Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

4th&Five

4th&Five 42031

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Eewww Gross. 

 

12 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

You sound like a poor.  Most of surly weighs in at 270 too, but they are also 6'6", built like Dwayne Johnson, and can take out a navy seal team single handedly while never spilling their scotch.

Agreed.  I was a gross, fat bastard.  Currently 183 so i can throw stones at our disgusting president.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28943

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

Germany has been pretty anti-Trump since day one. I think the pandemic exposed that the problems run much deeper than him though. They can’t wrap their heads around a government being this dysfunctional. 

Yep, they saw it early on. 

D_813W6WkAYRbLc.jpg

Such an insult. It's fucking embarrassing. 

DziKM-gVsAI8O1x?format=jpg&name=medium

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28943

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BradInATX said:
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:
Did you see the photos I posted of Trump next to Tom Brady, A-Rod, and Obama?  One could only charitably make the case that he's even 6' 1".  It's on the Trump 2020 thread.

Nah. But I mean it's almost definite that he embellishes his various measurements.

Of course. The man fucking exaggerated the number of floors in Trump Tower. His entire career is built on lies. 'Hey! Units are selling fast! You'd better get in before they're all gone!' "What have you got to lose?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13520

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, GRHorn said:

There’s different levels of fat. She called him morbidly obese. That actually has a definition. Whatever. I was nitpicking and being a smartass. Let’s move on. 

You think he doesn’t weigh 300lbs? Can’t say I agree with you

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3396

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

1 in 500. Fuuuck. 

 

Can't be true.  I've been told by the herd immunity crowd that the mortality rate on this thing is definitely less than 0.1% when you factor in all of the asymptomatic cases ... 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Covid Patients Testing Positive After Recovery Aren’t Infectious, Study Shows

Quote

Researchers are finding evidence that patients who test positive for the coronavirus after recovering aren’t capable of transmitting the infection, and could have the antibodies that prevent them from falling sick again.

Scientists from the Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied 285 Covid-19 survivors who had tested positive for the coronavirus after their illness had apparently resolved, as indicated by a previous negative test result. The so-called re-positive patients weren’t found to have spread any lingering infection, and virus samples collected from them couldn’t be grown in culture, indicating the patients were shedding non-infectious or dead virus particles.

[...]

“Under the new protocols, no additional tests are required for cases that have been discharged from isolation,” the Korean CDC said in a report. The agency said it will now refer to “re-positive” cases as “PCR re-detected after discharge from isolation.”

Some coronavirus patients have tested positive again for the virus up to 82 days after becoming infected. Almost all of the cases for which blood tests were taken had antibodies against the virus.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28620

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Covid Patients Testing Positive After Recovery Aren’t Infectious, Study Shows

No offense, but you really need to read past the headlines (and stop taking HCQ if you still are) because literally every sunshine pumping article about COVID and treatments for it that you post has an incredibly low sample size. In the case of this study referenced by your article, the sample size was N=7. Seven datapoints is just a few orders of magnitude short of a statistically significant dataset that you can confidently make predictions and assumptions based on. Stop facilitating the spread of disinformation.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10498

Posted
Posted
No offense, but you really need to read past the headlines (and stop taking HCQ if you still are) because literally every sunshine pumping article about COVID and treatments for it that you post has an incredibly low sample size. In the case of this study referenced by your article, the sample size was N=7. Seven datapoints is just a few orders of magnitude short of a statistically significant dataset that you can confidently make predictions and assumptions based on. Stop facilitating the spread of disinformation.

No offense, but you really need to read past the headlines (and stop taking HCQ if you still are) because literally every sunshine pumping article about COVID and treatments for it that you post has an incredibly low sample size. In the case of this study referenced by your article, the sample size was N=7. Seven datapoints is just a few orders of magnitude short of a statistically significant dataset that you can confidently make predictions and assumptions based on. Stop facilitating the spread of disinformation.

No offense, but you really need to read past the headlines (and stop taking HCQ if you still are) because literally every sunshine pumping article about COVID and treatments for it that you post has an incredibly low sample size. In the case of this study referenced by your article, the sample size was N=7. Seven datapoints is just a few orders of magnitude short of a statistically significant dataset that you can confidently make predictions and assumptions based on. Stop facilitating the spread of disinformation.


