CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Anastasis 23469]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Fake Maths! 

More like fake causal inference. 

[Nivek 16930]

On 10/28/2020 at 1:25 PM, Lobo said:

Imagine though, being a selfish covid asshole and looking at what Turner did to possibly expose at risk people and thinking, “yeah, but it was their first dodger World Series title in most of their lifetimes.  His emotions just took Over and he had to get in there with his teammates!”  And then think that’s the same thing as why you need to go to Applebee’s with your fat parents. 
 

i guess the country was always this stupid?

It could be their last as well.  

[jimmyjazz 45957]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

More like fake causal inference. 

Exactly.  I suspect a large # of counties without any political rallies are also experiencing a rise in covid cases month over month.  Maybe not 82%, but a big number.

So, what's the latest news on the Regeneron treatment?  I have an acquaintance who swears it's the holy grail we've needed . . . has it been proven to be more effective than first hinted at?

[Anastasis 23469]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Exactly.  I suspect a large # of counties without any political rallies are also experiencing a rise in covid cases month over month.  Maybe not 82%, but a big number.

So, what's the latest news on the Regeneron treatment?  I have an acquaintance who swears it's the holy grail we've needed . . . has it been proven to be more effective than first hinted at?

Precisely.  You could run a similar analysis just about any factor and draw out a relationship with increasing COVID rate during that timeframe. 

I haven't kept close track, but based on what I have seen they are far from the holy grail.  Helps in mild to moderate cases, not really panning out in severe hospitalized cases. 

https://investor.regeneron.com/news-releases/news-release-details/regn-cov2-independent-data-monitoring-committee-recommends

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

The latest spin I've seen from a few people who've been trying to downplay Covid since the beginning is "Where are all the positive flu tests?"  It looks like at the worst part of flu season in the winter of 2019 and early 2020 there were ~30,000 positive tests per week.  The current 7 day rolling average for Covid is ~77,000 per day, so you could take the worst week of flu season last year out of the Covid numbers and still see we have a huge problem unfolding.  But, it is odd what has happened to either flu testing or reporting for it to fall off a table like this.

According to this:  https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm  there were 10,809 flu tests in the 42nd week of 2020 with only 33 positive tests - in the entire country.

Australia had a very low flu season. All the measures taken to reduce spread of covid (social distance, masks, hand washing) help reduce Flu transmission. I would think we would see a lighter Flu season in the US too. 

[The Royal We 3072]

Absolutely.

I also looked closer at the graph I posted and weeks 40, 41 & 42 of 2019 had very low positive tests reported as well.

[BrazilHorn 6607]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Australia had a very low flu season. All the measures taken to reduce spread of covid (social distance, masks, hand washing) help reduce Flu transmission. I would think we would see a lighter Flu season in the US too. 

The flu has been pretty much non-existent in Australia, Chile, Argentina etc compared to last year.

I think you're spot on in that all the WFH, social distancing, reduced air travel has drastically reduced the spread of flu in Southern Hemisphere.

Fingers crossed the US doesn't fuck it up this winter.

[GRHorn 105]

On 10/29/2020 at 9:56 AM, BradInATX said:

Can't read it because of paywall but I'll assume the rest of the opinion piece is as stupid as the headline.

Spoiler

• A hallmark of Covid-19 pandemic policy has been the failure of political leaders and health officials to anticipate the unintended consequences of their actions. This tendency has haunted many decisions, from lockdowns that triggered enormous unemployment and increased alcohol and drug abuse, to school closures that are widening educational disparities between rich and poor families. Mask mandates may also have unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits.

First, consider how the debate has evolved and the underlying scientific evidence. Several randomized trials of community or household masking have been completed. Most have shown that wearing a mask has little or no effect on respiratory virus transmission, according to a review published earlier this year in Emerging Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s journal. In March, when Anthony Fauci said, “wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better” but “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is,” his statement reflected scientific consensus, and was consistent with the World Health Organization’s guidance.

 

 

 

 

00:00

1x

SUBSCRIBE

Almost overnight, the recommendations flipped. The reason? The risk of asymptomatic transmission. Health officials said mask mandates were now not only reasonable but critical. This is a weak rationale, given that presymptomatic spread of respiratory viruses isn’t a novel phenomenon in public health. Asymptomatic cases of influenza occur in up to a third of patients, according to a 2016 report in Emerging Infectious Diseases, and even more patients had mild cases that are never diagnosed. Asymptomatic or mild cases appear to contribute more to Covid-19 transmission, but this happens in flu cases, too, though no one has called for mask mandates during flu season.

