Has the Corona Virus infected anyone you know?

[FirefightnRick]

24 minutes ago, Quoner said:

Besides someone using the word political and you clapping like a seal, what's the actual issue? Is 150 studies not enough? Did you have a certain number of trials in mind? Are you upset the trials are happening and think this is settled? Just trying to understand. Who's arguing against learning more and using everything we find?

I’ve posted & mentioned several trials and here’s another, the full peer review of Dr.Raoult’s trial on HCQ.

.

Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302179

[Quoner]

1 minute ago, FirefightnRick said:

I’ve posted & mentioned several trials and here’s another, the full peer review of Dr.Raoult’s trial on HCQ.

.

Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302179

That's great. Was it a phase 1, phase 2 or phase 3 trial? Have they followed the lengthy approval process for a typical drug? Do you have any idea how many trails and tests go into this stuff? Is this a space you're remotely familiar with or hastily studying to win a political argument that shouldn't exist because people decided to tout this drug as a solution prematurely? It is okay not to know stuff, but it can be pretty dangerous to think you know stuff you don't, which is why the president is getting blowback.  

Also, two important points below from the write up. These are both great and useful peaces of information for certain groups, but the authors go on to recommend a host of additional research and even mention politicians making speeches like this is settled. I love that a call for patience and caution is such a snowflake trigger for the people who treat this like my team vs. your team the hardest. Science really doesn't care who you vote for. So slap a minus one extra hard and find more context-free links from Laura Ingraham and the gang, because it's 54 page thread or bust, baby. 

In the meantime, at least we all share the common goal of wanting the best cures and as many options for treatment as possible.

Quote

The majority of patients in our work had relatively mild disease at admission (95%). 

Conclusion

Administration of the HCQ+AZ combination before COVID-19 complications occur is safe and associated with very low fatality rate in patients.

 

[Quoner]

24 minutes ago, keith said:

These are all fine statements from the study or articles about the study.  So can we hold off on the bombshell headlines (either way) until we have findings from true scientific experiments?

100% agreement here. 

[ColoradoEagle]

2 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

How silly is it to criticize the safety of Hydroxychloroquin?  

Per CDC.gov

😎

Not at all silly.

[Coffee and TV]

5 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I guess I hit nerve when I mentioned people who wanted it to fail due to their political leanings. 

Yeah I guess you did hit a nerve when you constructed that strawman. Literally nobody wants any medicine to fail when it comes to this disease. If Trump or McConnell or Graham came out tomorrow and announced a 100% safe vaccine I'd be ecstatic. I want all of this to be over too but you'll have to forgive my misgivings about the snake oil salesman hoping for a miracle cure because he was too busy dismissing this disease back in February.  

Edited May 8, 2020 by Coffee and TV

[El Paso Eagle]

51 minutes ago, Coffee and TV said:

Yeah I guess you did hit a nerve when you constructed that strawman. Literally nobody wants any medicine to fail when it comes to this disease. If Trump or McConnell or Graham came out tomorrow and announced a 100% safe vaccine I'd be ecstatic. I want all of this to be over too but you'll have to forgive my misgivings about the snake oil salesman hoping for a miracle cure because he was too busy dismissing this disease back in February.  

 While I don't agree with all of them, I understand some of your points. If we wait for a 100% safe vaccine it will most likely never be available. Look how many people refuse vaccines for those that have been in use for years. I guess the percent of "safe" acceptable is related to hoe this personally impacts you or you family and friends.

Sadly, Washington is full of "snake oil salesmen, and saleswomen. I just hate it when people in Washington act like experts after the fact. If both sides would have actually tried working together at the beginning things might have been better. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by El Paso Eagle

[FirefightnRick]

Maybe coronavirus's aggressiveness could be changed by adding or subtracting sugar molecules from its spike protein

https://theconversation.com/amp/maybe-coronaviruss-aggressiveness-could-be-changed-by-adding-or-subtracting-sugar-molecules-from-its-spike-protein-137388?__twitter_impression=true

 

“Many physicians noticed that people with high blood sugar, not only those with a history of diabetes but also unexplained new diabetes, were showing up in the hospitalwith the novel coronavirus. This indicated to me that something could be going on with the addition of sugar molecules to the virus, or the receptor it latches onto to infect cells, that influenced the severity of the disease.

