The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
So did Trump. If we're looking to blame people, shouldn't we blame the man in the charge of the country for pushing the same narrative?
msstate7
Well-known member
The president has many duties, which he must strike a balance between. Fauci has one job. BTW, I'm not a fan of how trump has downplayed the virus at times.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No one can wear a mask 24/7. These are likely people in his bubble. He probably just ate/drank took short pause and some Faux News type decided to "get" him
See i dont think it was a big deal so I agreed.
If we just made very easy decisions we could be looking at half rhe amount of deaths at rhe very least.
But lets not pretend that this is trumps fault when almost all the costly decisions [nursing homes/protests] were all administered and encouraged by the left.
Its a nice attempt at changing history though.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Why don't you share the extensive research into this, oh wait, you can't because there is none.
I've shared on many occasions.
Its purposefully ignored because its so embarassing for you guys that you helped suppress a treatement that would have saved tens of thousands.
A bunch of protesting was happening by Trumpsters about masks and lockdowns long before the Floyd protests and you and Sturg were actively supporting it.
And nursing home deaths are still high in your precious red governed states, so please stop with that nonsense.
Massive protests! Hard to even take you seriously when this is your actual reply.
You're right and the amount of dead is certainly comparable in 'red' states.
Massive (which is speculative) or not, these protests were happening frequently, and for much longer period of time than the Floyd protests had been happening. In fact, those same protests are still happening.
Haha...still trying to compare the two.
My God. You are completely toasted.
Still waiting on the tens of thiusands of Swedish deaths?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No. Because no such information exists.
The rosiest study I could find on HCQ says it improves. But nothing says it is a silver bullet. It seems to me the majority of studies done so far have said the difference is that you recover faster because you get into the **** faster. But I admit, I'm not a scientist.
Read the Henry Ford study.
When given within the first 2 days of hospital admissions mortality is reduced by at least half.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
You do realize population density is why "blue" states are hit hard right? Why does Vermont, despite having a shared border with NY and Mass have such low numbers and low death numbers? I can answer that for you, because Vermont has 1 city. Sure they have large towns and kind of a city in Montpelier. But they have 1 city, Burlington. NYC and NJ got punched in the face because there are so many people in such a small area. Total area of NY metro is estimated to be 20 Million in less than 3500 square miles. To put that into perspective, NYM has around the same population as Florida, in about 50K less square miles
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That's not a study, it's anecdotal evidence. A study involves controls, and specific measures being followed. This is closer to me saying I lost weight by drinking more water, ignoring that at the same time I also stopped eating out less.
When you look at the results, you see that patients who were not given HCQ were people with heart complications, aka people who were more likely to die. Consider what they said in their own conclusion.
"However, our results should be interpreted with some caution and should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings. Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that hydroxychloroquine may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality."
So yet again, talk to your doctor. It may not be right for you. Like I've been saying for like 3 months now?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
More like damn capitalists. If they shut down the NYSE and moved it to online they could have stopped thousands of cases. But they had to delay to figure it out.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
So we have the Ford study: must be given within first 2 days of hospital admissions
And the Dr. Harvey Risch article, which is titled: Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Patients
Risch, in his article, writes: Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease.
He also writes: Symptomatic outpatient infection is a pathologically and clinically different disease than the life-threatening inpatient acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2, thus there is little reason to think that the same treatment would be useful for both.
I'm not sure I fully agree. It is theoretically possible that a treatment is effective in both phases of the disease. However, he is right that evidence it is effective in one phase should not be construed at evidence it is effective in another phase.
It should be noted that Risch is a firm believer in using HDQ on an outpatient basis. The Michigan study looks at outcomes of people who are being treated while hospitalized.
And the Dr. Harvey Risch article, which is titled: Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Patients
Risch, in his article, writes: Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease.
He also writes: Symptomatic outpatient infection is a pathologically and clinically different disease than the life-threatening inpatient acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2, thus there is little reason to think that the same treatment would be useful for both.
I'm not sure I fully agree. It is theoretically possible that a treatment is effective in both phases of the disease. However, he is right that evidence it is effective in one phase should not be construed at evidence it is effective in another phase.
It should be noted that Risch is a firm believer in using HDQ on an outpatient basis. The Michigan study looks at outcomes of people who are being treated while hospitalized.
Of course randomized studies are the best but it was already discussed that in this example its basically unethical to do it.
The fact remains that those who received the drugs had FAR better outcomes.
Try to explain it away all you want bit those are the absolute facts.
I dont think anyone suggested that this should be administrred at all phases of the virus life.
Thats the whole point why these other studies were garbage and most likely funded by Gilead!