The public assumes that research performed since the beginning of the pandemic supports mask mandates. Policy makers and the media point to low-quality evidence, such as a study of Covid-19 positive hairstylists in Missouri or a Georgia summer camp with an outbreak. These anecdotes, while valuable, tell us nothing about the experience of other hairdressers or other summer camps that adopted similar or different masking practices. Also low-quality evidence: Videos of droplets spreading through air as people talk, a well-intended line of research that has stoked fears about regular human interactions.

---

 

SUBSCRIBE

---

 

Rather, the highest-quality evidence so far is studies like the one published in June in Health Affairs, which found that U.S. states instituting mask mandates had a 2% reduction in growth rates of Covid-19 compared with states without these mandates. Because respiratory virus spread is exponential, modest reductions can translate into large differences over time. But these shifts in trajectory are distinct from the notion that mandating masks will bring the pandemic to an end. Based on evidence around the world, it should be clear that mask mandates won’t extinguish the virus.

The most reasonable conclusion from the available scientific evidence is that community mask mandates have—at most—a small effect on the course of the pandemic. But you wouldn’t know that from watching cable news or sitting next to a mother being forced off an airplane because her small children aren’t able to keep a mask on.

While mask-wearing has often been invoked in explanations for rising or falling Covid-19 case counts, the reality is that these trends reflect a basic human need to interact with one another. Claims that low mask compliance is responsible for rising case counts are also not supported by Gallup data, which show that the percentage of Americans reporting wearing masks has been high and relatively stable since June. Health officials and political leaders have assigned mask mandates a gravity unsupported by empirical research.

On even shakier scientific ground is the promotion of mask use outdoors. One contact-tracing study identified only a single incident of outdoor transmission among 318 outbreaks. Even the Rose Garden nomination ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which the media giddily labeled a “superspreader” event, likely wasn’t; transmission more likely occurred during indoor gatherings associated with the ceremony.

By paying outsize and scientifically unjustified attention to masking, mask mandates have the unintended consequence of delaying public acceptance of the unavoidable truth. In countries with active community transmission and no herd immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the spread of Covid-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path forward is to learn to live with the virus.

Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to protect the most vulnerable Americans. There is strong evidence that treating patients early in outpatient settings can be effective, as outlined in a recent American Journal of Medicine paper, but these treatments are underused. Identifying effective treatments for hospitalized patients with Covid-19 is essential, but preventing severe illness before hospitalization will save more lives.

Until the reality of viral spread in the U.S.—with or without mask mandates—is accepted, political leaders will continue to feel justified in keeping schools and businesses closed, robbing young people of the opportunity to invest in their futures, and restricting activities that make life worthwhile. Policy makers ought to move forward with more wisdom and sensibility to mitigate avoidable costs to human life and well-being.

Dr. Ladapo is an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105142]

That this para is buried in there is so fucking telling of the idiot mentality you espouse:

Quote

Rather, the highest-quality evidence so far is studies like the one published in June in Health Affairs, which found that U.S. states instituting mask mandates had a 2% reduction in growth rates of Covid-19 compared with states without these mandates. Because respiratory virus spread is exponential, modest reductions can translate into large differences over time. But these shifts in trajectory are distinct from the notion that mandating masks will bring the pandemic to an end. Based on evidence around the world, it should be clear that mask mandates won’t extinguish the virus.

No.  Fucking.  Shit.

"Modest reductions can translate into large differences over time" -- YES.  That's the fucking point.  It's firefighting 101.  Prevent small fires, they don't grow into big ones.

"distinct from the notion that mandating masks will bring the pandemic to an end. Based on evidence around the world, it should be clear that mask mandates won’t extinguish the virus." -- what a fucking straw man.  Nobody has advocated that  if we just use masks, the pandemic will end.  What has been advocated, repeatedly, is that if we have consistent mask usage, combined with reasonable social distancing measures, we can keep it UNDER CONTROL.  The fires won't be OUT.  But they won't be 50,000 acre wildfires.

Jesus shitdicks, the moronity.

