CNN Reporter Breaks Down After Devastating Covid-19 Report

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,003
3,088
118
The only thing I've seen remdesivir is useful for is lowering a hospital stay, nothing shown to lower mortality rates. How are you gonna say there's more data showing the usefulness of remdesivir over HCQ? I linked to a 8,000+ patient study of HCQ. Also, an ionophore + zinc has been shown to hamper virus replication with SARS-COV-1, which is extremely similar to SARS-COV-2. Here's a study here and here that show zinc with an ionophore helps vs only taking an ionophore (like HCQ) or only taking zinc. HCQ helps because it lets the zinc into the cells to interfere with virus replication. HCQ also helps with the cytokine storm. Vitamin C with quercetin makes quercetin into an ionophore so you can substitute out HCQ out for those.
We've been over this in the other thread. The data on zinc + ionophore is so thin that it amounts to nothing at all. What is particularly relevant to this is also that virtually nobody in the field thinks the relevant mechanism of action of HCQ for covid-19 is as an ionophore anyway. e.g.

There are lots and lots of studies on HCQ. Some of them show an effect and some of them do not: this is normal. It just so happens all the best ones suggest not; or at least, not enough benefit to outweight the downsides and make it worth the bother. Consequently, the consensus has only grown stronger that HCQ is not useful. e.g.

etc.

The advantage of remdesevir reducing hospital time is that if part of the problem is the stress on the health service from people occupying hospital beds, cutting the average stay from 15 to 11 is a plus even if it makes no difference to mortality. One way or another, there is no "competition" between HCQ and remdesevir. There was urgent need for covid-19 medications, and it was deemed worth giving remdesevir a go despite the shaky evidence. It will all shake out in the long run.

There's more evidence supporting these treatments than there is evidence supporting masks.
Er, no. That's very mid-2020. The case for masks has gone up as the case for HCQ has gone down.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,228
412
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
We've been over this in the other thread. The data on zinc + ionophore is so thin that it amounts to nothing at all. What is particularly relevant to this is also that virtually nobody in the field thinks the relevant mechanism of action of HCQ for covid-19 is as an ionophore anyway. e.g.

There are lots and lots of studies on HCQ. Some of them show an effect and some of them do not: this is normal. It just so happens all the best ones suggest not; or at least, not enough benefit to outweight the downsides and make it worth the bother. Consequently, the consensus has only grown stronger that HCQ is not useful. e.g.

etc.

The advantage of remdesevir reducing hospital time is that if part of the problem is the stress on the health service from people occupying hospital beds, cutting the average stay from 15 to 11 is a plus even if it makes no difference to mortality. One way or another, there is no "competition" between HCQ and remdesevir. There was urgent need for covid-19 medications, and it was deemed worth giving remdesevir a go despite the shaky evidence. It will all shake out in the long run.



Er, no. That's very mid-2020. The case for masks has gone up as the case for HCQ has gone down.
I gave you studies showing different results in HCQ (or other ionophore only) and with combination of zinc and both studies showed improvement with combination of both.

2 of your trials there are for very late-stage treatment that I was never saying HCQ will work for, we almost certainly know it doesn't and we know that's where you can get the bad cardiac side effects of the drug. Do you not recall when I said we aren't treating people for early covid and just wait until it gets bad? When is that ever a good way to treat anything? Taking something early on 1st symptoms or high risk exposure to reduce hospitalizations also reduces the strain on health care workers. Also, I've explained it's not really too high in the vast vast vast majority of areas. And a lot of the strain has been pushed higher than normal because asinine policies by the hospitals. Any medical facility that isn't a main hospital is basically a ghost town because if you just have a headache, you get shipped to the main hospital.

One of the other trials linked is for prophylaxis use, which I never claimed HCQ was something that will stop infections from happening. It's rather tall ask to ask any drug or treatment to STOP an infection from actually happening.

The last linked study has paragraphs of why the methods weren't the best, plus it was a study on people that were rather young and would be most likely fine if they did nothing.

What are the downsides? There's like no downsides to taking HCQ unless you're already in really bad shape. They hand out HCQ like candy in Africa and India (prior to the pandemic) and probably a few other areas if I were to look it up further. It doesn't have any major side effects. In Brazil, it's prescribed to pregnant women too.

