even if it is stupid, predictably, it's a matter of policy coherence...
Printable View
even if it is stupid, predictably, it's a matter of policy coherence...
I just saw this poll on CNN...it is testing the waters for getting a Covid-19 vacination:
Get one ASAP 21%
Consider one but wait 58%
Never get one 21%
I'm in the "Consider one but wait" category. I'll need to see it in place for awhile. I realize that is counter to the greater good but I don't trust how Trump has replaced non-partisan leaders with his sycophants. He doesn't care about anyone but himself and has already proved he will sacrifice tens of thousands of Americans to get reelected. I don't trust the CDC, FDA, etc. in that context.
Personally I'd get one in a heart beat.
No offence, and you know I'm no bigger fan of Trump than you are, but that reads a little paranoid to me. What are you concerned he would do? I could see him pushing a non-effective vaccine for the PR but I struggle to think he'd roll out one that was actively harmful. He'd advocate it in his speeches but I doubt he'd actually roll out a program.
I'm concerned he'd do the same thing he did with Hydroxychloroquine and the plasma infusions...push unfounded drug cures on the American people. Look how he manipulates what our top science are saying. He gets the CDC to modify what they published to water it down. He had Hahn push convalescent plasma with bald faced lies and they had them back that off.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Now let's shift to the new book out "Rage" by Woodward. Trump was DELIBERATELY down played and lied about the virus when he knew how dangerous it was. He downplayed and lied about it through February. I don't think that is even "a little paranoid". He has already arguably killed tens of thousands of people to get reelected. What's a few million more to that pig of a man.
I know a broken clock is right twice a day, and I agree he shouldn't have said anything about HCQ as early as he did, but he did turn out to be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I'm also always a little skeptical about stuff in a "tell-all" books... other than a potential lawsuit in the future, they can say whatever they want.
I agree that Trump would lie about a vacciene, but I think he would also pull some stunt like "The democrats are stopping it from being released!" until after the election, so it would look like he has a cure, but his enemy is stopping him... vote him in and he will make sure it gets to you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "but he did turn out to be right". The FDA revoked the Emergency Use Authorization. We ended up dumping it all on Brazil :pQuote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Maybe you are not aware of the latest "tell all" by Woodward. It just came out. It is Trump speaking, not some anonymous person. It was some nine hours of interviews over 18 or so meetings. He admits he knew how dangerous the virus was and deliberately down played it. He actually states that! Now seeing how it is coming directly from Trump it probably is mostly lies.Quote:
I'm also always a little skeptical about stuff in a "tell-all" books... other than a potential lawsuit in the future, they can say whatever they want.
I would wait a bit if I were you : https://translate.google.fr/translat...accin%2C112804Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
they are trying to get a vaccine as fast as they could and as everything done fast, the risk of something bad is higher. They are always side effects but you need time to detect them and evaluate them. the risk is that they don't take enough time
Nope, never heard of the new book, it was more of a general statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
However, FDA revoking it in the US does look bad, but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success. Dil actually linked this video in another post I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro . Dr. Campbell has been pretty level headed since the beginning of the pandemic. He was definitely more doom and gloom in the beginning, but as more evidence has come up he has adjusted his views and admitted where he went wrong.
Relevant part is at 1:20, but he does give a breakdown in his notes.
If you are saying "but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success" when it is used for the things it was developed for, I agree. I don't believe anyone but Trump, little Brazilian Trump, and republicans actually thinks it works for Covid-19.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Nope, he is showing their trials show that HCQ works for covid19. However, he does say he thinks it is odd that the US went with such high doses, and I don't agree with that. In the response I made to Dil I linked several sources showing that the amounts they gave them were completely normal for people, and that the low dosages are usually preventative.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
The video from 1:20 and on for only a few minutes does a better job explaining it than I can. Specifically he links:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...817?via%3Dihub
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S...534-8/fulltext
He doesn't deny the risks with HCQ, but he says they're so risky in the US because those tests went with too high of a dose.
Both of those have been discredited for one reason or another. I knew what was in them before I opened them. It may be the only two that people who push that drug can reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Can you show me where they've been discredited? John usually talks about that if it has happened, but he hasn't. Not denying there are other studies that show differeing results, but most seem to use larger doses like this one: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
*edit* So doing some more digging, here are current papers citing the first paper I linked: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...15163/citedby/
Some of them do indeed find differing results, and some match the results, but I still can't find that the papers have been retracted or discredited.
Just look them up for yourself. Off the top of my head the European one was not peer reviewed and there was also something suspicious about the Ford one. If you really believe any serous medical institutions are pushing that drug you should really look into it - it just isn't true. It was just another Trump lie. Did you know that a Fox news corespondent convinced Trump to promote it? Just like his pillow guy friend is pushing oleander extract:Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...id-treatment#1
I have looked any can't find anything. At least not for the papers linked in his video... it hardly seems scientific to discredit all papers that show an outcome you don't agree with because other papers that showed the same result were discredited.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I've literally taken the exact name and added "retracted" or "discredited" to it and nothing comes up that is relevant. I will, however, concede that the one paper at least is verified as not peer-reviewed yet, but that doesn't mean it's invalid; time will tell that.
