Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,458
40,816
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
You asked for facts and I gave them. You know those nursing home patients survival rate would be minute even today.

If you're arguing that were that much better at treatment now, then let's all go back to normal.

Just accept you're wrong on this one. You're better than this.
We're better at keeping people from dying from acute infection. We're learning that there may be long-term health effects even in asymptomatic patients. In order to go back to normal we have to slow the rate of infection so that we can avoid those long-term health consequences.

The only fact you offered was 4500 patients sent back to nursing homes. Over 32,000 deaths. In order for the 4500 to account for the 32,000 deaths the R0 would have to be around 14 or so. It isn't.

If I'm wrong you certainly haven't proven it.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,458
40,816
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
From the ABC article:

Cuomo, a Democrat, on May 10 reversed the directive, which had been intended to help free up hospital beds for the sickest patients as cases surged. But he continued to defend it this week, saying he didn't believe it contributed to the more than 5,800 nursing and adult care facility deaths in New York — more than in any other state — and that homes should have spoken up if it was a problem.​

5800 nursing home deaths out of 32,000. Sending patients back to nursing homes was stupid, but it doesn't come close to accounting for the spike in and of itself.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,835
4,066
743
So question. Is your blood type 'O'? My wife(not 'O') got pretty sick in February with what seemed to be this, all the symptoms including loss of taste, and me being 'O' got similar symptoms to you for a few days.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Yes as a matter of fact I am type O.
I wonder where the blood type study is at? It might have some basis.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,835
4,066
743
Here you go.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/ap-count-4300-virus-patients-ny-nursing-homes-70825470

I'll give you your third point, we've almost certainly gotten better at treating it. Which also further invalidates your NY spike comparison.
We've gotten better at treating it, so if we had been better at treating it when New York spiked then it still would have been just as bad in New York?

Nah.
Truthfully, there's no way to tell since they had so many deaths in nursing homes. General population would be better sure, but sending those people into the homes would probably have been very bad even so.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
14,437
9,234
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
I wonder where the blood type study is at? It might have some basis.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Took my test about an hour ago. I feel 100% fine today. About to trim limbs and mow the lawn. I took the dog for a 45 minute walk this morning. My wife feels fine today also. It's been 14 days since that dinner at my parent's house that everyone came out of positive (pending my results). It's all strange. It's like I'm waiting around for something to happen.

Note to anyone who reads my posts on this thread:

I'm not discounting anyone else's experience with this so if any of my posts sound like I'm trying to say this isn't a big deal, I don't mean that. I'm just sharing what's going on at my house. Which so far hasn't been a big deal for us. My brother in law is in pretty good shape so it sounds like he's overcoming his pneumonia. That would've been a major deal for someone in bad health so I realize how dangerous this could be.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,835
4,066
743
From the ABC article:

Cuomo, a Democrat, on May 10 reversed the directive, which had been intended to help free up hospital beds for the sickest patients as cases surged. But he continued to defend it this week, saying he didn't believe it contributed to the more than 5,800 nursing and adult care facility deaths in New York — more than in any other state — and that homes should have spoken up if it was a problem.​

5800 nursing home deaths out of 32,000. Sending patients back to nursing homes was stupid, but it doesn't come close to accounting for the spike in and of itself.
If he had instead sent them to the hospital ship in his harbor or utilized it in some other way, there wouldn't have been 5800 nursing home deaths. That is a large chunk of people that would not have been near as high.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2006
1,246
714
1,743
We're better at keeping people from dying from acute infection. We're learning that there may be long-term health effects even in asymptomatic patients. In order to go back to normal we have to slow the rate of infection so that we can avoid those long-term health consequences.

The only fact you offered was 4500 patients sent back to nursing homes. Over 32,000 deaths. In order for the 4500 to account for the 32,000 deaths the R0 would have to be around 14 or so. It isn't.

If I'm wrong you certainly haven't proven it.
20% is a huge chunk.

The point you were wrong about was implying that a NY spike is coming based on similar population numbers. That is simply not true. If 20% were caused by the nursing home situation and an unknown % decrease in fatalities is because of better treatments and other factors then you've proven yourself that that comparison was BS.

I enjoy debating with you and I hope to have a beer with you in Stillwater someday.

The other article you just posted was excellent. Thank you for posting it. I did wear a mask at church this morning.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,458
40,816
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
20% is a huge chunk.

The point you were wrong about was implying that a NY spike is coming based on similar population numbers. That is simply not true. If 20% were caused by the nursing home situation and an unknown % decrease in fatalities is because of better treatments and other factors then you've proven yourself that that comparison was BS.

