COVID-19, Part 5 - the beat goes on.

[Sea Ray]

Finally something we can agree upon. We have politics on both sides spinning the story for their personal benefit and media, primarily CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, who take that "information" and spin, sensationalize or downplay it based on whatever agenda they are promoting. We're relying on a lot of conflicting interpretations of data that is collected in small samples under conditions that no longer reflect the reality of life. The only thing we know is that we really don't know very much.

Where the conflict arises is that one group thinks this lack of any reliable information is the reason everyone should be cautious, maintain distancing and do things that may help stop the spread like wearing a mask in public where you can't control whether you'll be close to some one. Others think that since nobody seems to know, we should just go about life as normal.

I don't get the politics of it. I get that the media would want to sensationalize it for ratings but what's the politics as to our leaders? I think Dems and Republicans alike, as well as leaders internationally were sold a bill of goods as to this virus so to cover their you know what politically they had to shut everything down. hey couldn't risk being that guy that caused X amount of deaths.

As for me, what's done is done but we do need to learn from this. We can never handle this way again, the next time a virus comes out. Never

[Sea Ray]

As per our discussion on masks, I was reading through this study on HCQ today and stumbled upon a very interesting detail. I was curious to see that in setting up the parameters of this study, they did not care if you wore a mask or not. It begs the question, if a mask is significantly effective so as to protect one from C19, why did they not care about that distinction in running this study:

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

As for the study itself, once again, they only tested HCQ and not as part of a drug cocktail which the President was taking so any comparison to his situation is not applicable

[bucksfan2]

No need for you to offer to take your post down. It's your opinion and your observation. My guess is there hasn't been much or any research into what you've described. As we've seen on numerous C19 related research, even when it's done, it often changes and debunked. I wouldn't rule anything out at this point

Most reports and studies being done are published before they go to peer review. Its why there have been so many changes of the reports, so many things once believed now changed.

If you go into this with an open mind and the understanding that science is always changing you accept that what was once believed three months ago now is different.

I think if we step back and look at what has been done with C19, its pretty amazing. Basically we have known about the virus for 7 months, and have so much more information now than even thought possible. There is growing belief that we will have a vaccine in the fall or early winter, which is an amazing timeline if you think about it.

[Sea Ray]

Most reports and studies being done are published before they go to peer review. Its why there have been so many changes of the reports, so many things once believed now changed.

If you go into this with an open mind and the understanding that science is always changing you accept that what was once believed three months ago now is different.

I think if we step back and look at what has been done with C19, its pretty amazing. Basically we have known about the virus for 7 months, and have so much more information now than even thought possible. There is growing belief that we will have a vaccine in the fall or early winter, which is an amazing timeline if you think about it.

I've said that about the vaccine all along. There's too much at stake for anything close to a normal timeline on that.

As for the early models, info etc, it was based on stuff that we now know to be inaccurate. That's my point. Specifically, why did they ever trust Surgisphere as a reliable source?

A search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess.
The company’s LinkedIn page has fewer than 100 followers and last week listed just six employees. This was changed to three employees as of Wednesday.

That comes from the source I listed last night. So they went with a company unknown prior to this with 3-6 employees

[Sea Ray]

Add another name to the C19 death total:

George Floyd, whose fatal encounter with Minneapolis police stirred a global outcry over racial bias by U.S. law enforcement, tested positive for the coronavirus, his autopsy showed, but the infection was not listed as a factor in his death.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/202...eals/24511508/

I wouldn't count on that last line holding up. He may very well be added at some point

[Reds Freak]

Add another name to the C19 death total:




https://www.aol.com/article/news/202...eals/24511508/

I wouldn't count on that last line holding up. He may very well be added at some point

What a gross take. He tested positive on April 3.

[Boston Red]

What a gross take. He tested positive on April 3.

I suppose if I'm the police officer's defense attorney I might try to use that fact to my client's advantage....but yeah, I'm not sure why any other human on the planet would be trying to use Floyd's positive test to advance any sort of point.

[bucksfan2]

I've said that about the vaccine all along. There's too much at stake for anything close to a normal timeline on that.

As for the early models, info etc, it was based on stuff that we now know to be inaccurate. That's my point. Specifically, why did they ever trust Surgisphere as a reliable source?



