work as contact tracers, as Massachusetts is doing. Above all, DO SOMETHING!

I don't typically watch Trump's press conferences, but from what I've seen his only comments on testing have been either to downplay its importance or lie about our capabilities. That's unacceptable. 

It's not too late to go on the offensive against the coronavirus.

 

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

7 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Lol at not seeing the clear agenda in that study. The family members of the patients have some serious questions they need to be asking. Not only is it scientific fraud, it might be criminal.

You really need to stop talking, right now. This post is disgraceful. You have no idea what you are talking about and this is completely unhinged. Someone earlier mentioned insulting doctors in a context in which it didn't make sense, but this is a really insulting post. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

You said in another post that the "study literally cherry picked high risk patients and withheld the drug until it was too late" but this is not what happened at all. Did you even read the study? Patients weren't picked to receive treatment or not for the study. It is a retrospective study. Usual care was provided by doctors on the front lines, which you have been praising in post after post as the the standard we should be looking to, and then they looked to see what happened. 

There was nothing fraudulent about this study. Nothing. The investigators very clearly acknowledge the limitations of the study. 

The study also shouldn't be dismissed because there are limitations. Some of the issues pointed out in the commentary you linked to are legitimate concerns about the study. But that does not mean the results of the study aren't valid. The authors acknowledge these limitations and use legitimate statistical analysis to attempt to correct for them. That is a limitation of the study, but does not mean that the study is wrong. 

Again, since you apparently ignored what I said earlier, I will try to explain this again. It is wrong to suggest that just because a study 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.

So please stop acting like you have any idea what you are talking about and please stop insulting actual physicians and researchers who are trying to do good work. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

How does one determine what "optimistic" is versus "too optimistic"?

should Trump just be pessimistic about everything? Would that make you guys happy? Or would people just complain that he's always pessimistic and never optimistic?

From what I've seen, people have been optimistic about it. There is absolutely zero people saying this is a cure.

Mr anonymous himself has repeatedly said that this is not a cure but a possible treatment that we could be optimistic about. Yet, the mob continues accuse him of saying things he never said.

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Trump shouldn't be optimistic or pessimistic about pharmacotherapies because he shouldn't say anything about it. Ever. He does not understand it and shouldn't be commenting on it. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, timschochet said:

I raised the NBC story as a question, but nobody seems willing to discuss the details. A couple of Trump critics here seem to believe it’s true. A couple of Trump supporters called it fake news and one asserted that the New York Times can’t be trusted, which is a comment I don’t take seriously. 

I also don’t take seriously anyone who believes that President Trump deliberately didn’t act in February because he cared more about his ratings and the stock market than he did about the health of the American people. I don’t like the man at all but that takes it too far. I think that based on what we know it sure sounds like he made a bunch of bad decisions. I don’t think he performed competently. 

Is he performing competently now? I wrote this morning that I thought he was moving in the right direction. But his press conferences are so defensive, so full of nonsense that it’s impossible to tell for sure. 

He may accidentally make a competent decision at some point.  It's not because he analyzed the data and came to a conclusion on what was best for the country.  He acts without contemplation and analysis based on what he thinks is best for himself in the moment.  It's why he constantly reverses course.  In the span of what, 4 days, we had "absolute authority", "leave it to the governors", "liberate Virginia, 2nd Amendment!!!", and "bad Kemp"?

I bolded one phrase above because I think it's beyond clear that his primary motivation is his own ratings and reelection, rather than the good of the country.  There's an old saying, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

Here's an Inc.com article, How to Tell if Someone is a Toxic Person
1. They badmouth someone else
2. They complain
3. They ask for special treatment
4. They boast
5. They put you on the defensive
6. They make you work to please them
7. They don't show interest in your concerns
8. They don't make you feel good

Trump manages to nail every single one of these in an average press conference.

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

25 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

He may accidentally make a competent decision at some point.  It's not because he analyzed the data and came to a conclusion on what was best for the country.  He acts without contemplation and analysis based on what he thinks is best for himself in the moment.  It's why he constantly reverses course.  In the span of what, 4 days, we had "absolute authority", "leave it to the governors", "liberate Virginia, 2nd Amendment!!!", and "bad Kemp"?

I bolded one phrase above because I think it's beyond clear that his primary motivation is his own ratings and reelection, rather than the good of the country.  There's an old saying, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

Here's an Inc.com article, How to Tell if Someone is a Toxic Person
1. They badmouth someone else
2. They complain
3. They ask for special treatment
4. They boast
5. They put you on the defensive
6. They make you work to please them
7. They don't show interest in your concerns
8. They don't make you feel good

Trump manages to nail every single one of these in an average press conference.

I agree with all of this. But in terms of good for the country, I think he honestly believes (if such a term can be applied to Donald Trump) that what’s good for him politically is good for the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I agree with all of this. But in terms of good for the country, I think he honestly believes (if such a term can be applied to Donald Trump) that what’s good for him politically is good for the country

Maybe, but if forced to make a choice, I'm confident I know which one he'd pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some really embarrassing moments for Trump yesterday: 

TRUMP- Dr. Redfield was totally misquoted! 

REDFIELD- What the Washington Post said was accurate. 

 

TRUMP- It could go away in the fall, right? The coronavirus could be completely gone in the fall. 

FAUCI- I am confident that the coronavirus will be with us in the fall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours 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.

As I recall, he had a 100% "success rate" with immediate treatment of his patients "with Covid-19 symptoms".  NOT patients who tested positive, just patients with symptoms.  So, patients who showed up with a cough get treated and don't die.  When diagnosed patients have a 98% or so chance of survival and you're treating everyone who even thinks they might have it, you'd probably have a 99-100% success rate if you were giving your patients Tic Tacs. And not counting patients who didn't make it to 5 days on the drug skews the results even more--patients who actually developed more systems and were diagnosed and hospitalized despite starting treatment with him don't count in his totals, so it's like the French study that didn't include patients who died along the way.

Edited by apalmer
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.

×
  • Create New...