There isn't really any hard/definitive data on masks (especially the kind of mask the public wears) because setting up trials is hard to do. You can't really put a mask on people and spray them or the room with covid and do the same with a group that's not wearing a mask. That would be an ideal way to test it but giving people covid purposefully isn't ethical. There's so many other variables that contribute to whether you get infected or not, it's hard to single out masks as the sole reason for the difference in results.

This Danish study of 6,000 showed a 16% lower infection rate with people but it also wasn't statistically significant either.

Also, lowering infection rates (if masks even do that) isn't even the most potentially important aspect of wearing a mask, it's the lower viral load potential. Again, it's nothing you can really ethically test, but it follows basic logical reasoning; masks do block X amount of droplets, equals less covid in the air, means you'll breathe in less of it. We know lower viral loads do lead to less severe disease in other viruses via animal testing. Do we have to do the same test on animals to see if more initial covid causes more severe outcomes? We can just assume if follows the same as those other viruses and it's a general viral property. You don't need a 100% certain study or groups of studies to follow basic logic to tell you such and such is most likely good so let's do it. If we don't do it and we find out that it would've saved 1,000 lives or 100,000 lives or whatever, it's pretty dumb to not have done it because we didn't have complete certainty that it did work.

Just look at all this correlational data on vitamin d. Yes, none of it states that it does work with 100% certainty against covid. But we do know it helps your immune system and most people have lower levels of vitamin d than they should. There's no reason not to tell the public to take vitamin d and it's the exact same logic we have used with telling people to mask. Taking say 2500 or 5000 IUs of vitamin d does no harm and you need it anyway.
 
Last edited:

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,003
3,088
118
I gave you studies showing different results in HCQ (or other ionophore only) and with combination of zinc and both studies showed improvement with combination of both.
It's not enough, not nearly enough. It's equivalent to where we were with HCQ in April 2020, and that turned out ineffective. There are clinical trials in process that may provide a clearer picture.

2 of your trials there are for very late-stage treatment that I was never saying HCQ will work for...
It doesn't matter what stage of disease progression you want to talk about - severe, mild, or pre-exposure, the most reliable studies thus far do not show taking HCQ has a benefit. If HCQ ever were a significant game-changer, it is not credible so many robust studies could have failed to notice. This means that it is at best marginal.

What are the downsides? There's like no downsides to taking HCQ unless you're already in really bad shape.
What you mean is that HCQ is relatively unlikely to kill or hospitalise patients. That's not the same thing as there being no downsides, as in fact a very substantial proportion of users have some adverse effects.

There isn't really any hard/definitive data on masks (especially the kind of mask the public wears) because setting up trials is hard to do.
Specific studies on covid-19 are relatively thin for the obvious reason it's only been around a year. However, mask usage has been looked at over decades for a wide range of other respiratory diseases and been held as effective at reducing infection. Given the basic principles of transmission for these respiratory disease are largely identical, the evidence base is actually a lot stronger than it may appear.

Just look at all this correlational data on vitamin d. Yes, none of it states that it does work with 100% certainty against covid. But we do know it helps your immune system and most people have lower levels of vitamin d than they should. There's no reason not to tell the public to take vitamin d and it's the exact same logic we have used with telling people to mask. Taking say 2500 or 5000 IUs of vitamin d does no harm and you need it anyway.
No-one objects to people ensuring they get suitable quantities of key nutrients. Health services already have official recommendations for Vit D intake.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
2,917
312
88
Specific studies on covid-19 are relatively thin for the obvious reason it's only been around a year. However, mask usage has been looked at over decades for a wide range of other respiratory diseases and been held as effective at reducing infection. Given the basic principles of transmission for these respiratory disease are largely identical, the evidence base is actually a lot stronger than it may appear.
Scientific evidence is already waffel thin for hygienic use of medical masks let alone the pieces of cloth many to most people don't even wash. It is, quite frankly, disgusting. Hospitals here even started to ban cloth masks b/c they are so unhygienic.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,003
3,088
118
Scientific evidence is already waffel thin for hygienic use of medical masks let alone the pieces of cloth many to most people don't even wash. It is, quite frankly, disgusting. Hospitals here even started to ban cloth masks b/c they are so unhygienic.
To say that hospitals ban improvised cloth masks is to miss out the fact patients are given and required to use a replacement mask.

This argument is essentially like saying there's no need to recommend people take their antihypertension meds because adherence of those prescribed them is only 70%: "Here are some drugs. You don't need to bother taking them, others don't." The point of proper messaging is to make clear to people proper procedure and encourage adherence. Use better quality masks, do not keep re-using them, wash (if viable) regularly.