That comes from the source I listed last night. So they went with a company unknown prior to this with 3-6 employees

The models were based on the best information they had. At the time when the US went into shut down mode, Italy was being devastated by the virus. I wonder if our opinions in the midwest would be different had we seen a NYC type of scenario here?

[WildcatFan]

I'm not sure why any other human on the planet would be trying to use Floyd's positive test to advance any sort of point.

I'll give you one guess.

[marcshoe]

It should be perfectly obvious that suffocating a suspect who did not have Covid at any point is perfectly fine; you only have to watch the ones who were ever sick. Maybe those who tested positive should wear an insignia to identify themselves, like a star or something. Well, only those of certain races; whites aren't in danger of being suffocated by the police.

[mth123]

I don't get the politics of it. I get that the media would want to sensationalize it for ratings but what's the politics as to our leaders? I think Dems and Republicans alike, as well as leaders internationally were sold a bill of goods as to this virus so to cover their you know what politically they had to shut everything down. hey couldn't risk being that guy that caused X amount of deaths.

As for me, what's done is done but we do need to learn from this. We can never handle this way again, the next time a virus comes out. Never

To me it seems like the Republicans are trying to downplay it to prevent adverse impacts on the stock market (because they are personally invested and it aids their chances at re-election) while making public health take a back seat. The Democrats seems to want to exaggerate it to discredit the current "regime" and simply because the Republicans are doing the opposite.

The goal should be the straight info so everyone can make their personal decision about how much risk they want to expose themselves to based on real data. Instead we have spin, a confused population who are seemingly at war with each other over it. I wish the politicians would shut-up and let the medical professionals speak and the networks would leave it alone at what they say instead of picking every word apart. It's a sad statement that the best place to get news about what is happening in the US is the BBC network or maybe Al Jazeera.

[Boston Red]

To me it seems like the Republicans are trying to downplay it to prevent adverse impacts on the stock market (because they are personally invested) while making public health take a back seat. The Democrats seems to want to exaggerate it simply because the Republicans are doing the opposite.

Do you think Republicans have more investment in the stock market than Democrats? I don't think that's it. I think red states have just generally been less affected than blue states due to timing/geography/density.

[North]

I suppose if I'm the police officer's defense attorney I might try to use that fact to my client's advantage....but yeah, I'm not sure why any other human on the planet would be trying to use Floyd's positive test to advance any sort of point.

Could be that the Minnesota AG put the prosecution in a hole with his speech yesterday. He strongly hinted that they are throwing the book at this one to make up for past oversights. They may have set themselves up for a mistrial.

In any event, will they even be able to find a jury that can pass the screening for bias?

[bucksfan2]

Do you think Republicans have more investment in the stock market than Democrats? I don't think that's it. I think red states have just generally been less affected than blue states due to timing/geography/density.

Yep.

I don't think there was much of a political divide early on in Covid 19. When a lot of the "shelter in place" orders were put into place we saw what was happening in Italy. We understood some about the virus, but not what we know now. And to be honest, in a month we will know far more than we know today. Anyway, I think where political divide came into play was when the shelter in place orders drastically impacted the number of cases. You had projections that were inflated and saw the actual cases fall far below that. I think as the "shelter in place" continued, the political divide started to amplify. I think the President stoked those fires, I also think a vocal minority stoked those fires. At the time, most health officials noted they were being overly cautious and if their numbers were way too high, well that was a good thing, it meant less lives were lost.

I think too many people miss the point that over 100K Americans have died from Covid 19. In Ohio its now projected that over 3000 will die. While that isn't the 10,000's that were originally feared, its still a substantial number. I remember talking to my Aunt a few weeks ago. My cousin lives in my neighborhood and on a run I ran into here stopping by. Now I love my Aunt dearly, but our political beliefs are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Basically she said that the shutdown needed to end, its doing too much damage to the economy, and we need to open things back up. Basically her lines were right out of the Fox News playbook and I don't think she is alone in thinking like this. In general I think the boomers have been far worse than many other generations.

I think Ohio handled things the right way, I think they started opening some things up a little too early, but at some point things needed to start opening up. But the idea to minimize the virus because it wasn't as bad as originally feared ignores the 100K Americans who perished.

[mth123]

Do you think Republicans have more investment in the stock market than Democrats? I don't think that's it. I think red states have just generally been less affected than blue states due to timing/geography/density.

Yeah. I amended. I think its more about keeping the market strong to get reelected. The republicans hold the white house and senate. They don't want to lose control.