Coronavirus Outbreak

[Signtist]

Even their own public health leadership is doubting the wisdom of what they did.

J.M.

Are we going to see a source for this statement? I have no doubt it's a minority. I may have stated as much in my comment.

[Dan Z]

Daily new death are still slowly ticking upward again, and daily new deaths are still slowly ticking downward.



Looking at the two charts: The highest wave of deaths came with the first wave of the virus. However, curiously, the second wave of the disease, while being much higher than the first, came with a much lower rise in daily new deaths. It makes one think that the numbers of infections during the second wave was as high as it was due to greatly expanded testing. It also makes me think that the numbers of infections was far higher during the first wave than the charts show because of a lack of testing. Better treatments are most likely a factor as well.

The daily new deaths numbers have been steadily trending down for over two months now, since early August. That follows the curve of daily new cases. Daily new cases have now been trending up slightly the past week, which may mean we will again see a rise in deaths. Remains to be seen.

Better treatment methodology is almost certainly much of it. I have seen some numbers (Before I left work) that mortality of patients that wound up on ventilators has gone from “most die” to “most survive”. With the reduction of patients being put on vents to begin with. My state reported ZERO deaths for a few days last week, which is astounding. Cautiously, we may have turned the corner. I just hope so.

J.M.

Treatment advances are certainly resulting in better outcomes. I also think the initial wave hit the elderly especially hard (including nursing homes) - there is ample evidence that the average age of COVID cases skewed younger with the second wave, which likely contributes to the lower death rates as well.

The current gradual rise in cases will likely begin to be reflected in death rates soon - but the factors like younger age and treatment may blunt the rise to some degree - so we may just plateau for a while. Model consensus is for deaths to remain relatively stable through the end of the month, with a rise after that (e.g. the IHME mode points to daily death rates rising to over 1000 my the beginning of Nov, and over 2000 by the beginning of December).

[Robert]

No, it is show me data from a large (ideally 1000 plus participants) from a property designed study, with controls, in a way that the study authors cannot influence the data through either conscious or unconscious selection bias.

What does a property study have to do with Covid?

I know of not study that exists that does not have some bias in it. All research has to make assumptions and speculate on outcomes. Nothing int he universe is so black and white when it comes to human bodies.

I see nothing wrong with retrospective studies. A lot can be understood and reasoned out by them. You reject it, but it is data. So the statement of "show me the data I like" still holds true.

You have done nothing to win me over. I still stand by my statements.

[Bootstrap]

I see nothing wrong with retrospective studies. A lot can be understood and reasoned out by them. You reject it, but it is data. So the statement of "show me the data I like" still holds true.

The medical community has standards for proof. These standards are used when deciding whether to approve a drug. I think JM is saying that we should use those standards. I agree.

If HCQ passes the same tests other drugs need to pass, it should be approved. If not, it should not be approved. Politicians should keep their hands off of this. For the most part, they don't even understand what these standards are, why they have been chosen, or how they work. Which is also true for most of us.

It's sad that this has become a partisan wedge issue.

[Soloist]

I see nothing wrong with retrospective studies. A lot can be understood and reasoned out by them. You reject it, but it is data. So the statement of "show me the data I like" still holds true.

The medical community has standards for proof. These standards are used when deciding whether to approve a drug. I think JM is saying that we should use those standards. I agree.

If HCQ passes the same tests other drugs need to pass, it should be approved. If not, it should not be approved. Politicians should keep their hands off of this. For the most part, they don't even understand what these standards are, why they have been chosen, or how they work. Which is also true for most of us.

It's sad that this has become a partisan wedge issue.

When you have people better educated then any of us arguing about studies and what they should mean...

[Bootstrap]

When you have people better educated then any of us arguing about studies and what they should mean...

If you look at the medical literature or the scientific literature, I don't think that's what you see. Fauci and Birx and Redfield have no difficulty agreeing on what the literature has shown on HCQ or on face masks, despite political pressure from the president they work for. Literature reviews in major medical journals say the same thing.

The River City Reader is not a medical journal. The author of those articles is a physicist. I have no idea who was paying him, but I bet he is getting funded by a political source. HIs "literature review" simply omits the main studies. Disinformation is a real thing. Fringe science is a real thing. If you are watching videos on bitchute, those videos were taken off of normal platforms because they contain medical disinformation.

Start with reliable sources. There is so much garbage out there, and none of us has the time and energy to prove it all false. Start with the things that the medical community has agreed on, the things that they trust.

[Bootstrap]

Here's what CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield says about how important face masks are, based on the medical literature. He is saying this despite political pressure to say otherwise.

[video][/video]

But I am going to comment, as the CDC director, that face masks, these face masks, are the most important, powerful public health tool we have. And I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings. I’ve said it: If we did it for six, eight, 10, 12 weeks, we’d bring this pandemic under control. We have clear scientific evidence. They work, and they are our best defense.

I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70 percent. And if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will. So I do want to keep asking the American public to take the responsibility, particularly the 18-to-25 year olds, where we’re seeing the outbreak in America continue to go like this [straight up] because we haven’t got the acceptance, the personal responsibility that we need for all Americans to embrace this face mask.

[Ken]

The New England Journal of Medicine just published the results of a randomized control trial (RCT) on Remisdivir, an anti-viral medication for COVID. There were significant duration effects and non-significant mortality effects: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... tured_home

Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test)... The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03).

[mike]

Here's what CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield says about how important face masks are, based on the medical literature. He is saying this despite pressure to say otherwise.

[video][/video]

I always think when I see that guy that all he needs is a plain suit and he would look just like an old style Church of the Brethren preacher.

[Robert]

Here's what CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield says about how important face masks are, based on the medical literature. He is saying this despite political pressure to say otherwise.

[video][/video]

But I am going to comment, as the CDC director, that face masks, these face masks, are the most important, powerful public health tool we have. And I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings. I’ve said it: If we did it for six, eight, 10, 12 weeks, we’d bring this pandemic under control. We have clear scientific evidence. They work, and they are our best defense.

I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70 percent. And if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will. So I do want to keep asking the American public to take the responsibility, particularly the 18-to-25 year olds, where we’re seeing the outbreak in America continue to go like this [straight up] because we haven’t got the acceptance, the personal responsibility that we need for all Americans to embrace this face mask.

He also backed away from this statement days later. So do we go by this or what he said days later?