The anti-mask brigade are a weird bunch of a disinformation-loving misfits. There is a surely a worthwhile psychology paper or twenty investigating what their underlying malfunction is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
May 4, 2020
2,927
666
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
I mean it's not their primary source of revenue. It's their states'. The politicians will get paid either way.

Don't get me wrong. Ireland reduced restrictions right before Christmas to end up worst in the world with cases per million by January so I am very much pro-lockdown, obviously supports need to be in place. If anything the main threat to politicians would be in the cushy lobbying and consulting jobs they like to line up once their out of office but even that's not really a risk, the companies offering those positions aren't the ones being hurt.

As for them wanting to shut down businesses? I can't really think of any compelling reason why. I tend to assume the worst of career politicians but even I have a hard time believing the lockdowns are because the feeling of control gives them a big ol' woody like they can only get from child porn and cannibalism.

If anything the real issue around mismanagement of lockdowns is probably just because the people doing it aren't affected and really don't give a shit. They
Once power is given it is very difficult to take back. The Cold War is a prime example of why politicians would encourage a lockdown and the longer it continues the more pliant people will be to that power continuing.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,003
3,088
118
Once power is given it is very difficult to take back. The Cold War is a prime example of why politicians would encourage a lockdown and the longer it continues the more pliant people will be to that power continuing.
I'd consider the idea we're going to pliantly accept indefinite lockdown to be diagnostic criteria for paranoia.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
May 4, 2020
2,927
666
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
I'd consider the idea we're going to pliantly accept indefinite lockdown to be diagnostic criteria for paranoia.
????? An indefinite lockdown is what we've had since the start of this. When it would be good to open up and resume business as usual had been a question with an indefinite answer since the beginning. How is it paranoia? You don't need to think there's even anything malicious going on for the lockdown to be indefinite.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,634
1,335
118
Country
United Kingdom
????? An indefinite lockdown is what we've had since the start of this. When it would be good to open up and resume business as usual had been a question with an indefinite answer since the beginning. How is it paranoia? You don't need to think there's even anything malicious going on for the lockdown to be indefinite.
Where are you aware of that's been under indefinite lockdown since the start? I'm genuinely not aware of any jurisdictions at all in such a situation.

The Cold War is a prime example of why politicians would encourage a lockdown and the longer it continues the more pliant people will be to that power continuing.
The Cold War didn't require all the shops to close and for both income and spending to plummet. Spending is what brings profit to business, and businesses hold enormous sway in politics. Higher income translates to higher tax revenue, which gives the government more flexibility to spend (and thus more political capital).

I guarantee you, politicians do not want to lock down. They want precisely the opposite, which is why lots of them have been extremely reluctant to lock down, long past the point they should have done.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,003
3,088
118
????? An indefinite lockdown is what we've had since the start of this. When it would be good to open up and resume business as usual had been a question with an indefinite answer since the beginning. How is it paranoia? You don't need to think there's even anything malicious going on for the lockdown to be indefinite.
I'd just like to point you in the direction of the current rate of deaths.

I can't speak for where you live, but where I do we've had most of the last 8 months with basically everything like cinemas, shops, etc. open. There hasn't been normal business, but that's because people are afraid of catching a disease and spreading it around, not because they've been banned.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
May 4, 2020
2,927
666
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Where are you aware of that's been under indefinite lockdown since the start? I'm genuinely not aware of any jurisdictions at all in such a situation.
Does it look like things have gone back to business as usual? I'm really confused as to why you're ignoring that many places still can't open in several states.

The Cold War didn't require all the shops to close and for both income and spending to plummet. Spending is what brings profit to business, and businesses hold enormous sway in politics. Higher income translates to higher tax revenue, which gives the government more flexibility to spend (and thus more political capital).

I guarantee you, politicians do not want to lock down. They want precisely the opposite, which is why lots of them have been extremely reluctant to lock down, long past the point they should have done.
Well you have of course read nothing about the Soviet Union so I wouldn't expect you to understand how easy it is for politicians to not give a shit about sinking their own economy for power.
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,695
474
88
Just chiming in from a place that had effective lockdown and now has no lockdown and no community transmissions for 6months.

The scary government is....oh, doing nothing? Immediately relinquished the extra power onceit served it's purpose?

