Coronavirus

[6andcounting]

(05-22-2020, 04:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Did they try leeches?  Perhaps a nice cup of chicken soup?  Do we KNOW if in the heat of the moment they didn't just try to PRAY it away?!??!

Without knowing absolutely EVERYTHING about everything else we simply can NOT even SUGGEST that Trump was being reckless in pushing an unproven drug that has shown to be even the slightest bit dangerous or taking it himself.

Frankly I am appalled at the level of discourse aimed at a POTUS who shows such great personal courage!

I'm not sure where you got Trump from in my comment, but you may not have read the very first sentence in my post. 

[6andcounting]

(05-19-2020, 04:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: We're all going to die.  I always seem to be shopping at the same exact time as one of those who like to pick up, scrutinize every single meat package on the shelf, prior to making their "final decision".  That is a peeve of mine, even in times of non-crisis.  Makes me want to shout in my sternest, most booming voice that I can muster, "Why must you, put your grimy hands on every effing package on the damn shelf??".

Maybe they want a package of chicken that has all relatively same size pieces with a total weight evenly divisible by 4 or 8 oz's.  






just a total out of the blue theory.




 

[Benton]

(05-23-2020, 05:08 PM)6andcounting Wrote: You're right on this. I should clarify that there are known side effects and depending on your pre-existing conditions these side effects may put you at greater risk, but this is something doctors know and can control for this by making sure the consider how it will affect the specific patient in front of them. These are well known side effects that doctors have been accounting for when they treat their patients with this for decades. It may not be right for every patient, but my original comment was made under the assumption those treated in a hospital with this drug were under competent and ethic medical care of doctors. 

Competent and ethical doctors don't normally prescribe drugs that clinically haven't been proven to do things except increase your likelihood of dieing. 

[GMDino]

(05-23-2020, 05:09 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I'm not sure where you got Trump from in my comment, but you may not have read the very first sentence in my post. 

I did read it.

That's why I said if we don't know all the ins and outs about bleeding, leeches, praying, etc how can we rule them out?

And *I* mentioned Trump because in the context of this drug that was the issue at hand:  The POTUS touting an unproven drug as a cure then as a preventative measure and one he claims he is taking himself.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2020, 05:13 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Maybe they want a package of chicken that has all relatively same size pieces with a total weight evenly divisible by 4 or 8 oz's.  






just a total out of the blue theory.




 

I can't imagine anyone doing such a thing.

[GMDino]

This man works so much sometimes he forgets to eat! 

Scenes from the president’s return to golf for the first time in 76 days. Coverage using long lens with the president and security aware of the camera. Watch here. pic.twitter.com/KjeRbkyyDu

— Kelly O'Donnell (@KellyO) May 23, 2020

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-23-2020, 05:08 PM)6andcounting Wrote: You're right on this. I should clarify that there are known side effects and depending on your pre-existing conditions these side effects may put you at greater risk, but this is something doctors know and can control for this by making sure the consider how it will affect the specific patient in front of them. These are well known side effects that doctors have been accounting for when they treat their patients with this for decades. It may not be right for every patient, but my original comment was made under the assumption those treated in a hospital with this drug were under competent and ethic medical care of doctors. 

Again, just taking hydroxychloroquine increases your risk. Depending on the patient the risk may be even greater.

Taking hydroxychloroquine puts the patient at increased risk for potentially fatal arrhythmias (and other adverse reactions) regardless of past medical history. Prescribing hydroxychloroquine to someone with a heart condition increases that risk even further. Combining hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin also increases the risk. Combining those two in someone with a heart condition further increases the risk.

Adverse reactions can happen even in your otherwise healthy patients and you can’t control who it will affect in this group of patients. In these patients it’s a matter of statistics. If you prescribe hydroxychloroquine to enough patients some of them will develop ad adverse reaction. It’s the same for vaccines. If enough healthy people get vaccinated someone will develop Guillain Barre Syndrome for example. We can’t predict who will get a fatal arrhythmia from hydroxychloroquine anymore than we can predict who will get GBS from vaccinations. If we could then we wouldn’t have adverse reactions. I know of a patient who almost died because they developed Steven Johnson Syndrome after taking something as benign as amoxicillin for a sore throat.

[6andcounting]

(05-23-2020, 05:31 PM)Benton Wrote: Competent and ethical doctors don't normally prescribe drugs that clinically haven't been proven to do things except increase your likelihood of dieing. 

