Discussion in 'Off Topic But Still Civil' started by DC-93, Mar 8, 2020.
Actually, the wife survived.
Ah, the plot thickens.
Several people died taking the drugs that Trump touted anecdotally. Fauci said that there is no reason to believe now that these drugs are effective, and that clinical trials will be necessary to gather data. Anecdotal accounts are NOT good enough.
Here's how anecdotal accounts work when the death rate is 1.3% to 3.5%:
If a doctor gives the medicine to 80 patients, and none die, it means nothing. If you have 80 people taken at random, chances are with a 1.3% death rate, none would die anyway.
If the doctor gives the medicine to 100 patients, and none die, it means nothing.
Random variation means even with a 3.5% death rate, no deaths isn't significant with 100 cases.
In the original study, they claimed to use 20 patients. You'd expect them all to live just by random chance, with a death rate of 3.5%, which is what we thought it was a couple of weeks ago.
One person was not included in the findings due to death while on the drug, so it's more honest to say they had one death out of 21 patients. Now we have a death rate of roughly 5% rather than the usual 1.3% to 3.5%. You're better off not taking the drug.
Don't believe in miracle cures hawked by ignorant people.
Don't listen to people who think scientists are in a vast conspiracy.
l live in Spain, which is in lock down. lf you leave your home without a valid reason, this may happen
Detención de niñato por Policía Local (at https://www.facebook.com/SomosPoliciasBlog/posts/3405559179458315 )
The media has reported incorrectly and rarely do they correct themselves. The drugs Trump, the doctors, and patients that took the combo is not what the individual took and died from.
Fauci has a responsibility to cause no harm as do all doctors. In the past patients desperate for help were denied medical services because the government was so slow to test and approve new medications. Europe was much less restrictive and that is where many Americans would venture for help.
Trump admin (and I’m not taking sides or being political) supported a law and it was approved by Congress call the Right-to-Try. It allows patients to ask and doctors/hospitals allowed to provide treatments not yet approved. Those treatments are anecdotal but allowed to be performed when no other options exist. The two drugs being discussed have been approved for more than five decades and are approved and safe.
The two drugs that doctors have already been using to treat the virus long before Trump mentioned them has shown very positive results. All Trump has done is made sure that those medicines are available should the doctor and patient agree to use them.
In the end, many more have died from the virus than those that are trying these two drugs. Those that may die most likely would have died from the virus due to other complications and have a right to try.
Again, doctors and patients were trying this combo long before Trump even knew about the issue. He has simply observed what doctors have witnessed and patient claims. The public has a right to know and a right try.
The malaria drug - doctors were not using it for COVID-19, as far as I know. But a lawyer and blockchain investor submitted a paper on it, which ended up being promoted on Fox and crazy web sites, resulting in Trump seeing it and assuming there was real evidence for it. Just like you did.
There was no real evidence. There was a crap study done by two people with no expertise or experience, which rejected a patient because he died instead of getting better.
You need hope - fine. Have hope. Pray. Get others to pray for you. But don't participate in this quackery, which is resulting in thousands of people taking medicine that does have side effects including eye damage for no good reason.
The public has the right to try when there is no other hope and under medical guidance. A virus which has a 97% to 98% survival rate does not count.
I think I read somewhere they have started clinical trials concerning the drugs in question.
“In the original study, they claimed to use 20 patients. You'd expect them all to live just by random chance, with a death rate of 3.5%, which is what we thought it was a couple of weeks ago. One person was not included in the findings due to death while on the drug, so it's more honest to say they had one death out of 21 patients. Now we have a death rate of roughly 5% rather than the usual 1.3% to 3.5%. You're better off not taking the drug.”
So fine - let them do the trials - let's see if this stuff is a real miracle drug that just happens to have gotten its initial publicity from liars.
It is a good thing we aren’t old people in Italy (old people survival rate is very low especially with other conditions). Unfortunately Italy says they won’t provide much effort to save this group. Here in America at least they would have a right to try instead of being denied.
I’m not sure the doctors and patients that have agreed to try the combo are all Fox watchers or idiots like me but I would definitely take the comb should my doctor suggest the treatment based on my individual circumstances. It may not be suitable for everyone which is why the doctor patient trust is important but at least they can have the discussion.
Not sure why this discussion has to devolve into politics or Fox or whatever. None of us know what leaning the doctors or their patients that had been trying the combo were or will be. It is a discussion of a doctors and patient relationship and each having access to alternatives that both agree might be viable.
in any case I won’t be commenting any further but if I get this bug and I’m on the edge I would definitely consider the treatment and others have the right to refuse any or all treatments.
Just sounds like a case of: "Darwin at work."
Hopefully, folks will see what happened and NOT try it at home.
In Italy eldery people has same tratments now are other patients. The blahh blahh of some journalists it is about what is done always and the scenario overcasted when all ICU beds would be full and there will no other ICU beds in other hospitals.
In nothing new, but maybe someone doesn't know, that when someone should nedd to go in intensive care unit, or it is already in intensive care unit, it is evaluated if reanimation could give the patient an outcome that could let that person to return to a resoneable good condition of life.
It is about therapeutic obstinacy and when is time to "unplug the machines".
Just to remember that life expectancy in Italy is higher than in U.S.A., and also the age groups pyramid is different in Italy vs. U.S.A. or China.
Median age, that is the number in which 50% of population has more than that age and the other 50% has less than that age, in Italy is about 45.5 years, in U.S.A. about 38.1 years.