I enjoy debating with you and I hope to have a beer with you in Stillwater someday.

The other article you just posted was excellent. Thank you for posting it. I did wear a mask at church this morning.
And if we had been better at the time at treating the other 80% what would the peak have looked like?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,458
40,816
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
If he had instead sent them to the hospital ship in his harbor or utilized it in some other way, there wouldn't have been 5800 nursing home deaths. That is a large chunk of people that would not have been near as high.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Please, I'm not arguing that it was the right thing to do. I'm saying that part of the reason the deaths looked so bad in NY is because of when the virus peaked there, in March/April when we knew a lot less about treating it.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,241
3,576
1,743
More than 40% of COVID-19 deaths in our country have occurred in nursing homes. New York made a mistake by sending patients back to nursing homes, but they've actually fared pretty well in comparison to other states by this metric.

IMO, the primary reason New York was hit so hard is because NYC has the highest population in our country and we didn't know how to treat the virus very well early on. They probably would've fared better if their peak would've come later in the year like southern states.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html
1597002947931.png
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,458
40,816
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Here we have Yale epidemiologists refuting a Yale epidemiologist. From medium.com:

Statement from Yale Faculty on Hydroxychloroquine and its Use in COVID-19
Gregg Gonsalves
Aug 4 · 7 min read

We write with grave concern that too many are being distracted by the ardent advocacy of our Yale colleague, Dr. Harvey Risch, to promote the assertion that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when given with antibiotics is effective in treating COVID-19, in particular as an early therapeutic intervention for the disease. As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions. But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments. Over the last few weeks, all of us have spent considerable time explaining the evidence behind HCQ research, as it applies to early and late stage COVID-19 patients to the scientific community and general public, and now are compelled to detail the evidence in this open letter.

We are seriously alarmed for the safety of patients and the coherence and effectiveness of our national COVID-19 emergency response when misinformation about HCQ is spread and when rigorous scientific evidence and consensus produced by the community of expert researchers in infectious diseases, federal agencies and national and global health organizations are not heeded. Let us be clear: we are unanimous in our desire to see the development of therapies to treat COVID-19 and to prevent the transmission or acquisition of SARS-CoV-2. If HCQ was shown to be effective, even among subgroups of patients with COVID-19 in ongoing high quality trials, we would join our colleagues in promoting access to it for all who need it. However, the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19.

HCQ is used for the treatment of rheumatological diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. However, this does not ensure that the drug will be safe in patients with COVID-19 or in widespread use to treat early illness. In fact, rigorously-conducted clinical trials have found that HCQ is not effective as an early prophylactic therapy in preventing illness due to COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus. Furthermore, HCQ, alone or together with the antibiotic, azithromycin, has not been shown to be effective in improving the clinical status of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, clinical trials have found that treatment with HCQ may be associated with increased risk of adverse reactions. Taken together, the scientific evidence does not support the widespread use of this drug, alone or in combination with an antibiotic, as advocated by Dr. Risch and others, unless rigorous evidence from clinical trials demonstrates otherwise.

Finally, we point to the recent memorandum from the US Food and Drug Administration revoking the Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ that has assembled the data on the drug as of June 2020 (Food and Drug Administration Memorandum Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate). The Infectious Diseases Society of America now advises against the drug alone or in combination with azithromycin in the setting of COVID-19 except in the context of ongoing clinical studies. If these trials do show a clinical benefit for HCQ, we would revise our views on its use in the management of COVID-19.

The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine. We understand the desperation of many to see an effective treatment for COVID-19 emerge that will stop the pandemic in its tracks or slow its relentless spread in the US. But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease. There are multiple approaches to expedite the evaluation and approval of drugs for serious and life-threatening diseases in the US that have existed for decades now, but they all still rely on data from rigorous, well-conducted clinical trials to guide us. In addition, this ongoing promotion of HCQ has global implications as well, as many countries in the global South only have access to HCQ and use of HCQ is still common in this setting despite the lack of evidence and potential risks.

It is critical that we follow the science and where the evidence leads us on a quest to treat and prevent COVID-19. In this climate, it’s important to rely on the data above all else when making clinical or regulatory decisions. Making these kinds of choices guided by personal endorsements outside of the context of the existing scientific evidence is medicine by testimonial and risks people’s lives. Randomized controlled trials are how we keep from fooling ourselves, test our assumptions about new drugs and new uses for old ones. For instance, flecainide was initially proposed as a drug to treat those at risk of severe arrhythmias after sudden myocardial infarction. However, the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial showed for the first time that mortality was actually three times higher among persons receiving the drug for this purpose. Even though the drug was known to be effective in those experiencing severe arrhythmia, it ended up increasing mortality in those simply at risk. And no one noticed because sudden death after myocardial infarction was not a rare event and this tripling of the risk was not detected until a randomized, controlled trial was done. The FDA has rescinded the EUA for HCQ for a reason: the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the drug is without merit in clinical care for COVID-19 and presents real dangers to patients by its continued use.