We are going through a "Red Flag" period of fire danger.  MULTIPLE measures, taken together, REDUCE the risk of a large, out of control wildfire.  They do not eliminate it -- neither collectively, nor individually.  But each measure has a material, incremental effect in reducing the overall risk.  WHICH THE CITED ARTICLE FUCKING ADMITS.  Again, it ADMITS the core premise and argument of the side that it opposes, and then skips right past it to attack a straw man that doesn't even fucking exist.  The only thing that will end the pandemic will be either a vaccine, or complete burnout because it infected a majority of humanity.  Everyone knows that, acknowledges it, and has done so since the beginning.

God I hate stupid people so, so, so much.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Brisketexan

[BradInATX 9208]

24 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

  Hide contents

• A hallmark of Covid-19 pandemic policy has been the failure of political leaders and health officials to anticipate the unintended consequences of their actions. This tendency has haunted many decisions, from lockdowns that triggered enormous unemployment and increased alcohol and drug abuse, to school closures that are widening educational disparities between rich and poor families. Mask mandates may also have unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits.

 

First, consider how the debate has evolved and the underlying scientific evidence. Several randomized trials of community or household masking have been completed. Most have shown that wearing a mask has little or no effect on respiratory virus transmission, according to a review published earlier this year in Emerging Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s journal. In March, when Anthony Fauci said, “wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better” but “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is,” his statement reflected scientific consensus, and was consistent with the World Health Organization’s guidance.

 

 

 

 

00:00

1x

SUBSCRIBE

Almost overnight, the recommendations flipped. The reason? The risk of asymptomatic transmission. Health officials said mask mandates were now not only reasonable but critical. This is a weak rationale, given that presymptomatic spread of respiratory viruses isn’t a novel phenomenon in public health. Asymptomatic cases of influenza occur in up to a third of patients, according to a 2016 report in Emerging Infectious Diseases, and even more patients had mild cases that are never diagnosed. Asymptomatic or mild cases appear to contribute more to Covid-19 transmission, but this happens in flu cases, too, though no one has called for mask mandates during flu season.

The public assumes that research performed since the beginning of the pandemic supports mask mandates. Policy makers and the media point to low-quality evidence, such as a study of Covid-19 positive hairstylists in Missouri or a Georgia summer camp with an outbreak. These anecdotes, while valuable, tell us nothing about the experience of other hairdressers or other summer camps that adopted similar or different masking practices. Also low-quality evidence: Videos of droplets spreading through air as people talk, a well-intended line of research that has stoked fears about regular human interactions.

---

 

SUBSCRIBE

---

 

Rather, the highest-quality evidence so far is studies like the one published in June in Health Affairs, which found that U.S. states instituting mask mandates had a 2% reduction in growth rates of Covid-19 compared with states without these mandates. Because respiratory virus spread is exponential, modest reductions can translate into large differences over time. But these shifts in trajectory are distinct from the notion that mandating masks will bring the pandemic to an end. Based on evidence around the world, it should be clear that mask mandates won’t extinguish the virus.

The most reasonable conclusion from the available scientific evidence is that community mask mandates have—at most—a small effect on the course of the pandemic. But you wouldn’t know that from watching cable news or sitting next to a mother being forced off an airplane because her small children aren’t able to keep a mask on.

While mask-wearing has often been invoked in explanations for rising or falling Covid-19 case counts, the reality is that these trends reflect a basic human need to interact with one another. Claims that low mask compliance is responsible for rising case counts are also not supported by Gallup data, which show that the percentage of Americans reporting wearing masks has been high and relatively stable since June. Health officials and political leaders have assigned mask mandates a gravity unsupported by empirical research.

On even shakier scientific ground is the promotion of mask use outdoors. One contact-tracing study identified only a single incident of outdoor transmission among 318 outbreaks. Even the Rose Garden nomination ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which the media giddily labeled a “superspreader” event, likely wasn’t; transmission more likely occurred during indoor gatherings associated with the ceremony.

By paying outsize and scientifically unjustified attention to masking, mask mandates have the unintended consequence of delaying public acceptance of the unavoidable truth. In countries with active community transmission and no herd immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the spread of Covid-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path forward is to learn to live with the virus.

Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to protect the most vulnerable Americans. There is strong evidence that treating patients early in outpatient settings can be effective, as outlined in a recent American Journal of Medicine paper, but these treatments are underused. Identifying effective treatments for hospitalized patients with Covid-19 is essential, but preventing severe illness before hospitalization will save more lives.