For the ones interested on how the new Coronavirus spreads easily could read this article about a famous ski resort Ischgl in Austria.
And what happens when measures are not taken, even if is known that there are SARS-CoV-2 positives, to not damage ski season.
How an Austrian ski resort helped coronavirus spread across Europe - CNN (at https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/24/europe/austria-ski-resort-ischgl-coronavirus-intl/index.html )
How an Austrian ski paradise became a COVID-19 hotspot (at https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/ischgl-oesterreichisches-skiparadies-als-corona-hotspot/ )
Heard that Canadians will be getting 2K a month for 4 months to help get through this.
SE Michigan hospitals are now at capacity.
This is a quite good description on Swedens and swedes reaction to covid-19. Sweden Is Open for Business During Its Coronavirus Outbreak (at https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/24/sweden-coronavirus-open-for-business/ )
As you may know sweden has and is being accused for taking a rather "lax" way of handling the crisis but i can assure you that that is not true.
- the key in swedens way is that you trust your authorities and that they trust you and that you take your responsibility.
As we all know trust can only be had by showing you deserve it and both parts have trust in each other.
No one have fex made the crisis a political question to win voters, instead all parties have more or less decided that its cooperation that helps most in these times.
Wow, assumption city. Not to mention unsourced material.
Why not just give them drugs which have had all of two clinical trials, and failed both of them?
You are referencing the wrong victims. There were two other deaths of people who used the combo that Trump touted. The media did not report those deaths incorrectly. And again, results are anecdotal and very limited. There is not enough information yet, as Dr. Fauci pointed out, to endorse or condemn them. But Trump did contradict the doctor and endorse them. He did NOT simply observe what doctors witnessed. He went further and said he had a good feeling about them. That was irresponsible and unnecessary, and counter to what experts say. Trump is NOT an expert, despite his constant claims of being the most knowledgeable on subjects.
There are now two trials for those drugs.
One of them (France) had a 4% death rate, higher than the virus alone.
One of them (China) showed no impact.
I am having a really hard time getting people outside of this forum to comprehend how clinical trials and statistics work.
When normally 98% of people survive, that's 98 out of 100, and a doc gives this to 15 patients and declares it works because all of them lived, what does it mean? It means the doctor should have to go back to medical school!
Responding to posters that have different perspectives can be easy and polite. All one has to do is try. I found you most likely will never change someones opinions and that shouldn't be one's objective. Instead it is easier to try and explain your position logically without belittling anyone for their opinion, or accuse them of making assumptions. If you need a "source" or reference simply ask for one after you research it yourself.
The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors (at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/ )
This is also an interesting article:
Will an old malaria drug help fight the coronavirus? (at https://www.france24.com/en/20200320-will-an-old-malaria-drug-help-fight-the-coronavirus )
Some of the responses on this topic seem more intent on politicizing the the issue rather than from a simple health care perspective that health care should be between the patient and their doctor. And in those life threatening instances as we have with elderly and this virus, it is a good thing we now have the Right-to-Try law as well.
So many doctors, patients, and other countries have been trying this medication for some time long before it appeared in our media and caught the Presidents attention. Trump simply repeating what these doctors around the world have observed as promising results for some patients is stating the facts and he so stated that the treatment looked promising. How that can be interpreted as ignorant escapes me as it has been the medical field around the world that has decided to use these medications not Trump.
Even today approved treatments do not work with all patients. Side affects are numerous but not all suffer them if at all. This treatment will be no different. To state that the death rate is better not trying this drug vs trying the drug is so far not determined. The following article reads that there are too many variables between countries in how they test, number of test, test results, etc to make any real comparisons. In this article it does show that the elderly are about three times more likely to die than younger infected patients. So the previous claim a poster made that 98 percent survive is inaccurate since no consideration for various age groups was factored in the claim.
How deadly is the coronavirus? (at https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51674743 )
Can we not agree that people should be allowed to have access to what ever treatments the patient and doctor agree might be beneficial especially if you are in one of the groupings most susceptible to this virus? This is exactly what has been taking place long before Trump made his statement and it is those doctors that have been suggesting the treatment is effective. Restating these doctors opinions doesn't make the repeater the idiot just the messenger.
One of the reasons doctors thought about using this combination of drugs was how the spread of the virus was taking place. They noticed that the Central Americas infection rate was very low. The commonalty of these states was the continued use of the Malaria drug in those regions. Thus the effort.
Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center (at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html )
Many other drugs are being used to test their effectiveness against this virus. These drugs are approved just as the Malaria drug is and there is no clinical trials for any of those alternatives. The only difference is Trump mentioned one of efforts doctors have been testing on their own and not any of the other efforts other doctors have been performing.
Trump is repeating what a lawyer and a cybercoin investor have observed, not what doctors have observed. He picked it up from political blogs and Fox News. It's nonsense and dangerous.
I assume you are making assumptions because you are ignoring facts.
“So the previous claim a poster made that 98 percent survive is inaccurate since no consideration for various age groups was factored in the claim.”
I was looking at US figures, and I said 96% to 98% depending on the numbers. The accepted figure, last time I looked, was 3.5% globally but lower in the USA.
“Can we not agree that people should be allowed to have access to what ever treatments the patient and doctor agree might be beneficial especially if you are in one of the groupings most susceptible to this virus?”
No. Because that's incredibly dangerous.
Is that anywhere near Speculation-ville, Rumor Springs, and Conspiracy Corners?