I am a medical oncologist at the University of Pittsburgh who treats women with breast cancer. Colleagues of mine at the University of Pennsylvania have trials where we use the drug hydroxychloroqine to try to keep breast cancer from growing in the bone marrow, only to regrow years later. We call this tumor dormancy.

It turns out that among other things, hydroxychloroquine can serve as an oral hypoglycemic agent, lowering blood sugar”....

 

 

So HCQ can also be used as an oral Hypoglycemic to lower blood sugar.  Its interesting to me to see discoveries of use for certain drugs made for one thing can help with othrers...(Viagra-blood pressure, Glucogen-Hypoglycemic-smooth muscle relaxant, Remdesivir-Ebola, HCQ-Malaria).

 

Rick

[NT93]

This thread gives me tired head, yet entertains me all at once.🤣😒

[Censored by Laurie]

15 hours ago, Quoner said:

That's great. Was it a phase 1, phase 2 or phase 3 trial? Have they followed the lengthy approval process for a typical drug? Do you have any idea how many trails and tests go into this stuff? Is this a space you're remotely familiar with or hastily studying to win a political argument that shouldn't exist because people decided to tout this drug as a solution prematurely? It is okay not to know stuff, but it can be pretty dangerous to think you know stuff you don't, which is why the president is getting blowback.  

Also, two important points below from the write up. These are both great and useful peaces of information for certain groups, but the authors go on to recommend a host of additional research and even mention politicians making speeches like this is settled. I love that a call for patience and caution is such a snowflake trigger for the people who treat this like my team vs. your team the hardest. Science really doesn't care who you vote for. So slap a minus one extra hard and find more context-free links from Laura Ingraham and the gang, because it's 54 page thread or bust, baby. 

In the meantime, at least we all share the common goal of wanting the best cures and as many options for treatment as possible.

 

 

[FirefightnRick]

 

Rick

[meangreendork]

44 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

 

Rick

If you're a big company. Everyone else got screwed. Stop, regroup and try again, son. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by meangreendork

[Coffee and TV]

3 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

 

Rick

Damn, just how bad were UNT's admission standards in the 80's? 

[keith]

There has been a new development in the New York area.  Over 70 children have come down with a rare inflammatory syndrome that they believe may be related to COVID-19.  Symptoms present as Kawasaki disease or toxic-shock. 

Three children have died. I’ve seen reports of one aged 3 and one aged 5.  A parent’s worst nightmare. 

[greenminer]

 

[Censored by Laurie]

https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countries?fbclid=IwAR24iBHJBNhWTdvYBhxoB384SljYGoPZDk67TF5PWStKd6D5juiQ436sk0o

[LongJim]

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/money/medical-center-admits-planting-staff-180543963.html

[LongJim]

I pretty much agree with this take.  Especially the bolded section:

**********************************

"There are only two ways that this epidemic ends. One is by population immunity that makes transmission rare, and one is eradication of the virus. The latter is simply not going to happen. The former can be accomplished in two ways, or really, by a combination of both. One is natural immunity and the other is vaccine-aided immunity.

We seem to have a number of people who don’t understand these basic facts; who somehow believe that the lockdowns are making the virus go away and when they end, we will all be safe. Not only is the first part of that belief not accurate (the second part is already the case for most of us), the lockdowns are delaying the one thing that would make it safe, especially for the at-risk groups. The sheer stupidity of the lockdown strategy, given the bifurcated nature of this epidemic, is that the strategy is forcing both the epidemic course and the lockdowns to go on indefinitely.

If you ease the lockdowns now, you will see greater transmission and infections. You might as well never have put them in place. Only a government employee with a guaranteed job or a rich person (yeah, I’m talking about you Bill Gates) could think indefinite lockdowns are a viable strategy.

The smartest strategy is one that would have allowed a moderate pace of spread, building population immunity, while protecting at-risk groups. The biggest at-risk group, seniors in congregate living situations, is already isolated, so it shouldn’t be difficult to protect them. Almost a third of our population, people 24 and under, have essentially a zero risk, and they have the highest rate of contacts. That group is an enormous head start on population immunity. The remainder of the population is generally very low risk as well.

