Jump to content

PsychMike

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PsychMike

  1. Thanks @Snacks I agree. Sam ain't losing to a baby toy. Hook 'em!
  2. Lincoln Riley was born in Lubbock, lives in Norman, and still thinks Greenville, NC is the shittiest place he's ever lived.
  3. Lincoln Riley is afraid to remove the tag from his mattress!
  4. While I agree with your statement here, I just want to point out that the classic Medrol dose pack (and others) is set up as both a short-term treatment course and a taper. (6 tabs on day 1, decreasing by 1 tab each day, finishing with 1 on Day 6). Don't want to mess up the HPA (hypothalamic pituitary adrenal) axis...so tapering is always a good idea (as you stated, it's still prudent).
  5. Speaking of checkout, any chance that the hospital policy dictates that someone on staff pushes him out the front door to the car in a wheelchair?
  6. Maybe he's dead and the family is pulling a Herman Cain here?
  7. da fuq? We all know what the trajectory is, Tom, and it's not good. And worse than that is the fact that the only way we can reverse this trajectory is to move to the Southern Hemisphere, so we can circle the drain in the opposite direction.
  8. Thanks Anastasis. I don't know who Derek Lowe is, but this is an exceptional read. I like the approach he took to explain his rationale and it serves as yet another exhibit in how complicated this disease is, how much is still undetermined about the nature of this virus related to its effects on humans, and how to attack it (or prevent it) with vaccines and pharmacotherapy. The explanation of dexamethasone is particularly useful. People who don't understand this stuff (media types and politicos) jump to erroneous conclusions and it leads to dumb statements like bashing Sanjay Gupta or even Fauci. BTW, all scientists (including the smartest, best trained ones) are wrong some of the time due to the fact that we rarely have data generated by trials that are randomized and that control for all the confounding variables (like blood type, or even the amount of virus inoculum, ie, dose of the virus). That's why we rate the evidence based on study designs and we inform future studies based on emerging evidence. The process takes a very long time, which sucks because this virus is unique and had been unheard of until late last year. But let's face it, some scientists have taken some unorthodox positions during this pandemic, which has only worsened the crisis. There has been an attack on science, and the recent events almost seem like science itself has called for a reckoning.
  9. LOL, the stupid is strong as ever in MG. Drumpf never took covid seriously enough to attack it. covid will live beyond his presidency. it pains me to state that, would've rather that dotard coulda gotten a victory against this virus by early summer.
  10. I had the same thought when I heard him say that live.
  11. Hope none of you lost money betting that the MAGAts would start taking the virus more seriously now.
  12. Here is a better picture of Scott Adams.
  13. If you happen to visit Rhodes College, be sure to stop by Alex's Tavern, just up the road a click. Ask if they have ribs that day. They're the best in Memphis, which I find to be an overrated city for ribs.
  14. OUCH, that is going to leave a mark! Thanks Anastasis. That some who claim to understand science still cling to their beliefs in spite of mountains of high quality evidence is utterly beyond my comprehension.
  15. isn't D Hold an automatic 1st?
  16. obligatory
  17. https://www.modernatx.com/cove-study
  18. You have to be at least 18 years old for the Moderna study and I couldn't find an upper limit. The AstraZeneca study allows subjects as young as 5 yrs old. Randomization will be stratified based on age and, if they are < 65 years of age, based on the presence or absence of risk factors for severe illness from COVID-19 based on CDC recommendation as of Mar 2020. There will be 3 strata for randomization: ≥ 65 years, < 65 years and categorized to be at increased risk (“at risk”) for the complications of COVID-19, and < 65 years “not at risk”. Risk will be defined based on the study participants’ relevant past and current medical history. At least 25% of enrolled participants, but not more than 40%, will be either ≥ 65 years of age or < 65 years of age and “at risk” at Screening. Participants who are < 65 years old will be categorized as at risk for severe COVID-19 illness if they have at least 1 of the following risk factors at Screening: Chronic lung disease (eg, emphysema and chronic bronchitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and cystic fibrosis) or moderate to severe asthma Significant cardiac disease (eg, heart failure, coronary artery disease, congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathies, and pulmonary hypertension) Severe obesity (body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m2) Diabetes (Type 1, Type 2 or gestational) Liver disease Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection
  19. You are correct, sir. At least with respect to the Moderna trial. From the protocol: So in the first interim analyses which takes place when 53 cases are recorded (NOTE: cases don't count for subjects unless they take place > 14 days after the 2nd injection), if the criteria are met for efficacy (60% reduction in hazard rate). So you are correct that they don't need many cases...they are planning that the final analysis (should the 2 interim analyses fail to demonstrate efficacy) will be done at 106 cases. You make an excellent point about long-term safety. The study is to follow subjects out 2 years, but if the vaccine(s) is (are) approved, we citizens will have to decide whether to wait it out or just accept the risks and take a step towards returning to normal. I will do my best to examine the entirety of the data and make the decision, and I lean towards doing so unless there are surprises. BTW, as of last Friday at 5 pm, the status of the trial was: 25,976 participants enrolled in the COVE Phase 3 Study as of Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm ET. 11,879 participants have received their second vaccination.
  20. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency depends on the threshold used to define vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. It varies based on latitude and season (both relate to sun exposure). Around 10% whites in the US below the highest threshold, whereas up to half are below lower thresholds. The black population are closer to 50% at each definition, which is one of the hypothesized reasons they suffered Covid to a higher extent. Fauci was not completely wrong in the characterization I quoted, but he could use an update on the incidence from his internal medicine colleagues and should craft a better message accordingly. JJ, you are well within reason to take supplements. I do not. I have no idea how much sunshine exposure is appropriate, but I almost certainly get plenty.
  21. Thanks for posting that article. Your awareness of the "adherents" is notable and appropriate. As to whether it is "clear cut," I merely point out the actual quote you included. He used the words "conceivable" (which means what he thinks it means) and "could have." Such is the way science works. The public sometimes takes the wrong message from his words (yes, this includes the media, who are usually not trained in science and health). Also, a quick answer to a question might not allow him the appropriate context that he would supply if he were lecturing or publishing. I'm very sensitive about how Fauci is perceived (not that I think you've done anything wrong here, in fact I think you are one of the more rational posters on this topic). Remember when "you-know-who" was bashing him about Vitamin D? Not only was the trial he cited less then impressive about the potential benefits of Vit D (and, incidentally, in that study all patients were receiving HCQ and many did poorly despite that -- I know, big surprise, right?), but the implication was that Fauci withheld this important information all along until Jennifer Garner coaxed it out of him recently (and she could coax me into saying just about anything). But he hadn't hidden anything: making sure you aren't deficient in immune-boosting nutrients has been touted by everyone this whole time, and he focused his attention to the things that make the biggest difference, such as social distancing and benefits of wearing masks. Here's the blurb in the JAMA network back in June: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2767208 Push back on anyone who bashes Fauci. They either have their own agenda, are ill-informed, or both.
  22. IKR? Well, I know that you know this, but it's not just isolated to your examples. We sports fans writ large tend to apply false logic even when we know better (because it's fun): The transitive property slang/meme misapplies the transitive property to non-numerical things to reach illogical conclusions or false equivalencies. For example, humans eat cows and cows eat grass, so by the transitive property, humans eat grass. Unlike in math, just because the first two statements are true does not make the final “conclusion” true. The humor in the meme relies on the absurdity of attempting to use the transitive property outside of math. [DISCLOSURE: I lifted this from dictionary.com] But it is an interesting phenomenon that perplexes us all to eternity.
  23. Is #5 Devin Nunes? Because I like the list especially with him
×
×
  • Create New...