Until the reality of viral spread in the U.S.—with or without mask mandates—is accepted, political leaders will continue to feel justified in keeping schools and businesses closed, robbing young people of the opportunity to invest in their futures, and restricting activities that make life worthwhile. Policy makers ought to move forward with more wisdom and sensibility to mitigate avoidable costs to human life and well-being.

Dr. Ladapo is an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.

 

 

 

 

I mean. This article is trash, my man.

The three takeaways:

- It quotes ONE study showing that masks reduce transmission by 2%. And ignores the dozens of high-quality, nonpartisan studies that show otherwise. 

- It claims that people telling Gallup surveyors that they're wearing masks means that everyone is wearing masks and therefore the recent rise of cases proves that masks don't work, which is terrible logic and you as a STEM guy should know better.

- Mask wearing outdoor is mostly stupid. I agree with this.

[wildcat09 29354]

At this point I’m pretty convinced GR Horn is a paid troll.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

More like fake causal inference. 

Yep. Let's stay intellectually honest. Silly and intentionally bad logic there. A study with integrity would have said "84% of counties with rallies had Covid increases, compared to X% of all counties. " 

Maybe it still made the point, maybe it didn't. But that's junk science and it should be called out regardless of what "side" you're on.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

On 10/19/2020 at 6:20 PM, cactusflinthead said:

Oh I see, it got put in here. Don't let the title fool you. It's still NO POLITICS in the DT Covid thread. 

That's news that will never pass muster over there. 

Yeah but be sure and be super-afraid of the browns invading the suburbs, and the BLM and Antifa people coming for you.

[Anastasis 23469]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Yep. Let's stay intellectually honest. Silly and intentionally bad logic there. A study with integrity would have said "84% of counties with rallies had Covid increases, compared to X% of all counties. " 

Maybe it still made the point, maybe it didn't. But that's junk science and it should be called out regardless of what "side" you're on.

Yeah, even better yet, take the 18 counties and match them to a set of counties on factors like baseline rate, size, demographics, population density, urban rural mix, some mobility measures, etc. and then do a difference in differences analysis. That will get closer to isolating the impact of the rallies on the COVID rates.  Just lazy shit. 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

On 10/29/2020 at 9:50 AM, GRHorn said:

Was just coming to tweet that op-ed. Wish I had before Atlas did. Now y’all will toss it out. 

 

See that word OPINION?  Everyone's got one.

Atlas effectively surrendered his medical credentials when he became affiliated with a partisan political think tank.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, even better yet, take the 18 counties and match them to a set of counties on factors like baseline rate, size, demographics, population density, urban rural mix, some mobility measures, etc. and then do a difference in differences analysis. That will get closer to isolating the impact of the rallies on the COVID rates.  Just lazy shit. 

I hate when people do that bullshit.

Lazy is the best case scenario. The alternative is they know better and are intentionally spreading misleading news to get shock headline value. We get that Trump's rallies are irresponsible and stupid. No need to use irresponsible logic to make the point. You're just encouraging the "FAKE NEWS" morons.

Edited October 30, 2020 by BradInATX

[TwiceHorn 31472]

15 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

so i haven't spent much time on this thread, but what's everyone's schedule for grabbing this vaccine?  will it be ready on election day, or maybe a sneak peak the night before, like how movie theaters do it?

in all seriousness, even though i was told there was a decent chance that one would be ready by election day, it seemed to be outrageous that i would even suggest one wouldn't be widely available by the end of the year.  so with that said, let me make a bold prediction - once trump loses the election, operation warp speed will neither be warpy nor speedy.

even though he's not supposed to have any influence over these govt agencies working with the pharma companies to get a vaccine ready, i kinda feel like a successful vaccine coming out right around the time biden is getting sworn in, is not exactly the look trump is going for.  i'm looking forward to them "slowing the testing vaccine down please."

is he that childish and petty?

yes.

Well, I think that the hero aura that attaches to the vaccine developers makes moving with all deliberate speed in their best interest.

I don't think Trump had much influence on Warpy Speedy to begin with and won't have much after he loses either.

[Anastasis 23469]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

No need to use irresponsible logic to make the point.

But that ratio though. 

