Jump to content


Null



The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Taking a stab at it not being a medical guy...I'd say that since we know the R-naught factor for this novel coronavirus is significantly higher than the flu and that the death rate is significantly higher than the flu as well, that testing would help us identify those infected and quarantine them to help minimize their ability to infect others.  The fewer people that get infected and the more we can slow down the spread, the less likely it is that we will overwhelm our medical staff, ICU and ventilator capacity.

So are you saying that we are spending billions to try to convince people to stay home and wash their hands and wear masks and social distance? Yes, but you won't admit it. I don't want anyone to get sick or to die. But I don't want to waste billions of dollars.

 

The death and hospitalization rates for flu and measles are about 10x less than what we think COVID will end up being.  Testing isn't just for when you have a treatment.  There are many factors involved.

You are 100% correct. Testing is for when the results of the test might change the plan of action in dealing with the disease.

We tested people for HIV for many, many years long before there was a drug regimen that could allow someone to actually live after catching it.  Why was that?  Perhaps partly so they would know they have it and won't give it to others?

But we didn't try to test the entire population with a test that is virtually irrelevant by the time the test comes back. COVID-19 is deemed by the experts to be non-contagious 10 days after symptoms started if it has been 24 hours since the last symptoms.

I realize that we are not going to agree on this and that is fine. I am in no way trying to minimize the severity of COVID-19. I know that it is way worse than the flu. But that doesn't mean we should waste money trying to make ourselves feel better. When the virus is everywhere like it is now, testing (without a rapid test) and contact tracing is not feasible. When we have rapid tests and there are not nearly as many cases around then testing and contact tracing would be great.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites




  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Now I know you haven't been reading the links before dismissing them. Those were addressed.  No idea why I'm bothering with this argument at this point. Pretty much already written you off as an

It just shows people’s true character and intelligence when they start trying to get that personal flinging insults at people on a message board. I bet they are a joy to be around. Lmao 

The people that sourced her probably weren't aware she was a nut. People see MD and the automatic assumption is that the speaker probably knows what they're talking about. It's called confirmation bia

Posted Images

10 hours ago, AUDub said:

I answered your question with a rhetorical question. 

Buuuut I get the feeling it went over your head. Natch. 

You answered what you thought my question was. Believe it or not, whether or not we should perform testing for COVID-19 has nothing to do with whether or not we should be testing for flu. 

Or maybe you are speaking way above my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I know for a fact that Titan doesn't arbitrarily delete posts he "doesn't agree with". 

He's simply making a judgement call in order to uphold a minimum intellectual standard for the forum - which is lax enough as it is.

As someone who is mostly a civil participate, you should appreciate that.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth your time to come here at all.

If you go back and read the post following the one you quoted you will see that I clarified my post. I was not accusing him of deleting posts and actually apologized for giving him that impression. I further apologize to you for giving you that impression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AUDub said:

The people that sourced her probably weren't aware she was a nut. People see MD and the automatic assumption is that the speaker probably knows what they're talking about. It's called confirmation bias and there's not a soul on this planet capable of avoiding it.

It's why truly effective studies are designed the way they are, to essentially "human proof" them.

Great post! It is my understanding that her bio was not posted on the website of the group of doctors when they made their statements. It makes me think that they knew that many of her beliefs are "questionable."

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Without knowing exactly which study we're talking about or why it was withdrawn, I'd say that generally speaking if a study is withdrawn, there was a problem with it that warranted it being withdrawn.

However, outside of any recent studies for hydroxychloroquine and COVID, we've known for many years that it can cause heart problems because it's been used not only for malaria but for chronic conditions like lupus.  It's one of the reasons it's not just an over the counter medication anyone can just grab next to the baby aspirin.  A doctor needs to evaluate a patient to see it it's likely to aggravate any known heart issues and then monitor any patient they prescribe it to in case they see any signs it's causing such problems in them.   