Dumb question amnesty: Can you elaborate on this? I guess I’m out of my element about understanding these things. The article says 285 patients were part of the study. I saw it discussed on the news earlier and they said from contract tracing those people had come into contact with ~800 people in the days before they had re-tested as positive and zero of their contacts tested positive. Where does the N=7 come from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13052

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

 

 

 


Dumb question amnesty: Can you elaborate on this? I guess I’m out of my element about understanding these things. The article says 285 patients were part of the study. I saw it discussed on the news earlier and they said from contract tracing those people had come into contact with ~800 people in the days before they had re-tested as positive and zero of their contacts tested positive. Where does the N=7 come from?

I believe it refers to 7 COVID-19 patients whereas the rest were from SARS patients? I didn't read the article though, skimmed the abstract.

Article refers to 285 COVID-19 patients, however so perhaps there was a mixup with which study is being referenced?

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 107063

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

1 in 500. Fuuuck. 

 

Okay, see.....that seems to be some really relevant shit.

That's a .2% of population death rate.  Not of INFECTED population (the infection rate is surely high, but we know it's not 100%), but total population.  

If, over time, the same percentage of all Americans ends up infected (it happened fast in NYC, because of proximity, it will happen more slowly for America as a whole), then within maybe a year, we'd see .2% of Americans die.  If that extrapolation is at all valid, then with a population of 330 million Americans, we'd expect to see 660,000 dead.

That could be high -- maybe the rest of the US would NEVER see the total infection numbers of NYC.  Or it might be low, because as high as NYC's infection rate surely is, it almost certainly isn't up to full "herd immunity" levels -- there's still room for more infection there.  And, we may have improved treatment protocols since it started, so maybe we can reduce the deaths some.  There's still plenty of variables that could move the number in either direction.  But let's look at it as a data point.

So, IF the NYC percentage of population death rate is reasonably on target for humanity in general, then over time (a year?  A bit longer?), we could see over 600k dead.  Being that our worst recent flu year is 80k dead, we're looking at around 8X our flu death toll.

That seems....not great.  BUT, it also doesn't seem apocalyptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28620

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Dumb question amnesty: Can you elaborate on this? I guess I’m out of my element about understanding these things. The article says 285 patients were part of the study. I saw it discussed on the news earlier and they said from contract tracing those people had come into contact with ~800 people in the days before they had re-tested as positive and zero of their contacts tested positive. Where does the N=7 come from?

Mea culpa, the article doesn't actually link to the Korean study the headline references - I mistakenly posted number from the study in Singapore that was also mentioned in the article. I haven't been able to find any link to the korean study after some light googling either. My bad for expecting the headline study to be linked in the article, I guess.

Points to @Mrs Whiggins I dun goofed

EDIT: Still though, typically a sample size of less than 1000 data points is sketchy to make broad predictions or assumptions. 

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23722

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Mea culpa, the article doesn't actually link to the Korean study the headline references - I mistakenly posted number from the study in Singapore that was also mentioned in the article. I haven't been able to find any link to the korean study after some light googling either. My bad for expecting the headline study to be linked in the article, I guess.

Points to @Mrs Whiggins I dun goofed

EDIT: Still though, typically a sample size of less than 1000 data points is sketchy to make broad predictions or assumptions. 

Damn man.  I even repped you for trying to dunk on triple. 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28620

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Damn man.  I even repped you for trying to dunk on triple. 

giphy.gif

Fuck me, right? There's so many layer of bullshit to cut through, the fucking article doesn't even link to the headline study but it DOES link to two other studies. Sorry to disappoint

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23722

Posted
Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

Fuck me, right? There's so many layer of bullshit to cut through, the fucking article doesn't even link to the headline study but it DOES link to two other studies. Sorry to disappoint

Nah, I fucking hate that shit too.  When a lay media article reports on the findings of published research they should fucking link the goddamned research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 107063

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Lurch said:

No, that’s .2% so far. It’s not stopping in NY, so would you cap it at that for total pop?

Ummm....I didn't?  I acknowledged that the overall number may still go higher in NYC, as there are still plenty of uninfected people there:

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That could be high -- maybe the rest of the US would NEVER see the total infection numbers of NYC.  Or it might be low, because as high as NYC's infection rate surely is, it almost certainly isn't up to full "herd immunity" levels -- there's still room for more infection there.  And, we may have improved treatment protocols since it started, so maybe we can reduce the deaths some.  There's still plenty of variables that could move the number in either direction.  But let's look at it as a data point.

The point is, there are variables that could push it in either direction, so I think that applying .2% makes some sense at present.