Bummer, that's boring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Secondhand Revenant

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
6,738
1,379
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Does it look like things have gone back to business as usual? I'm really confused as to why you're ignoring that many places still can't open in several states.
I'll bite. What states have locked down everything so almost nothing is open? Not imposed capacity restrictions and mask laws, but flat out said "You can't open" and kept it that way since last spring.

Provide citations.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,228
412
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It's not enough, not nearly enough. It's equivalent to where we were with HCQ in April 2020, and that turned out ineffective. There are clinical trials in process that may provide a clearer picture.
We have a study done in a lab saying zinc + ionophore hindered SARS-COV-1 replication.

It doesn't matter what stage of disease progression you want to talk about - severe, mild, or pre-exposure, the most reliable studies thus far do not show taking HCQ has a benefit. If HCQ ever were a significant game-changer, it is not credible so many robust studies could have failed to notice. This means that it is at best marginal.
There's not a single study for early stage covid infection that showed HCQ did nothing or did harm. I really don't understand how you can say there's more data (or more robust data) saying HCQ is ineffective. Link me to a SINGLE early stage robust study that showed HCQ was either ineffective or did harm.

The WHO Solidarity trial said remdesivir isn't effective too, but you'd recommend that with it's own slew of side effects (and some we probably don't know of since it's a newer drug) along with a price tag that is at least 300x that of HCQ.

What you mean is that HCQ is relatively unlikely to kill or hospitalise patients. That's not the same thing as there being no downsides, as in fact a very substantial proportion of users have some adverse effects.
A "substantial" proportion of users have adverse effects, that's not true. The drug is old and very well known, it's handed out like candy in several countries, it does very very little harm.

Specific studies on covid-19 are relatively thin for the obvious reason it's only been around a year. However, mask usage has been looked at over decades for a wide range of other respiratory diseases and been held as effective at reducing infection. Given the basic principles of transmission for these respiratory disease are largely identical, the evidence base is actually a lot stronger than it may appear.
And most, if not all, of the studies we've done on the public wearing masks showed no benefit (before this whole pandemic). That's literally why people said masks don't do anything at the start. There's no way one can claim we have robust data claiming unequivocally that masks (worn by the public) are effective. Because to do proper tests/trials would be unethical. The best we have to show masks work is that we know A, B, and C to be true; thus logically masks should work (in some capacity). It's literally the same logic as recommending one take vitamin d to help against covid. We don't have direct studies showing either of these things do anything. But if you wait for unequivocal information to come out, you risk losing lives for really no reason. It's a new virus that's killing hundreds of thousands, you do what your best guesses are (especially when those guesses do no harm) with general virus knowledge we already have along with anything specific we do know about the new virus.

No-one objects to people ensuring they get suitable quantities of key nutrients. Health services already have official recommendations for Vit D intake.
Also, nobody is telling people to take vitamin d either when we have so very very very much correlational data that it is likely something that will provide covid benefits. We have more data implying vitamin d works than we do that masks work.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,228
412
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I'll bite. What states have locked down everything so almost nothing is open? Not imposed capacity restrictions and mask laws, but flat out said "You can't open" and kept it that way since last spring.

Provide citations.
At least in Chicago restaurants are barred from opening the dining rooms, I think the counties just around Chicago have been allowed to reopen just recently or are about to. Thank god I live on the border of Illinois and Indiana so I can go to Indiana and enjoy myself.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
6,738
1,379
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
At least in Chicago restaurants are barred from opening the dining rooms, I think the counties just around Chicago have been allowed to reopen just recently or are about too. Thank god I live on the border of Illinois and Indiana so I can go to Indiana and enjoy myself.
Can they still sell via delivery or take out? Because that's different then not being able to open at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,228
412
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Can they still sell via delivery or take out? Because that's different then not being able to open at all.
Yeah, but many restaurants can't make do with just delivery and take out. That's why so many have closed.

Also, California banned outdoor dining for literally no logical reason.
 

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
972
1,160
98
Country
United States

This is the person that people are going to jail for. This is the person that people killed for.

With a mutant variation of a virus that literally killed hundreds of thousands of US citizens, and with many countries going back for another Lockdown... This man will removed Travel Restrictions. To watch the world burn because he's angry. Not only are we not controlled here, but potentially others can come in and balloon up the numbers, like the two women who went to visit their dying parents in New Zealand.

Lucky they aren't stupid in New Zealand, as they got it put back on Lockdown Super Quick

This can not end quick enough.