- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:04 pm to lsu13lsu
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:04 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
They said no one but the sick needs a test which was a cover up bc they didn’t have tests.
They said no one needs a mask which was a cover up bc they didn’t have any masks.
Crazy.
Multiple failures throughout this entire thing. Expect a 9/11 style commission to be formed and recommendations to be made.
0
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:22 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:100% correct. I’m seeing middle aged people in ICU all day long. The “80 yr old + are only ones at risk” narrative was a pile of fricking shite.
They said no one but the sick needs a test which was a cover up bc they didn’t have tests.
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:27 pm to AUstar
quote:
that people with type O blood may be protected from the virus.
Bow before us pure bloods, you heathen blood imbeciles!
You inferior bloods will never get a drop of my precious O-
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:30 pm to Lsut81
This is really the critical thing. Politicians of both sides need to drop the political bullshite and the U.S. needs to focus the majority of its industry in producing the resources necessary to -- in continuing the apt analogy -- combat this virus. I agree with Trump on very little but his description of this as a war is 100% correct. The private sector needs to do what it did in World War II. This is even more serious. A virus does not capitulate or surrender. It will not lose to attrition.
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:30 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
They said no one but the sick needs a test which was a cover up bc they didn’t have tests.
They said no one needs a mask which was a cover up bc they didn’t have any masks.
Correct
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:31 pm to beerJeep
More anecdotal evidence of the success of the drug cocktail...
95 yr old survives after taking the combo.
LINK
So lets say that its not as miraculous as some hope. Why in the frick wouldn’t doctors at least be using it as it seems to be successful in some? Akin to the mask argument I made a minute ago. Even if it only cures 50%, why the frick wouldn’t you at least try to cure the 50%?
95 yr old survives after taking the combo.
LINK
So lets say that its not as miraculous as some hope. Why in the frick wouldn’t doctors at least be using it as it seems to be successful in some? Akin to the mask argument I made a minute ago. Even if it only cures 50%, why the frick wouldn’t you at least try to cure the 50%?
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:34 pm to Lsut81
My skepticism of the chloroquine fix is that if it's successful then why aren't more people being treated with it? Or maybe they are? It doesn't seem to be getting much traction. I don't see any motive for why the use of it would be stymied other than the fact that it's not as effective as some reports would have people believe.
Certainly the drug industry would love to crank this stuff out in mass and make a ton of sales. I believe the version of it they are using is synthetic so it's not like there's a shortage of plants or whatever.
Certainly the drug industry would love to crank this stuff out in mass and make a ton of sales. I believe the version of it they are using is synthetic so it's not like there's a shortage of plants or whatever.
This post was edited on 3/28/20 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:34 pm to Lsut81
quote:
So lets say that its not as miraculous as some hope. Why in the frick wouldn’t doctors at least be using it as it seems to be successful in some? Akin to the mask argument I made a minute ago. Even if it only cures 50%, why the frick wouldn’t you at least try to cure the 50%?
Agreed. If there’s a chance that it works at all, it’s better than what you’ve got otherwise. Hell, if a simple surgical mask can block SOME droplets from another persons cough, it’s better than your mouth just being wide open.
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:39 pm to Unknown_Poster
quote:
fact that it's not as effective as some reports would have people believe.
Well I don’t think there has been official case studies outside of the French and Chinese one.
The French one showed it was very effective and the Chinese would say it was not... However, the drug company in Wuhan got approval to patent it back in mid January. So there could be an alternator motive with their study
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:40 pm to Lsut81
quote:
Chinese would say it was not...
frick China
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:42 pm to S1C EM
quote:
f there’s a chance that it works at all, it’s better than what you’ve got otherwise. Hell, if a simple surgical mask can block SOME droplets from another persons cough, it’s better than your mouth just being wide open.
Agree 100%
Like I said, I think you will start to see masks worn here as a fashion statement, just like Asia, once this all subsides.
Some protection is better than no protection.
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:43 pm to Uncle JackD
China has had some really “strange” behavior coming out of this for sure
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:44 pm to Lsut81
What holds some docs up on the treatment is 2 fold:
1) Both of the medicines can rarely cause a heart arrhythmia which can result in death (do no harm part of the Hippocratic Oath). Not to mention 2 Governors are on record apparently forbidding docs from writing for them......which obviously doesn’t help things.
2) Some docs want to have the diagnosis confirmed before giving the medicines (which has been taking a while to get the results back).
Therefore, if docs knew the meds work, the benefits would definitely outweigh the risks. If the medicine doesn’t work, in hindsight would it have been worth giving someone a fatal arrhythmia that would have possibly lived without the medicine?
The other difficult part is who do you give the meds to. The practice of Medicine is always easy in hindsight. But we know that over 80 percent do well in this disease without any treatment. The problem is who do you give it to and how early with such limited data. It makes most sense to me to give it to the higher risk patients as early as possible as we await more data.
1) Both of the medicines can rarely cause a heart arrhythmia which can result in death (do no harm part of the Hippocratic Oath). Not to mention 2 Governors are on record apparently forbidding docs from writing for them......which obviously doesn’t help things.
2) Some docs want to have the diagnosis confirmed before giving the medicines (which has been taking a while to get the results back).
Therefore, if docs knew the meds work, the benefits would definitely outweigh the risks. If the medicine doesn’t work, in hindsight would it have been worth giving someone a fatal arrhythmia that would have possibly lived without the medicine?
The other difficult part is who do you give the meds to. The practice of Medicine is always easy in hindsight. But we know that over 80 percent do well in this disease without any treatment. The problem is who do you give it to and how early with such limited data. It makes most sense to me to give it to the higher risk patients as early as possible as we await more data.
This post was edited on 3/28/20 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:49 pm to tigerskin
quote:
Both of the medicines can rarely cause a heart arrhythmia which can result in death
I’m sure there is data around the percentages of those that have this?
Just curious what that percentage is
And dumb medical question, is the arrhythmia something that can be caught early enough to prevent it? I’d imagine normally, people that take the drugs aren’t under as much scrutiny, so it can happen. However, with people with Covid being so closely watched, would the docs be able to give the meds and catch the side effects early enough to halt?
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:54 pm to Lsut81
Good questions. Cardiology isn’t my field so don’t want to give incorrect answers but here is an article that breaks down the risk assessment with Plaquenil.
FIGURE 1 — According to Tisdale et al. (2013), those with low risk scores (<7) had a 15% incidence for QTc prolongation. Those with moderate (7-10) or high (>11) risk scores incidence of QTc prolongation was 37% and 73%, respectively (Tisdale et al., 2013).
LINK
FIGURE 1 — According to Tisdale et al. (2013), those with low risk scores (<7) had a 15% incidence for QTc prolongation. Those with moderate (7-10) or high (>11) risk scores incidence of QTc prolongation was 37% and 73%, respectively (Tisdale et al., 2013).
LINK
This post was edited on 3/28/20 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:54 pm to Lsut81
If my options are risking a VERY unlikely arrhythmia vs. being intubated in ICU without family around, I’m chewing up HCQ & AZ without hesitation.
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:55 pm to Uncle JackD
Again, it comes down to risk assessment. Are you recommending that a 20 year old take the meds at the onset of the disease?
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:56 pm to tigerskin
quote:
but here is an article that breaks down the risk assessment with Plaquenil.
Thanks for making me feel dumb... No clue what the hell that article said
Posted on 3/28/20 at 8:57 pm to Uncle JackD
Exactly. Nearly every medication has some form of serious (even fatal) side-effect potential in the low percentages.
Page 946 of 1190
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News