It is not hard to imagine getting to the desired 60% or 70% (and as some research suggests, it may not need to be that high) of the population being immune with very low risk. Certainly a lot lower risk than the damage we are doing to people’s lives right now with lost jobs and deferred health care."

Edited May 11, 2020 by LongJim

[Censored by Laurie]

7 minutes ago, LongJim said:

I pretty much agree with this take.  Especially the bolded section:

"We seem to have a number of people who don’t understand these basic facts; who somehow believe that the lockdowns are making the virus go away and when they end, we will all be safe. Not only is the first part of that belief not accurate (the second part is already the case for most of us), the lockdowns are delaying the one thing that would make it safe, especially for the at-risk groups. The sheer stupidity of the lockdown strategy, given the bifurcated nature of this epidemic, is that the strategy is forcing both the epidemic course and the lockdowns to go on indefinitely.

If you ease the lockdowns now, you will see greater transmission and infections. You might as well never have put them in place. Only a government employee with a guaranteed job or a rich person (yeah, I’m talking about you Bill Gates) could think indefinite lockdowns are a viable strategy.

The smartest strategy is one that would have allowed a moderate pace of spread, building population immunity, while protecting at-risk groups. The biggest at-risk group, seniors in congregate living situations, is already isolated, so it shouldn’t be difficult to protect them. Almost a third of our population, people 24 and under, have essentially a zero risk, and they have the highest rate of contacts. That group is an enormous head start on population immunity. The remainder of the population is generally very low risk as well.

It is not hard to imagine getting to the desired 60% or 70% (and as some research suggests, it may not need to be that high) of the population being immune with very low risk. Certainly a lot lower risk than the damage we are doing to people’s lives right now with lost jobs and deferred health care."

I guess the idea of American Exceptionalism is far more ingrained than I knew. there are existing blue-prints from other nations on how to limit/beat this. 

to the bolded part...and for the life of me, I can't understand how this got so lost and turned around in this conversation..."herd immunity" implies the availability of a vaccine...to advocate otherwise is just bug-chasing and ridiculously dangerous. 

for as much as some of you laud the "greatest generation" for their ability of shared sacrifice, you're really showing that you're too spoiled to actually follow through. its been 2 months and you can't handle not getting a hair cut and a blooming onion...and even as we phase into a re-open, you can't be bothered with a facial covering. 

[LongJim]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I guess the idea of American Exceptionalism is far more ingrained than I knew. there are existing blue-prints from other nations on how to limit/beat this. 

to the bolded part...and for the life of me, I can't understand how this got so lost and turned around in this conversation..."herd immunity" implies the availability of a vaccine...to advocate otherwise is just bug-chasing and ridiculously dangerous. 

for as much as some of you laud the "greatest generation" for their ability of shared sacrifice, you're really showing that you're too spoiled to actually follow through. its been 2 months and you can't handle not getting a hair cut and a blooming onion...and even as we phase into a re-open, you can't be bothered with a facial covering. 

Limit/beat this:  Specifically?  What blueprint do you refer to?

I think the bolded part speaks more to the act of not completely shutting down the economy while allowing for increased immunity among groups more likely to exhibit milder/no symptoms of infection.  Sort of a balance.  That's the way I'm reading it.

I think your third paragraph is simplistic, partisan nonsense.

[FirefightnRick]

4 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

."herd immunity" implies the availability of a vaccine... 

I’ve always read it’s the other way around.  A vaccine helps population jump start towards herd immunity (natural) or community immunity and that makes sense to me considering only a third of the population gets vaccinated for flu during an average season.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/what-is-herd-immunity

Rick

Edited May 11, 2020 by FirefightnRick

[keith]

On 5/10/2020 at 11:09 AM, LongJim said:

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/money/medical-center-admits-planting-staff-180543963.html

What a croc of &%$$#@!  They got caught and tried to spin it.  These stunts are not innocent "mistakes."  They are intentional.  They should not be allowed to get away with "oops, sorry."

[LongJim]

34 minutes ago, keith said:

What a croc of &%$$#@!  They got caught and tried to spin it.  These stunts are not innocent "mistakes."  They are intentional.  They should not be allowed to get away with "oops, sorry."

Hey man!  The press is not the enemy of the people!!