[Beau Vine 54230]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Exactly.  I suspect a large # of counties without any political rallies are also experiencing a rise in covid cases month over month.  Maybe not 82%, but a big number.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.22.20184630v1.full.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2SAHv8LFj94zfvPbBGo0X-jUjw2QublKzZvVwdtdRvk6Em0fIW1kBNkho

[TwiceHorn 31472]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That this para is buried in there is so fucking telling of the idiot mentality you espouse:

No.  Fucking.  Shit.

"Modest reductions can translate into large differences over time" -- YES.  That's the fucking point.  It's firefighting 101.  Prevent small fires, they don't grow into big ones.

"distinct from the notion that mandating masks will bring the pandemic to an end. Based on evidence around the world, it should be clear that mask mandates won’t extinguish the virus." -- what a fucking straw man.  Nobody has advocated that  if we just use masks, the pandemic will end.  What has been advocated, repeatedly, is that if we have consistent mask usage, combined with reasonable social distancing measures, we can keep it UNDER CONTROL.  The fires won't be OUT.  But they won't be 50,000 acre wildfires.

Jesus shitdicks, the moronity.

We are going through a "Red Flag" period of fire danger.  MULTIPLE measures, taken together, REDUCE the risk of a large, out of control wildfire.  They do not eliminate it -- neither collectively, nor individually.  But each measure has a material, incremental effect in reducing the overall risk.  WHICH THE CITED ARTICLE FUCKING ADMITS.  Again, it ADMITS the core premise and argument of the side that it opposes, and then skips right past it to attack a straw man that doesn't even fucking exist.  The only thing that will end the pandemic will be either a vaccine, or complete burnout because it infected a majority of humanity.  Everyone knows that, acknowledges it, and has done so since the beginning.

God I hate stupid people so, so, so much.

And, of course, there is almost zero downside, economically or any other way, to people wearing masks.

Just "muh rights."

[BradInATX 9208]

^^ Well, there you go.

Article did itself a disservice by not including the control. Literally half a sentence "while other counties without rallies are not seeing a rise".

[Brisketexan 105142]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

And, of course, there is almost zero downside, economically or any other way, to people wearing masks.

Just "muh rights."

That's the other thing.....the risk-reward balance is absurdly easy.  It's a mask.  It's so fucking easy.  Shit, the boy and I were just commenting last night, after we ran an errand but got in the car with them on, that we now forget to take them off with some frequency.  Functionally zero cost, with some measurable benefit.  WTF?  

[jimmyjazz 45957]

I certainly don't know the county breakout, but color me skeptical that counties without POTUS rallies haven't been seeing a rise in Covid cases during "rally season":

[Anastasis 23469]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

^^ Well, there you go.

Article did itself a disservice by not including the control. Literally half a sentence "while other counties without rallies are not seeing a rise".

At least they tried with the control group.  I would still argue that you need to have a comparison group consisting of a matched set based on county level characteristics, esp. baseline rate.  Look at figure 3 for a different perspective. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 45957]

I would argue they shouldn't normalize the non-rally counties to the median of the rally dates.  They should take each rally and find a reasonable number of similar counties (geographic similarity, population,  population density, covid prevalence on day 0, race/age breakout, etc.) and compare to covid prevalence one month out.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

41 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

At this point I’m pretty convinced GR Horn is a paid troll.

I have thought that about a few people, but I don't see how paying someone to post here is worth the cost. 

I think he gets paid to post bullshit elsewhere, and he posts here because he actually has ties to the university.  He maintains the bullshit here simply because its in his nature and maybe his overlord is watching. 

Grhorn, zork, and sheeit come to mind the most. They only appear in the politics forum when there is a clear disinfo campaign going on across the internet at large. 

[triplehorn 2664]

In addition to "modest reductions can translate into large differences over time," implementing the mask and distancing measures as early as possible similarly massively alters the exponential trajectory.  The difference in the number of cases after one month between two scenarios where the difference between measures being started is only one or two days is staggering.  The battle was lost in Feb/March.  

 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by triplehorn

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's the other thing.....the risk-reward balance is absurdly easy.  It's a mask.  It's so fucking easy...  Functionally zero cost, with some measurable benefit.  WTF?  

Trump perceived masks hurt him, is incapable of admitting error,  marginalized their use and megashittoheads fall in line. It's no more complicated than that. Republican voters act against their own best interests on the reg.

[4th&Five 41554]

Just now, Degenerate Gardner said:

Trump perceived masks hurt him, is incapable of admitting error,  marginalized their use and megashittoheads fall in line. It's no more complicated than that. Republican voters act against their own best interests on the reg.

wearing a mask would have been admitting there was an actual problem.  he still hasn't really done that after 230k deaths.

