ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2034 of 3054
« First < 1034153419341984202420302031203220332034 203520362037203820442084213425343034 > Last »
The Dumbass Lounge>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
SupDock 12:05 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Watch this



Link

"Those receiving the triple-drug combination had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of recovering enough to be discharged, and were 44 percent less likely to die, compared to the double-drug combination."
Now are you guys going to immediately deny or read it? Science is always changing right?
The mean age was 43.6 years (standard deviation (sd), 15.6 years

Forty-six patients (4.3%) were classified into the PClinO group including 10 patients transferred into ICU of whom 2 died, 6 who died in conventional hospital units, and 30 additional patients who were hospitalized for 10 days or more (update April 18th).*

overall 0.9% case fatality rate (CFR) for these 1061 patients.


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


This was a retrospective analysis with no control group. I'm not really sure what conclusion to make as it was not compared to a group without treatment.
[Reply]
stumppy 12:13 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Yeah, well, if you spend time in D.C it's easy to see how opinions of him devolved and why. Of course in this thread I'm suppose to act like i never read why opinions of him have soured in a conversation about why he's not trusted. Seems silly to me. It's like a giant elephant in the room that we're suppose to avoid because it's political, but the entire subject is rooted in politics.

If this next paragraph gets me in trouble so be it.

My opinion is that in the early goings of this, he was seen as sort of a comforting figure. You had this articulate, intelligent and good spirited man as Trump's advisor telling the public to be calm, at a time when the WH seemed rather unsure and rather dismissive of the subject.

America needed a guy that they could trust when #$%^ was bumbling his early days through this and was clear that he needed an advisor. In comes this guy that is a leading expert since Reagan, that the WH has thrown into the public and told was THE MAN on the subject. He had the charisma and intellect and most of America gravitated towards him. He comforted America, letting people feel like they had the right guy to guide us through this.

Next thing you know he's doing interviews on certain media outlets and i'm reading threads that are rather trustworthy and fond of him.

And i still remember how opinions shifted within days when...well...anything more i could say from here would be crossing the line i guess.

You can draw a straight line from the ones who continually bash him and their political affiliation.
[Reply]
Monticore 12:15 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by SupDock:
The mean age was 43.6 years (standard deviation (sd), 15.6 years

Forty-six patients (4.3%) were classified into the PClinO group including 10 patients transferred into ICU of whom 2 died, 6 who died in conventional hospital units, and 30 additional patients who were hospitalized for 10 days or more (update April 18th).*

overall 0.9% case fatality rate (CFR) for these 1061 patients.


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


This was a retrospective analysis with no control group. I'm not really sure what conclusion to make as it was not compared to a group without treatment.
Remember a few pages back when I said not everyone would comprehend a drug trial the same way. Pepperidge farm remembers.
[Reply]
TLO 12:19 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Any obvious changes? Looks like they keep revising the death figures upward, which isn't surprising given the relaxed restrictions.

It still shows hospital utilization as being well within capacity in the states I clicked through, so nothing terribly surprising there.
The level of uncertainty has gone up in some states. The death figures have been revised upwards in a lot of states.

It seems like the further along we get, the more uncertain the models become.
[Reply]
Halfcan 12:21 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Originally it was meant to be a thread that wasn't bogged down in criticisms of the feds' response. I never would have guessed that Fauci would somehow become viewed as a political figure, but here we are.

My personal preference would be that the thread become a place to discuss evidence-based policy, but that's pretty much impossible to moderate.
I would not put all the negativity all on Fauci- the media is the one amplifying and twisting everything he says.

Fauci- mentions schools- saying they will need to take extra precautions to protect the kids.

Media- "Fauci says schools will stay closed in the fall until a vaccination!!"

The gap between what the media is reporting and the truth has never been wider.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:26 PM 05-13-2020
Regarding that study, a few things jump out:

1) The cohort of treated patients is young with less severe disease. 95% of patients had a low NEWS score, meaning that their O2 levels, respiration rate, temperature, need for oxygen, and heart rate were either within normal limits, or just outside of.

2) Those with good outcomes were much younger on average than those with poor outcomes. The difference is 42.4 years old vs. 69.2 years. That kind of heterogeneity points to an outside factor other than the therapy as a likely cause--namely the age of the trial participants as being a better indicator of success than the therapy

3) Hydroxychloroquine levels were not associated with good outcomes

4) Those with poor virological outcomes had higher viral loads and had higher NEWS scores

5) A substantial number of patients were excluded without a reason given

6) 56 patients were treated who were only contacts of documented cases and were not positive cases themselves, and were included in the analysis. I have never seen that done in another study. That combined with the fact that 66 others were excluded for unspecified reasons raises some major red flags for me

7) Most importantly, this trial has no control group.

8) The author of this trial has committed several egregious ethical errors, including sharing his data with a lawyer who (falsely) claimed to be associated with Stanford before publication in order to tout its effectiveness. In the earlier, debunked study 14/16 patients in the control group were deemed cleared of the virus on Day 6 without any data collection taking place and one of the six patients he deemed virologically cleared in the azithromycin group actually tested positive for the virus afterwards.