My early thoughts are that if we can keep the US deaths to under 250,000, I'd call that a "win."  I don't know if we can get there.  NYC burned hot and fast.  The rest of the country may well experience a slow, steady burn.  Over time, the metaphorical percentage of acres burned may well end up being the same.

We can probably keep our deaths to 250k if we don't go full-blown open (allow large, close crowds, etc.), and we have decent social distancing/mask wearing as a general practice (note that the projection of deaths by August is 140k).  That only gives us another 110k between then and year-end.....I would probably have to bet the over, but maybe not by a lot -- maybe 300k.  And would we still call that a win?  Probably.  And maybe by early next year, a vaccine helps us knock future deaths way down.

Then, we have to do the balancing of the cost-benefit of approaches that allow that many people to die, but not more than that many people to die....have we struck the right balance?  I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

No offense, but you really need to read past the headlines (and stop taking HCQ if you still are) because literally every sunshine pumping article about COVID and treatments for it that you post has an incredibly low sample size. In the case of this study referenced by your article, the sample size was N=7. Seven datapoints is just a few orders of magnitude short of a statistically significant dataset that you can confidently make predictions and assumptions based on. Stop facilitating the spread of disinformation.

No offense, but you badly mis-comprehended what you read.  The South Korean study on which the article is founded studied 285 subjects.  It's stated in the second sentence of the article. 

The n=7 study you're stuck on is referenced in passing in the middle of the article.  Those 7 people were tested 9-17 years later for presence of antibodies after having SARS infections.  So they found 7 people to participate who had SARS infection 1-2 decades earlier.  Not shocked.

And what are these sunshine pumping articles with "incredibly low sample size" you are referencing?  You're using plural, but point to just one you're talking about so I can respond in kind.

And to be clear, I am advocating for specific studies to examine the potential benefit of very early intervention of HCQ to inhibit Covid from taking hold.  There are trials underway, but even the just announced NIH study may only glancingly touch early intervention, instead incorporating mild cases, not necessarily very early stage infection.

While I don't support mass use of HCQ without better evidence, the discourse has been badly perverted in the US and may create too big an obstacle to overcome in the event studies demonstrate benefit with defined parameters for a safe and effective application.  I do think individual states and health care providers with informed consent from patients should be able to apply it now for off label use.  I would not give it to complicated illness, signs of acute vasculitis, or those with cardiovascular disease.  Best case is it saves lives and reduces transmission.  Ideal worst case is that it is applied safely by a knowledgable provider even if no measurable benefit is observed.  If diagnosed with Covid, I would be a consenting patient to receive it with zinc today, ASAP, but that's only my personal choice.

Edit: I didn't read the above posts already catching your error.

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dirk X West

Dirk X West 772

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Dorks are generally considered to be smart so I don’t think Brendan here needs to worry about that.

 

 


And “MAGA Life Coach”????

That’s not a thing.

 

I'd assume he mostly just coaches himself.  It ain't easy to be MAGA as fuck.

Edited by Dirk X West
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21363

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

There's so much bullshit out there I stopped trying to educate people on most of the garbage posted.  Apathy sucks but at first you were able to provide some good info and show people where not to look.  Now it's such a clusterfuck you don't know where to start.  It's pretty deflating as a physician trying to do the right thing. 

I didn't even have the energy to shit on Moderna's terrible study that sent stocks to the moon yesterday.  Of course, I am human and did get a good laugh out of the crash back down today.  They fucking spoke out of their ass when our dumb fatfuck of a president assembled a round table of 'experts' on when a vaccine could be manufactured by.  I should have been in that god damn thing and said I already have one made of HCQ and clorox bleach...a proprietary blend.  I just need the 4 billion to get it to the masses.  I'm fairly certain I'd have been given some serious funds.  Then when nothing pans out...make like Trump himself and ride the next grift.  As long as someone in your company can stomach kissing his bloated ass, you'll always be good to go. 

Anyways, fuck C19, but fuck our dipshit president even more.  At least C19 may force his morbidly obese ass to the sidelines, or grave.  He sure as shit isn't going to do anything about C19. 

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s a bold strategy 

More than anything, it's ripe for miscommunication and grates the hell of me having these autocrats (Trump included) driving the messaging around nuanced and touchy medical/science matters when the public should be addressed by the national health officials for their respective nations.  I guess we'll learn more tomorrow about Bolso's protocol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...