 

You really must live a sheltered life. I’m very disappointed in you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, we spent more than $28 billion a year on AIDs which infected and killed a relatively small number of people.  https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget

We didn't spend anywhere close to that much money on testing, and we didn't spend it on tests that may not give results until the patient is cured and no longer contagious. I am all for spending money to develop better testing and better treatments and good vaccines. I am grateful that AIDS has become so well contained in this country. I hope and pray that the same happens for COVID-19.

And it is not an airborne transmission virus with the capacity to infect literally everyone in this country.  Covid-19 may have long term health consequences we are not yet aware of.

Testing the way we currently do it does not change the capacity of the virus to infect us nor does it change its long term health consequences.

So what's your basis for this concern about spending billions to upgrade testing? 

I am all for developing meaningful tests and don't think I ever said otherwise. I just think it is unwise to keep spending for tests that have virtually no bearing on treatment plans.

Are you knowledgeable in the field of economics - the cost/benefit of various strategies to counter an airborne viral pandemic? 

You would say no.

Or is this just a personal concern based on your feelings?

It is certainly a personal concern and I certainly have feelings about how our government spends the money that we contribute to it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grumps said:

 

We spent $28 billion/year.  A good amount of that was spent on testing - probably billions - but I don't know. 

Testing is the basis for anything that comes afterward, whether it be treatment or education that one is infectious.

Can you reference any reputable source that shares your skepticism about the value of investing more in testing?

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and we haven't spent "billions" on communicating to people the common methods they can employ to prevent covid-19 transmission.  But thanks to Trump's politicization of the issue, those efforts have had much less effect than they should have.

If you really want to worry about the amount of our money we are "wasting", I suggest you start with Trump's mismanagement of this pandemic:

"So are you saying that we are spending billions to try to convince people to stay home and wash their hands and wear masks and social distance? Yes, but you won't admit it. I don't want anyone to get sick or to die. But I don't want to waste billions of dollars."

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Oh, and we haven't spent "billions" on communicating to people the common methods they can employ to prevent covid-19 transmission.  But thanks to Trump's politicization of the issue, those efforts have had much less effect than they should have.

If you really want to worry about the amount of our money we are "wasting", I suggest you start with Trump's mismanagement of this pandemic.

"So are you saying that we are spending billions to try to convince people to stay home and wash their hands and wear masks and social distance? Yes, but you won't admit it. I don't want anyone to get sick or to die. But I don't want to waste billions of dollars."

I completely agree with you that Trump has seriously damaged the education of the public about virtually every aspect of this pandemic. I don't think I ever said otherwise. I am not sure how that changes the subject we have been discussing. Please explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grumps said:

I completely agree with you that Trump has seriously damaged the education of the public about virtually every aspect of this pandemic. I don't think I ever said otherwise. I am not sure how that changes the subject we have been discussing. Please explain.

It was a rhetorical comparison of your (insane) money wasting concerns that targe testing vs. the actual, valid cause of money wasting in this pandemic.

Does that help?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

We spent 28 billion/year.  A good amount of that was spent on testing.  Testing is the basis for anything that comes afterward., whether it be treatment of education that one is infectious.

Can you reference any reputable source that shares your skepticism about the value of investing more in testing?

Once again, I never said we shouldn't invest in testing that has the potential to change the plan of treatment.

Regarding HIV. Once we established that it existed then we absolutely should have worked to develop better testing and education and treatments. As you know, HIV wasn't cured by our own bodies 10 days after symptoms start like COVID-19 is. Can you see the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, homersapien said:

It was a rhetorical comparison of your (insane) money wasting concerns that targe testing vs. the actual, valid cause of money wasting in this pandemic.

Does that help?

That helps greatly.

I now understand that you, too,  are interested in asking rhetorical questions instead of answering my questions. You are concerned with Trump. You don't seem to be aware that just because Trump is hurting the U.S. response to COVID-19 that other things about our response might also need to be examined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

Not correct in my case at all. Long before these doctors I read about this regiment. I have two people I’ve known most of my life who are long time doctors and are on the front line treating COVID-19 patients. Independent of each other they told me they have used it effectively when used in the early stages of COVID-19. They have both actually witnessed it working for multiple people. These are long time doctors I’ve known for a long, long time with great reputations and people I trust.