"In 2018, after damning evaluations, Raoult’s principal laboratory groups were stripped of their association with two of France’s top public research institutions. Raoult was found to have produced an extraordinary number of publications but few of great quality. “It’s very easy to publish [expletive] when you know how publishing works,”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/m...loroquine.html

9) This study was not approved by ethics boards, which is major malfeasance. He claimed that it was and provided a link to approval of his first trial, but that only accounted for hydroxychloroquine use. In essence, he conducted a trial without disclosing the medications he was going to use for approval of an institutional review board. That would get you fired almost anywhere.

So, what does that leave us with:

We have a trial that pre-selected for patients with mild disease, with no control group, no randomization process, retrospective in nature, with serious questions about attrition bias, from an author who has been largely discredited and falsely claimed to obtain consent for using a medication that he did not actually receive.

Yeah, you can throw this one out.
[Reply]
Detoxing 12:29 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
How could anyone expect him to be 'right' 100% of the time
I think it comes from an unrealistic, or heightened expectation of what science is. And i understand why that is, since science is so often cited as the end-all-be-all for decision making when debating a subject.

But the truth is that science changes. All the time. As we learn more, we adapt our theories. But some don't see it that way. They see it more black and white. Science is always suppose to be right 100% of the time and it isn't suppose to adapt when we learn more. It's suppose to be right the very first time and when it's not, it's because it can't be trusted or there's some ulterior motive.
[Reply]
petegz28 12:30 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15:
Assuming this isn't just the mother of all trolling jobs, I gotta say that if you live by this code it's amazing you ever come to a decision on anything in your life. Literally every person you've ever come in contact with, expert or otherwise has been "wrong" about something due to the situation being fluid and gaining new information.
You didn't read what I said so let me put it this way. If a doctor tells me I have strep throat I will listen to him and think little of it knowing he has never been 100% right.

If a doctor tells me I have cancer and I have 3 months to live you can bet your ass I am going to seek out the opinion of others.

Like I said....magnitude.
[Reply]
DaFace 12:41 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
I think it comes from an unrealistic, or heightened expectation of what science is. And i understand why that is, since science is so often cited as the end-all-be-all for decision making when debating a subject.

But the truth is that science changes. All the time. As we learn more, we adapt our theories. But some don't see it that way. They see it more black and white. Science is always suppose to be right 100% of the time and it isn't suppose to adapt when we learn more. It's suppose to be right the very first time and when it's not, it's because it can't be trusted or there's some ulterior motive.
Not that I expect anyone to take the 10 hours to watch it all, but this YouTube series on the history of science is fascinating. It's all stuff you've probably heard bits and pieces of, but it's fun to rapidly run through all of the crazy twists and turns that "science" has made over the millenia.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...PDH5TKK2UpU8Ng

Probably my favorite thing about it is that it points out all the ridiculous stuff people used to believe (e.g., the four elements are earth, air, fire, and water), but by walking through it historically you can see how they got there and the logic of it.

Someday, we'll probably look back at our COVID response and laugh at how dumb we were. But it's the best we can do for now.
[Reply]
OnTheWarpath15 12:42 PM 05-13-2020

New study shows that the Abbot ID NOW #COVID19 test missed a third of the samples detected positive by Cepheid's Xpert Xpress (GeneXpert) when using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and more than 48% when using dry nasal swabs. https://t.co/kOCQIku5MP

— Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) May 13, 2020

[Reply]
eDave 12:43 PM 05-13-2020
Tempe bar yesterday:


[Reply]
DaFace 12:43 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by eDave:
Tempe bar yesterday:

At least it's mostly outside I guess.
[Reply]
Marcellus 12:45 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
I would not put all the negativity all on Fauci- the media is the one amplifying and twisting everything he says.

Fauci- mentions schools- saying they will need to take extra precautions to protect the kids.

Media- "Fauci says schools will stay closed in the fall until a vaccination!!"

The gap between what the media is reporting and the truth has never been wider.
Yup CNN just got busted yesterday for manipulating information from a poll on Covid stating that 68% of Americans wouldn't go back to normal activity until there was vaccine but that's not motley what the poll data said. The data said 68% of Americans thought a vaccine was important.
[Reply]
petegz28 12:47 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Yup CNN just got busted yesterday for manipulating information from a poll on Covid stating that 68% of Americans wouldn't go back to normal activity until there was vaccine but that's not motley what the poll data said.
I've tried to keep the politics out of this and we all know there has always been some political motives with this but over the last week or so it just seems like things have gotten snarkier with this in the media. Which actually tells me things are probably getting better and they want to milk it all they can.
[Reply]
SAUTO 12:52 PM 05-13-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I largely leave the mods who participate in DC to deal with DC. And by "deal with" I largely mean "ignore it."
this is my stance also
[Reply]
Page 2034 of 3054
« First < 1034153419341984202420302031203220332034 203520362037203820442084213425343034 > Last »
Up