[THOR]

7 hours ago, LongJim said:

I pretty much agree with this take.  Especially the bolded section:

**********************************

"There are only two ways that this epidemic ends. One is by population immunity that makes transmission rare, and one is eradication of the virus. The latter is simply not going to happen. The former can be accomplished in two ways, or really, by a combination of both. One is natural immunity and the other is vaccine-aided immunity.

We seem to have a number of people who don’t understand these basic facts; who somehow believe that the lockdowns are making the virus go away and when they end, we will all be safe. Not only is the first part of that belief not accurate (the second part is already the case for most of us), the lockdowns are delaying the one thing that would make it safe, especially for the at-risk groups. The sheer stupidity of the lockdown strategy, given the bifurcated nature of this epidemic, is that the strategy is forcing both the epidemic course and the lockdowns to go on indefinitely.

If you ease the lockdowns now, you will see greater transmission and infections. You might as well never have put them in place. Only a government employee with a guaranteed job or a rich person (yeah, I’m talking about you Bill Gates) could think indefinite lockdowns are a viable strategy.

The smartest strategy is one that would have allowed a moderate pace of spread, building population immunity, while protecting at-risk groups. The biggest at-risk group, seniors in congregate living situations, is already isolated, so it shouldn’t be difficult to protect them. Almost a third of our population, people 24 and under, have essentially a zero risk, and they have the highest rate of contacts. That group is an enormous head start on population immunity. The remainder of the population is generally very low risk as well.

It is not hard to imagine getting to the desired 60% or 70% (and as some research suggests, it may not need to be that high) of the population being immune with very low risk. Certainly a lot lower risk than the damage we are doing to people’s lives right now with lost jobs and deferred health care."

makes perfect sense...i've been saying all along that if you are under 60 and no  underlying conditions, you need to be out and about.  open up stores, open up everything.  people need to make a living to survive.  if you aren't comfortable with it, don't go out.  every store delivers nowadays.  you could never leave your home and get everything you need.  

 

it's common sense....if you are at risk, don't go out, order everything to be delivered and protect yourself.  

[FirefightnRick]

So we’re all Mean Green Sports fans here. Other than a couple of individuals you wouldn’t even be posting on @Harry ‘s gmg.com unless you love Mean Green Sports and the University of North Texas.  I would expect everyone here to be hoping and praying that Mean Green Sports return as fast as possible?  If not then I would be wondering why your here at all?

So we all want Mean Green Sports to return.  I certainly do.  And I know there’s not going to be a vaccine any time soon.  So that means Sports, mainly for us football,...will have to return and if fans attend to watch they will have to do so with risks.  How much risk is the $64,000 question?

And so the questions to risks involved in attending an outdoor football game need to be...”At what risk is someone facing outside in heat and humidity and wind at a football stadium?”.

I’ve been studying and researching this for a few days.  One study that was 5-6 weeks old out of China says the virus in a lab setting needs an environmental temp of 39-76 degrees F to survive and thrive.

 Looking all that up led me to Aerosol Science(I didn’t know that existed to be honest).  Here’s a link to the latest research I’ve found concerning Cov19 

The coronavirus pandemic and aerosols: Does COVID-19 transmit via expiratory particles?

Yall can read thru it and tell me what you think but for the most part I take from this is they just don’t have any idea what risks anyone is at outside in a weather related environment?  So I have no idea how anyone can predict or make decisions for an event four months from now?

Thoughts?

 

Rick

[THOR]

On 5/7/2020 at 9:18 AM, Censored by Laurie said:

well...

you have one group of people who are more community/communally focused...people who recognize that they function within a society and that their actions and decisions extend beyond their person/immediate family. in this situation, they take personal responsibility for helping contain the spread by acting with caution (possibly an abundance), limiting contact and adjusting and sacrificing in their own lives for the sake of the community. 

then you have another group of people driven more by personal preservation...people who believe their individual freedoms and liberties are license to prioritize self-interest over that of the collective whole. in this situation, they've assigned personal responsibility to others by insisting only the vulnerable need to adjust their lives. 

this mentality certainly extends beyond the current pandemic, but I'd say those numbers make pretty plain the root of the philosophical divide. 

emotional thought v logical thought

 

logic wins for me