That has always been the case for many therapies. Physicians find success with products based their anecdotal experiences. But without well designed, well-controlled, statistically sound prospective trials it is impossible to determine causation and correlation, and safety for specific sub groups of patients. Is the success greater or lesser in young vs old, healthy kidneys vs failing kidneys, cardiac healthy vs cardiac disease, racial and gender groups, diabetics vs non diabetics, etc... What is the correct dose and duration of therapy to cause cure vs harm? Legitimate well done and statistically sound trials take months to plan and design, months to recruit for, and months to accurately compile, analyze, and report out the data. I believe what the FDA is doing right now is the right thing: balancing the sense of urgency for creating therapies, while not endorsing wrong products for wrong patients. I’m happy that your friends have had some success for patients, but the FDA cannot risk endorsing a therapy for hundreds of thousands (maybe millions)  of patients based on a few or even hundreds of retrospective anecdotal cases. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Once again, I never said we shouldn't invest in testing that has the potential to change the plan of treatment.

Regarding HIV. Once we established that it existed then we absolutely should have worked to develop better testing and education and treatments. As you know, HIV wasn't cured by our own bodies 10 days after symptoms start like COVID-19 is. Can you see the difference?

Testing provides the possibility of reducing the rate of spread.  This is a positive enough outcome to justify rapid and frequent testing by itself (which we don't yet have).  This is particularly important if we want to "open" our society - schools, etc.  And since we don't yet have a vaccine or a "cure" containing the rate of spread is all we've got.

Development of treatment regiments is a separate issue that is important, but it's certainly not the basis for testing. Again, containing the rate of spread is all we can do while treatment regimens are being developed. 

That's the reason we need abundant, fast testing.

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

That has always been the case for many therapies. Physicians find success with products based their anecdotal experiences. But without well designed, well-controlled, statistically sound prospective trials it is impossible to determine causation and correlation, and safety for specific sub groups of patients. Is the success greater or lesser in young vs old, healthy kidneys vs failing kidneys, cardiac healthy vs cardiac disease, racial and gender groups, diabetics vs non diabetics, etc... What is the correct dose and duration of therapy to cause cure vs harm? Legitimate well done and statistically sound trials take months to plan and design, months to recruit for, and months to accurately compile, analyze, and report out the data. I believe what the FDA is doing right now is the right thing: balancing the sense of urgency for creating therapies, while not endorsing wrong products for wrong patients. I’m happy that your friends have had some success for patients, but the FDA cannot risk endorsing a therapy for hundreds of thousands (maybe millions)  of patients based on a few or even hundreds of retrospective anecdotal cases. 

I agree with everything you said and have never said or indicated otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Grumps said:

That helps greatly.

I now understand that you, too,  are interested in asking rhetorical questions instead of answering my questions. You are concerned with Trump. You don't seem to be aware that just because Trump is hurting the U.S. response to COVID-19 that other things about our response might also need to be examined.

First I didn't ask any rhetorical questions, I made a rhetorical statement. One which you would do well to consider.  Your concern about wasted spending is misdirected.

And my observation on how Trump has wasted time and money in his response doesn't preclude me from examining all aspects of this pandemic, which I am doing. 

Hell - just as an example - I am even taking your argument that spending billions on adequate testing is a waste,  seriously.  (More seriously than it deserves.)

Still curious how much other support your premise has.

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

But not name calling. I’m very disappointed in you too.

You're in the smack forum.  While it's not completely "anything goes," you do need to have a little thicker skin in here.  We aren't swiping the sniffles for anyone that can't take some sharp edged barbs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You're in the smack forum.  While it's not completely "anything goes," you do need to have a little thicker skin in here.  We aren't swiping the sniffles for anyone that can't take some sharp edged barbs.

My skin is plenty thick and I’ll refrain from calling people names even when I disagree with them or even if I’m sure they are wrong. Bring it on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude starts thread after thread in the smack forum trying to use the deaths of real people with real lives and real families to own the libs and then gets pissy over name calling. 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...