This whole conversation started because an observational study with no control group isn't proof, so you're wrong about it being proven. And if your making a blanket statement about the doctors that treated tens of thousands of covid patients, I have to disagree with that as we;;. 

[6andcounting]

(05-23-2020, 05:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I did read it.

That's why I said if we don't know all the ins and outs about bleeding, leeches, praying, etc how can we rule them out?

And *I* mentioned Trump because in the context of this drug that was the issue at hand:  The POTUS touting an unproven drug as a cure then as a preventative measure and one he claims he is taking himself.

Leeches and praying have been around for centuries, if not longer. We know what they can and can't do. Nothing we know about those things gives us reason to believe they have any connections to stopping upper respiratory illnesses and viruses. We know the risks of the hydroxychloroquine from it's decades of use in modern medicine. It's ability to inhibit DNA and RNA synthesis is something that would directly apply to preventing viruses from binding to cells. The are a few other ways that hydroxychloroquine works within the body that would seemingly would work to inhibit virus like Sars and covid. Doesn't mean it will or that  we will find the way it can be used effectively as a medicine in time, but it makes sense it's one of the things that's explored.

And I couldn't be wrong about this, but I don't think Trump ever went beyond saying it could be the cure we're looking for and might as well be used in cases where doctors think it's worth a shot.

[Benton]

(05-23-2020, 08:23 PM)6andcounting Wrote: This whole conversation started because an observational study with no control group isn't proof, so you're wrong about it being proven. And if your making a blanket statement about the doctors that treated tens of thousands of covid patients, I have to disagree with that as we;;. 

Sooo you're saying hcq is unproven but you disagree that it's irresponsible to give out an unproven drug?

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2020, 05:09 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I'm not sure where you got Trump from in my comment, but you may not have read the very first sentence in my post. 

It's not really worth it. A couple years back Bill Maher said the only way we (sandal wearers) can defeat Trump is if the economy crashes. He hoped for a recession, admitted people would suffer, but he wished for it anyway. A pandemic swept the worldif you think one liberal is not going to do everything in thier power to blame it on Trump; then you're sadly mistaken. 

They've been given a "gift" of a pandemic killing millions world wide. They aren't gonna let that shit go. 

[hollodero]

(05-23-2020, 09:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not really worth it. A couple years back Bill Maher said the only way we (sandal wearers) can defeat Trump is if the economy crashes. He hoped for a recession, admitted people would suffer, but he wished for it anyway. A pandemic swept the worldif you think one liberal is not going to do everything in thier power to blame it on Trump; then you're sadly mistaken. 

They've been given a "gift" of a pandemic killing millions world wide. They aren't gonna let that shit go. 

 

Are you actually implying that this pandemic and the millions of deaths it caused was something liberals hoped and wished for? 

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2020, 10:49 PM)hollodero Wrote:  

Are you actually implying that this pandemic and the millions of deaths it caused was something liberals hoped and wished for? 

Well Bill Maher definitely did; however, I don't think most liberals hoped for how it happened. But I have no doubt most are thinking: let's do whatever we can to make Trump look bad because of this.

[samhain]

(05-23-2020, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well Bill Maher definitely did; however, I don't think most liberals hoped for how it happened. But I have no doubt most are thinking: let's do whatever we can to make Trump look bad because of this.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.  Do you think a political party exists that wouldn't try to use a pandemic/distressed economy to win an election?  Is there some moralistic party out there that's somehow above such behavior?  

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2020, 12:17 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.  Do you think a political party exists that wouldn't try to use a pandemic/distressed economy to win an election?  Is there some moralistic party out there that's somehow above such behavior?  

Nope. It's just depressing to watch. And to see so many in this forum participating in it; while acting as if they are being earnest. 

[Dill]

(05-24-2020, 12:17 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.  Do you think a political party exists that wouldn't try to use a pandemic/distressed economy to win an election?  Is there some moralistic party out there that's somehow above such behavior?  

Some confusion here for sure. Not clear that any party should "be above such behavior"--unless maybe someone doesn't understand what parties are and how they work in a democracy like ours.

It is NEVER the job of any party to say "Oh yeah, go vote for the other guys. They're the better choice this time around." ALL parties campaign by proposing solutions to problems. Ridiculous to think of a party whose platform is "Well, we'd like you to vote for us; but we aren't going to "use" problems to get elected. We're above all that!"  Hard to see how good governance could ever come from that.