[triplehorn 2664]

Business and politics in a pandemic:

The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug

 

Read the article above.  Now look at the official current NIH recommendations today:

 

Quote

First, note that there is no recommendation for any antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy for early uncomplicated disease.  Yet notice how remdesivir somehow gets a mention in that box.  Not only that, Remdesivir gets a mention in every box.  Now go read the article linked above again.  Who exactly had a hand in crafting this NIH algorithm?  Either way, Gilead certainly strongly approves.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

At this point I’m pretty convinced GR Horn is a paid troll.

Duh

[JimmyJames 12271]

57 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I have thought that about a few people, but I don't see how paying someone to post here is worth the cost. 

I think he gets paid to post bullshit elsewhere, and he posts here because he actually has ties to the university.  He maintains the bullshit here simply because its in his nature and maybe his overlord is watching. 

Grhorn, zork, and sheeit come to mind the most. They only appear in the politics forum when there is a clear disinfo campaign going on across the internet at large. 

Your last paragraph is spot on. 
 

Of course there are people paid to astroturf on here. Think about how much it costs? Virtually nothing. 

[Royalfan5 2354]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Your last paragraph is spot on. 
 

Of course there are people paid to astroturf on here. Think about how much it costs? Virtually nothing. 

I've always wondered how much of the last mile of the astroturfing is paid vs. volunteer carrying of disinfo from the first level websites. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33871]

39 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

savage, but true

[triplehorn 2664]

Per the NIH algorithm I referenced above, and the absence of any recommendation for treatment of early disease in uncomplicated outpatient cases of sars-cov2, realize that this absence of early outpatient intervention appears to be largely what separates us (and western Europe) in terms of outcomes related to deaths/1M population and our demonstrably worse results by comparison overall from countries and regions that actively and widely employ a variety early outpatient treatments.

3 days ago, Dr. Peter A. McCullough MD MPH, Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX, UT Southwestern Med grad, and prominent investigator in clinical research, gave a webinar on the rationale and options for early outpatient intervention with Covid infection. 

Notably, he is actively infected with covid this week and gave the webinar from home to an international audience while clearly symptomatic (first 30-45min are the meat of it):

Outpatient Early Treatment Algorithm for COVID-19 - a Webinar with Dr Peter A. McCullough

now go back and look at that NIH algorithm.

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by triplehorn

[Wanker Bob 379]

2 hours ago, BradInATX said:

 

I mean. This article is trash, my man.

The three takeaways:

- It quotes ONE study showing that masks reduce transmission by 2%. And ignores the dozens of high-quality, nonpartisan studies that show otherwise. 

- It claims that people telling Gallup surveyors that they're wearing masks means that everyone is wearing masks and therefore the recent rise of cases proves that masks don't work, which is terrible logic and you as a STEM guy should know better.

- Mask wearing outdoor is mostly stupid. I agree with this.

I used to think he was a chiropractor. Now I think he's too stupid even for that and is one of those faith healers with magic stones and shit calling himself a doctor. 

This crusade against masks is just as stupid as the flat earth people. There are many countries around the world that have shown that near 100 percent compliance with mask usage and other recommended safety measures keeps the outbreaks very low and manageable. Key words "near 100 percent compliance". I'm America it's completely these trump idiots' fault the spread is this bad. You can't have 60 percent compliance. And can't have only masks but no other precautions. Have to be fully committed as a society. 

[Gil Bang 25959]

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

I hope he hasn’t voted yet because Trump told him to vote on Election Day.

[Gil Bang 25959]

42 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

savage, but true

shit, didn't see it.

[4th&Five 41554]

 

[jimmyjazz 45957]

[HenryJames 66053]

1,2.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33871]

being a vapid cunt doesn't age well

[Brisketexan 105142]

Perhaps she became confused when she looked in her closet, thought that it was already full of MAGA gear, when really she just misread the tags on all her clothes that said "MEGA."

[Neonmoon 38129]

Really good read 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Republicans reduced to defending shitty 90s sitcoms.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Only Florida man could somehow equate 230,000 deaths with television viewers in a way that leaves me wondering what happened to the 8 million oxygen starved Americans who lasted three seasons.

[Bullneck 19090]

 

 

[4th&Five 41554]

Rounding the corner!