In 1987, University of California at Berkeley Professor Peter Duesberg gained notoriety by expounding on his belief that AIDS was not caused by the human immunodeficiency virus, but by antiretroviral agents like azidothymidine (AZT) and recreational drugs. However, the data on antiretroviral therapy was clear: these drugs extended life and health and turned around the course of the AIDS epidemic worldwide. But Professor Duesberg persisted in his quest. Professor Duesberg’s thesis dissuaded many from taking antiretroviral therapy, and after the President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki endorsed these views, it led to delays in the roll-out of these life-saving drugs costing hundreds of thousands of lives in that country. While minority opinions, anecdotal evidence, novel interpretations and challenges to orthodoxies in a field can be important, at some point, the application of the scientific method generating evidence from multiple, well-designed clinical trials and observational studies does matter and should be heard over the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots.

Signed,

Jason Abaluck, PhD
Associate Professor of Economics
Yale School of Management

Amy Bei, PhD
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health

Theodore Cohen, MD, DPH
Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Co-director, Public Health Modeling Concentration
Yale School of Public Health

Gary V. Desir, MD
Paul B. Beeson Professor of Medicine
Vice Provost, Faculty Development and Diversity
Chair, Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine
Chief, Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital

Gail D’Onofrio MD
Professor & Chair, Emergency Medicine
Yale School of Medicine
Yale School of Public Health

Howard P. Forman, MD, MBA
Professor of Radiology & Public Health (Health Policy)
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Medicine
Professor in the Practice of Management
Yale School of Management

Alison Galvani, PhD
Burnett and Stender Families Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis (CIDMA)
Yale School of Public Health

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health
Associate Professor (Adjunct) and Research Scholar
Yale Law School

Nathan D. Grubaugh, PhD
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health

Roberta Hines, MD
Nicholas M. Greene Professor & Chair of Anesthesiology
Yale School of Medicine

Valerie Horsley, PhD
Associate Professor of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology
Yale University

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD
Waldemar Von Zedtwitz Professor of Immunobiology and Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology
Yale School of Medicine
Professor of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology
Yale University

Amy Kapczynski, JD
Professor of Law
Yale Law School

Trace Kershaw, PhD
Department Chair and Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Public Health (Social and Behavioral Sciences)
Yale School of Public Health

Albert I. Ko, MD
Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine and Chair of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases
Yale School of Public Health

Stephen R. Latham, JD, PhD
Director, Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics
Yale University

Brett Lindenbach, PhD
Associate Professor, Microbial Pathogenesis
Yale School of Medicine

Fiona Scott Morton, PhD
Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics
Yale School of Management

Ruslan Medzhitov, PhD
Sterling Professor of Immunobiology
Yale School of Medicine

Saad B. Omer, MBBS MPH PhD FIDSA
Professor of Medicine (Infectious Diseases),Yale School of Medicine
Adjunct Professor, Yale School of Nursing

Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health

A. David Paltiel, PhD
Professor of Health Policy & Management
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Management

Sunil Parikh, MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Medicine

Karen Santucci, MD
Professor & Chief, Pediatric Emergency Medicine
Yale School of Medicine

Marcella Nunez Smith, MD, MHS
Associate Professor, General Internal Medicine, Public Health, and Management
Yale School of Medicine
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Management
Director, Equity Research and Innovation Center

Daniel Weinberger, PhD
Associate Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health
 

poknround

Banned
Banned
Oct 25, 2009
1,160
600
1,743
Wabashaw, WI
We're better at keeping people from dying from acute infection. We're learning that there may be long-term health effects even in asymptomatic patients. In order to go back to normal we have to slow the rate of infection so that we can avoid those long-term health consequences.

The only fact you offered was 4500 patients sent back to nursing homes. Over 32,000 deaths. In order for the 4500 to account for the 32,000 deaths the R0 would have to be around 14 or so. It isn't.

If I'm wrong you certainly haven't proven it.
Just fyi...this guy is never wrong about anything. He is the all knowing. If he told you apples were really red oranges, he would be right.
 

PF5

Cowboy
Jan 3, 2014
467
177
593
The NBA bubble seems to be working quite well...if all people in the 'bubble' don't have covid, then why do they still wear masks?!