Dr. Campbell said he would follow up when more information became available.
If the question is would Trump promote a vaccine that he new was harmful, that would depend on one thing. If he thought it would benefit him. If so, then absolutely. He's not going to promote a vaccine that is killing people the day after the take it, that wouldn't benefit him, but if the harmful effects aren't going to show up till after the election, he would promote it. If he cared about people living or dying then there wouldn't be 190,000+ virus deaths in the US. You still can't get prompt test or results, it take several days, at least where I live you can't. He actually promotes not wearing masks. He only cares about what he thinks benefits him, he doesn't give a damn if costs unnecessary deaths.
I can certainly see him promoting it if he thought it was good for his election prospects - at least, if we define promoting as crowing about it in speeches. What I can't see him doing is actually pushing it out through your medical system.
Mind you, I'm considering that through the lens of a UK style centralised NHS system where a single, government run provider is in absolute control of everything from end to end. Your system is a lot more privately driven than ours and I imagine that makes it a lot more fractured (fractured isn't the word I'm looking for but I can't think of a better one). My portrayal of Trump "pushing it out" may not really apply over there, I don't know.
What I mean is that, over here, a prime minister could, theoretically, drive through legislation that saw an untested and potentially dangerous drug actually being prescribed by GPs and/or used in hospitals etc. I couldn't see Trump actually doing that but, as I think about it, he probably doesn't have the power. I guess his power probably only extends to promoting a particular drug and applying pressure to testing organisations (e.g. the FDA) to approve it and I could certainly see him doing that. I'm not clear in exactly where his powers extend to in this context though.
On the Hydroxi thing, my (admittedly quite outdated) understanding of the situation is that there have been tests that show it helps and more tests that show it doesn't. Some of the ones that show it helps have been discredited (including the original high profile one which was carried by the people who hold the patent for it) but that's not to say that all positive tests have been discredited. At this point it can, at best, be viewed as an untested drug. On the flip side, we know that it has some extremely serious side effects when over dosed and that, in small doses, it does not appear to have any effect on the Corona virus. So if it's to be taken at the sorts of doses that are likely to work on Corona then it should only be done so under direct medical supervision.
Here's a really good paper on it. The summary points at the beginning are pretty clear and the discussion section is good to dig deeper into the conclusions if you don't have the time to read the whole thing in detail.
So I think Trump is morally wrong to be promoting the drug at this stage. It's untested, dangerous and probably ineffective outside of a strictly monitored environment. It may, in the future, turn out to be part of a cure at which point Trump will undoubtedly claim credit but he doesn't have access to some secret and credible source of information that would lead to his conclusions. He's simply taken a guess. Guess enough times and sooner or later you'll be correct. It's not a good basis for prescribing potentially dangerous drugs though.
Still, I've heard great things about injecting bleach...
That is so ludicrous it is funny...You are making unsubstantiated claims about a drug promoted by Fox news to a moronic president and say I'm on the wrong side. Just Google this:Quote:
it hardly seems scientific to discredit all papers that show an outcome you don't agree with because other papers that showed the same result were discredited
is Hydroxychloroquine effective for covid-19
And see what comes up. You might want to see if bleach helps while you are at it...that is another one of Trump's "cures". Maybe he got that one right too :rolleyes:
We should all be glad Trump is protecting us from the truth...If Americans would have known the facts we would have all panicked. It would have been a disaster of biblical proportions. We need a leader that saves us from pandemics without really letting us know how bad it is. I wish I could vote for him right now; I would sleep better.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54107677
Unsubstantiated? I literally linked 2 papers that show it has an effect, and a video to a repsected doctor giving his opinion on it and explaining why he believes the other studies were not successful, and Funky just posted another paper that shows the same results. No one is saying the average person should go out and get HCQ and take it on their own -- obviously it should be done under medical supervision, but to say it is completely unsubstantiated is just quite dishonest..Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
If you're worried I am agreeing with Trump, I am not. He should not have promoted it as he has, as it is still under testing, but there are tests showing that it is effective, at the right doses, to help those with COVID-19.
I also don't just Google these things.. that gets you news articles. I look at the abstracts of papers:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?a...=en&as_sdt=0,5
Most of those show either optimisim with the drug, or no results at all.
Simply saying "Google it" is not a defense of your position; you may think your position is beyond contestation, but that is rarely ever the fact.