This is supposed to be an agonistic system in which each party makes a case and the voters decide.  Concerning most issues, people can reasonably disagree on alternatives.  Though a few special interests may want to prolong the current pandemic for profit, the majority of Americans sincerely want their political leaders to find the best way out of the pandemic and its ill effects. And the majority will vote for whomever appears best able to do that.

So a party "using" the pandemic would have to make a case for the best way out that appealed to the majority, and to stay in power it would have to make good on its promises.

Then it's the job of the voters to decide which party makes the best case and the job of the press thereafter to keep governance transparent and not be intimidated by threats. The majority won't willingly harm their own interests "just to make Trump look bad."

We don't get rounds of bad politicians because they stoop to "using problems" like a pandemic to get elected, but because of what voters want or will settle for, including tolerance of press bashing. Voters who cannot discern competence will get incompetence and settle for scapegoats.

[hollodero]

(05-23-2020, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well Bill Maher definitely did;

He said "recession", not "epidemic". Recessions are unavoidable in the long run and it's more a question of when. Not quite fair to carry this over.
Also not quite fair to use the word "definitely".

(05-23-2020, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: however, I don't think most liberals hoped for how it happened.

Good. I was really worried there for a sec.

(05-23-2020, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But I have no doubt most are thinking: let's do whatever we can to make Trump look bad because of this.

"Doing whatever" imho takes it a bit far, but sure that might be somewhat true.

But don't you think Trump does contribute a lot to that too? Not only this whole chloroquine thing, but he also mused about injecting disinfectants, he accused hospital staff around the country to steal masks, he invented alternative numbers, mused about the heat taking care of the virus and other 100% unfounded stuff, he encourages protests against his own measures, goes after liberal governors, lied about being the first to call it a pandemic, also used to use the term "hoax", explained the high infection rates with "good testing", there are numerous examples of gross mismanagement on the federal level, he... well, let's leave it at that for now. Do you dispute these things, do you think they are just totally fine, or don't you have to admit that Trump makes himself look bad time and again as well? Also, is that not objectively more important then what some liberals say?

Please for once address these questions.

[Dill]

(05-24-2020, 07:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: But don't you think Trump does contribute a lot to that too?

Not only this whole chloroquine thing,

but he also mused about injecting disinfectants,

he accused hospital staff around the country to steal masks,

he invented alternative numbers,

mused about the heat taking care of the virus and other 100% unfounded stuff,

he encourages protests against his own measures,

goes after liberal governors,

lied about being the first to call it a pandemic, also used to use the term "hoax",

explained the high infection rates with "good testing",

there are numerous examples of gross mismanagement on the federal level, he...  well, let's leave it at that for now.  

Do you dispute these things, do you think they are just totally fine,

or don't you have to admit that Trump makes himself look bad time and again as well? Also, is that not objectively more important then what some liberals say?

Please for once address these questions.

The Trump hate is strong in this one.  

So transparent. You are trying to draw Bfine into your liberal "because facts" game.

My question to everyone on the Message Board is--would you really be upset at Trump's talk of injecting bleach and calling the pandemic a "hoax" and general dispensation of disinformation IF THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA HAD NEVER REPORTED IT?!?

Wake up SHEEPLE! The media may be using the pandemic to make Trump look bad, but you don't have to validate their hate.

[6andcounting]

(05-23-2020, 09:25 PM)Benton Wrote: Sooo you're saying hcq is unproven but you disagree that it's irresponsible to give out an unproven drug?

Every potential treatment for covid-19 is currently unproven. With hcq it's been a drug used in modern medicine for decades so we know the potential side effects and how to mitigate the risks of giving to people with  certain underlying conditions or who are taking another drug that shouldn't be mixed with hcq. I support more and better research into seeing if and how it can be used as a covid-19 treatment. And I support the decision between doctors and patients to use a prescription for hcq to try to help them recover or survive from covid-19. If you're sick and dying now, you don't get the luxury being treated based on knowledge we won't have until years into the future.

[GMDino]

(05-24-2020, 12:17 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.  Do you think a political party exists that wouldn't try to use a pandemic/distressed economy to win an election?  Is there some moralistic party out there that's somehow above such behavior?  

Donald Trump ran on a platform that a historical time of growth in the United States under Obama was a "failure" because it should have been "faster" or "bigger" or Trumpier?  I dunno.  But the entire point of MAGA was that America, despite coming out of a recession and said record continuous growth wasn't good enough.

But how dare the other side sa that Trump's handling of the virus led to a wrose economic outcome than if he had been prepared or even the slightest bit capable to lead?!?!?!  Right?