Let's not forget this started with you saying " I agree he shouldn't have said anything about HCQ as early as he did, but he did turn out to be right" and you can go to just about any right wing pseudo news web site you want and find people who agree with you but an overwhelming number of respected scientists are on board about the lack of efficacy of HCQ on Covid-19. The bottom line is Trump was wrong about the efficacy of it and remains wrong. And if you are still maintaining he is right I would say you are very wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
I'm not sure what to say anymore. I've linked 2 papers, a doctor, a link to a site that literally just aggregates medical papers, and yet you aren't willing to read any of them and even say that there is a possibility it could be effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I'm not the one just "find[ing] people who agree with [me]". I stand by my comment -- it is looking like he was right. More and more studies seem to be coming out lately showing that HCQ is effective at helping those with COVID19.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Well...I guess we can agree to disagree :p
he'll do it the same way he "forced" the states to open schools back up - by withholding funding. You want funding for something? Take xyz vaccine. Is it effective? Doesn't matter, take it or lose the funding. That's how he operates. He controls people through the purses trings.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
-tg
You are not of the Body.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYTkSFRmKzM
Never! You must agree with me or I'll find you and force you to change your mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
You are a true corncopia of random clips. How many of these do you have bookmarked, or does something just remind you of them and you look them up at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I just look them up. In this case the one about a society mind-controlled by a machine came to mind, though the episode about The Feeders of Vaal is a close second.
Yeah, or he fires people if they wont promote his narrative, then replaces them with a loyal toady. He already has the CDC telling every state to have in place the ability to administer millions of vaccine doses by late October.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I was glad that the companies that are in stage 3 trials made a joint statement saying there would not be any bending to political pressures to release a vaccine early.
They say that now...I'll wait until they actually feel pressure from Trump to decide. When Trump says something like "you will never receive FDA approval on any drug ever again if you don't hurry up" I bet they would fold.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
They may very well resist. For one thing, Trump isn't forever. For another...lawyers are.
The 200 some judges he appointed will be around after we are gone...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
So this happened...
You know what else? If you then take out the red states, it's at an even lower rate!Quote:
Donald Trump said on Wednesday that "if you take the blue states out" of the death toll for the COVID-19 pandemic the U.S., response to the outbreak would be "at a level I don't think anybody in the world would be at."
-tg
If you take out the blue states we are no longer the United States. Maybe his title should be the President of the Republican States.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
No, he's talking about the Coastal Colonialists who benefit from neoliberal globalism. They screw the workers here, and screw the workers elsewhere even harder.
Regardless, his math leaves much to be desired. Once you remove the bulk of the population from consideration, then you also remove the bulk of the cases. That would be true if population were evenly distributed, but since it isn't, his math is even worse because when you remove the highest population density states, you remove the areas of easiest virus spread. Of course, as the article points out, he's wrong even if his math wasn't so specious.
Yeah but who is going to read the article? His supports will just hear/see that sound bite and go "yeah those damn Democrats". lol
Well personally I discount most of what candidates say during campaign season. And these days those seem to last 4 years. ;)
Their actions and history of actions are what you want to look at.
I see Trump as more sleazy than stupid. It isn't like he doesn't have access to smart people either. So not taking a strong position on masks (even when Fauci was telling people not to wear them) feels deeply disappointing. But what's really going on? What if he hasn't been wrong all along? What if masks are just "beating a drum to keep the elephants away?"
I still think masks make sense. People I trust are still saying the same thing. But I admit I'm having doubts. I still mask, I figure at worst it does no harm. So you probably should too. And wash those hands, maintain distancing, limit contact, etc. as well.
I'm still finding more unprotested mask wearing and distancing in small towns than in the cities and college towns though. That would seem to fly in the face of what the media is telling us goes on. The "Trump" areas more COVID-conscientious than the "Biden" areas? Hmm, what's going on? Maybe those labels are wrong. Maybe they're right and the media is lying/campaigning for Biden.
Mask wearing in Idaho is following this pattern: The Boise area is mostly masked. Rural areas are far more mixed. Compliance is greatest among the old.
By now, the big chain stores all have mask mandates, which is being pretty thoroughly observed. Those who don't mask appear to be entirely young and male (two factors for greater risk-taking/less social compliance), and there are so few of them that aren't wearing masks that the few who don't stand out. There is a mask mandate in the Boise area, but it has no teeth. There is no mandate, just a suggestion, in Canyon county, which is the bedroom community for Boise. Mask wearing is high in that county, possibly because the stores require it.
This seems to be the driving factor. The only part of this state that is likely to support Biden is also the part of the state that has a mask mandate and is masked...but the two are not related, because the county beside that one, which will go heavily for Trump, is mostly masked because the businesses in that county have mask mandates.
It's demographics more than politics, as far as I can see.
EDIT: That may have been unclear: The urban area that will vote for Biden is masked, the rural area that will vote for Trump is largely unmasked. It has nothing to do with politics, though, it has to do with the different mask requirements impacting the different areas. The Trump-supporting Canyon county more closely resembles Boise than the rural areas, probably because it is the suburbs of Boise.
It is a real shame mask wearing became so political. It is just such a serious disconnect to what we should be unified on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker