CDC says coronavirus spreads mainly ~ through ~ aerosols and droplets

Again, you make good points; I like your reasoning and you defend it well. I'd just dispute one point; a lot of people blame the epidemiological models for "predicting" 2 million deaths when that was never a "prediction." Models have best case scenarios, medium, and worst case scenarios. The American and British epidemiological models that talked of millions of deaths made it abundantly clear that it wasn't a prediction, but merely a projection of what could happen in the worst case scenario if no containment measures whatsoever were employed. Even without any government measures, just the sheer fear factor of a regular citizen who decides to stay home, not go to a restaurant, not go to a concert, has an impact on making the real life situation less dire than the worst case scenario with no precautions taken whatsoever.

If you want to use that as an indication that the administration did a good job, then to be fair you'd have to look at the model's best case scenario as well. Well, the University of Washington had suggested that if all went well with ideal precautions, we'd have had 61,000 deaths and by Independence Day we'd be having one death per day, and by August 6 the contagion would completely extinguish. So, if you were to look at that, you'd have to say that the administration(s) (feds, state, city) did poorly and allowed 160,000 unnecessary deaths.

Neither approach is fair. You shouldn't compare to the best case scenario, but you shouldn't compare to the worst case scenario either.

Me, I'm less impressed with epidemiological models. I gauge these things by what I see as positive and negative moves.

Warp Speed Initiative: positive
Undermining masks at all times including recently, the president berating a reporter for wearing one and praising another reporter for being maskless: negative
Threatening 3M with the Defense Production Act until they finally started beefing up the domestic production of N95s: positive
Issuing guidelines to curtail testing, trying to defund certain grants to beef up testing: negative
Finally implementing a strict lockdown in New York: positive
Before finally implementing the above, undermining things with delay in implementation and bonehead statements about come to Chinatown: negative
Securing the world stock of remdesivir for use in American hospitals: positive
Touting hydroxychloroquine repeatedly despite evidence that its meager benefits are outweighed by its important risks: negative

And so on and so forth. I give credit when credit is due and I have praised some of Trump's moves, but I also criticize his administration when it's warranted, and when I do that, I'm speaking from the medico-scientific standpoint rather than from the political standpoint.

This said, even though I do give credit to Trump for some good moves, unfortunately my internal score card for him is overall negative. I think that he has contributed to the spread more than he has contributed to curb it, mostly by relishing his supporters disdain for containment measures and constantly minimizing the threat and undermining wiser advice from scientists.

 

What is clear is that the world made mistakes that were born out of the deception that came from China and WHO in December-March. The world had no chance and scrambled when the whole damn reason WHO was created was for every or most, countries to be on the same page with good information to provide safe and effective mitigation. WHO failed miserably at their only task and every country in the World was devastated from their political bias/cover up for China.

I also agree it's unlikely to be lab created but based on China's deception track record it is not 100% out of the realm of possibility. All the lab witnesses that could have assured us this didn't happen have ALL MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED. I'm no conspiracy theorist but something smells really bad here.

 

The only people saying the virus was natural are vested bureaucrats and politicians.

Believe those people at one's own peril.

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I have a better understanding of your viewpoint. I find it sad that we, as a society, have become so stuck on appearances that we rarely question who is really hiding behind the curtain. "The Wizard" isn't real. Notwithstanding all of his shady practices, I am stunned at the number of people willing to overlook and/or minimize hundreds of thousands of deaths. I just don't get it.

 

That's fair on the modeling and exactly why I pointed out certain posters in this forum were using these as gospel, well if they are we stepped up. The truth is it was all a guess because it was a NOVEAL VIRUS, what's right and wrong can be judged after the fact but it's obvious the science was a crap shoot early on. This thread alone, we still are finding out how little mask can protect when the truth is it was obvious from the day we knew how small of a particle covid could be spread by we knew a cloth mask couldn't stop virus coming or going. The message should've been easy. A mask can stop large droplets but Covid is spread through large droplets and fine aerosol and does not protect you from covid. That being said, social distancing and hand washing was and is your best method period, the original guidance!!! That's the truth and could've eliminated some of this mask partisan political nonsense we've heard for months.

I get the hydox fever but there has been evidence that it worked and as time has gone on and more studies have been done we know it was false hope. I have no problem with using a safe drug prescribed by your DR knowing the risk and with very small chance of side effects in hope that it might work. We do it all the time and these practices have resulted in medical break throughs. It didn't work, even though we hoped it would it shouldn't have been politized as not working until the studies were complete. Heck they're still on going today. Trump's score breaks down on party lines and the real guess is what Biden's would've been. Who knows but him calling Trump xenophobic in February because of the shutdown ,does not give me confidence. We all knew by then it was a spreader in China and most could reasonably conclude not allowing potential spreaders in our country was a good thing. Instead even that was used in political manner and one could reasonably say downplayed the virus without knowledge.

 

I wouldn't say that masks don't protect you from Covid. They protect in various degrees, some way more than others, some way less, from a 2% loose bandana to a 98% respirator with a tight seal. But yes, masks should never have been turned into this partisan political nonsense, but hey, Trump is also to blame for it; I mean, berating a reporter for wearing one and praising another one for being maskless, on nation TV? How is that helpful??

Sure, I'd have loved for hydroxyzine to work. It has a limited capacity as a ionophore for zinc which is likely what really helps. But it is slow to reach level in the pulmonary tissues, and there are better ionophores that act faster, such as quercetin. No, the "very small chance of side effects" is not true. While HCQ is safe for patients with lupus, RA, and malaria, it is definitely not safe for patients with Covid-19, given HCQ's propensity to slow down the impulses in the heart, causing what is called QTc prolongation (the corrected for heart rate interval between the Q and the T waves), badly affecting Covid-19 patients who already have inflammatory myocarditis from the virus. Safety of a drug is always disease specific, and a drug that can heal a patient with a disease, can kill another patient with a different disease, thus why they have FDA indications and contraindications.

HCQ is more harmful than helpful for Covid-19 patients, and it really irked me that a clueless non-medical doctor and non-scientist called Donald J. Trump dispensed medical advice to the population, explicitly saying "take it, you have nothing to lose" (Press Conference, White House, April 6, 2020 - look it up, it's available on the WH website). And it can't be said that he was mislead by his team of experts because au contraire, his experts at the time were saying "not so fast, it's unproven." Why in the hell did he think he knew better? He actually said in all words that he was smarter than the experts and had the gut feeling that HCQ would be a game changer. Wrong.

"We do it all the time and these practices have resulted in medical breakthroughs" - Not exactly. We do it in a controlled manner, while we wait for randomized clinical trials. That's exactly what the FDA authorized; emergency use inside trials. And then the data from the trials came up and the FDA correctly withdrew the authorization since the drug was more harmful than helpful - a lot of Covid-19 patients who could have survived, died of HCQ's cardiac toxicity added to the virus' own predilection for the heart). But Trump kept pushing for its use outside of the conditions of the EUA. But according to Trump, the FDA acted on this out of the "deep state." Ridiculous. Trump has no understanding of what real science is.

About the travel restrictions - they weren't a travel ban. You need to compare our travel restrictions to a real travel ban like Argentina's. Look at Trump's executive order. It has a page-long list of exceptions. Our restrictions weren't a ban. They were more porous than Swiss cheese and still allowed 40,000 in from China with no attached quarantine measures. Compare to Argentina: "No flights allowed from anywhere except rescue flights to bring in Argentine citizens. No one allowed in except Argentine citizens. All citizens that do come in need to comply with a 21-day mandatory quarantine."

Now, THAT's a travel ban. No ban is perfect but do observe that Argentina has half the deaths per million of population than we have here. What I'm saying is that almost no government was able to stop the contagion with a few exceptions, but it didn't need to be as bad as it's been, here. We're supposed to be the richest and most advanced country in the world, dammit! Still, with 4% of the world's population we have more than 20% of the world's deaths. Given our resources, it should have been the other way around.

About Democrats saying that a travel ban was xenophobic: wrong too, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Me, I remember saying to my wife, very early, as soon as trouble emerged in China and as soon as some scary characteristics of the virus got known: "We need a complete, tight travel ban from everywhere with entirely closed borders; only our citizens and lawful permanent residents should be allowed in but subject to tight mandatory quarantine and a deadline; if they want to come in if they're abroad, do it now up to a deadline subject to quarantine, then lock it all up and don't allow anybody else in."

I do understand that there wasn't a political or even popular will to do it... But on the other hand, to be touting Trump's insufficient travel restrictions is also wrong. At one point he was even allowing people from the UK to come in, with no restriction whatsoever on them, although they were one of the European hotspots. No, that was never a proper ban and it was never properly implemented. What is being touted as good action by Trump is actually poor and insufficient action. Would the Dems have done any better? Probably not, but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I didn't say mask don't protect you.
I don't agree that hydroxy was dangerous. The safety of the drug has decades of proof that it's certainly safe when used and prescribed by Dr recommendation. One of my College friends is a very highly reviewed epidemiologist and treated over 300 with it and he swears by it, that doesn't mean he's right but I won't ignore his results either.

I agree we needed to get the 40,000 Americans back and quarantined from China. I was shocked when Dems claimed it wasn't a ban because we brought them home and think it was something horrible to use that politically. I guess whatever will stick. Trump was still one of the earliest to actually ban, not restrict Europeans. He literally did it first and everyone else followed his china and europe bans. Either way good discussion and I appreciate the civil discussion.

 

Again, safety of a drug is disease-specific. HCQ is certainly mostly safe for malaria, lupus, and RA patients who DON'T have a viral infection that affects their hearts, but it is unsafe for Covid-19 patients. This has been established with no possible doubt and is not new. The FDA professional monograph about HCQ includes since 2007 a warning about HCQ's toxicity for the heart. And there are documented cases of death by the heart arrhythmia called Torsade de Pointes (French for burst of spikes), caused by QTc prolongation, caused by HCQ, even for lupus, RA, and malaria patients, which is why the FDA placed the warning there in 2007, already at the time quoting those deaths, much before the SARS-CoV-2 even existed.

Sorry, it's not a question of agreeing or not agreeing that HCQ is dangerous to Covid-19 patients. That's an established FACT and that's what is currently on the FDA release, and the same has been done by other country's reputable FDA-equivalent agencies, such as in Italy, France, and Belgium, last I checked, probably many more by now since I haven't been checking.

Sorry but I give zero weight to your college friend's experiencing treating 300 cases. Does he have 300 controls to compare with? Has he done cardiac MRI and troponin tests in all 300 looking for hidden myocarditis? Sorry but front line docs are very often not equipped for true scientific thinking and this "success" is anecdotal, in a disease that only kills 1% of patients and preferably the elderly with underlying conditions. So, first, were his 300 patients the elderly with underlying conditions? And even if they were, how does your college friend know if NOT giving them HCQ would have achieved the exact same result, given the absence of a control group and the low lethality of the disease (relatively speaking)? I mean, 99% of patients spontaneously recover... HCQ or not. This kind of experience proves nothing.

Meanwhile, the RECOVERY trial (all-caps because it's an acronym) by Oxford University treated more than 11,000 cases with controls, and concluded that HCQ is more harmful than helpful. Sorry, but that by far trumps (pun not intended) your college friend's experience. Also, a German study found 78% of survivors of Covid-19 with silent but significant heart lesions that can spell trouble a few years later. Who is to say your college friend didn't make his patient's hearts even worse by giving them HCQ, and he (and the patients) just don't know it yet?

You need to understand that what your college friend is doing is not science. Actually what he is doing is prescribing a potentially dangerous medication with no proven efficacy to his patients, off-label, against the FDA recommendations, and against the advice of cardiology societies and medical boards. So, sorry, I bet he is well-intentioned but he is wrong.

In Medicine and medical research we have what is called Level of Evidence or Strength of Evidence, part of the movement for Evidence-Based Medicine which is the current state-of-the-art. It establishes that a large RCT like the RECOVERY trial from Oxford is Level 1. There are 7 levels. The dead last level is the *opinion* of experts doing stuff and observing stuff with no controls, and that's only included (although dead last) when there is expert consensus. So even if there were expert consensus, your college friend's opinion would still be the dead last level of evidence. Since there is no consensus, much the opposite, cardiology societies like the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology explicitly advise AGAINST this practice, your college friend's opinion doesn't even qualify for the dead last level of evidence. It is below it, that is, it is no evidence, which is why I said I give zero weight to it.

I don't mean to offend him because as I said I'm sure he means well, but no, he is wrong. As a professor, I'm used to teaching other doctors (medical students, residents, fellows, doctoral students, post-doc) about this stuff and a good chunk of them don't have a good understanding of it, as medical schools often don't entirely prepare them to think scientifically, especially those who graduated before the Evidence-Based Medicine movement got going.

Like I said, Trump didn't ban anything. Look at the executive orders. They are restrictions, not bans, because they have a long long long long list of exceptions, all sorts of special visa holders still allowed in (the list of exempt visas is long), and so on and so forth. When I read it, I was appalled. There is an interactive web site that shows all countries in the world, you hover over the country and to the right the kind of travel ban or restrictions they have is shown, with color codes (red for full ban, white for no restriction whatsoever, and colors in-between). You hover over the US which is colored pink, the restrictions have endless exceptions; you hover over Argentina or Uruguay or Chile and some others which are colored red, and it's pretty simple: no incoming flights, nobody allowed in except citizens in rescue or medical flights, and those citizens still allowed in, must quarantine. Period, full stop, no exceptions.

Me too. While we have disagreed in many ways we did it with civility, and I did acknowledge your good points and agreed with many of them.

I'm on vacation today and for the next two days... binge-watching Picard on CBS All Access... will go back to watching, so have a nice day, cheers.

 

Which explains your posts and renders them pure nonsense

 

Well he's a peer reviewed and highly acclaimed epidemiologist and your an internet guy, I'll take his word for it over yours, sorry. I think your correct on overall effectiveness but not the safety so yes I disagree with you. Trump did ban but there have to be exceptions for citizens, children of citizens, air crew coming back after the 31st or anyone like the DOJ deems exempt for needed lawful reasons etc.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the People’s Republic of China, excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States is hereby suspended and limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation.

Sec. 2. Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.

(a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:

(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

(ii) any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;

(iii) any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21;

(iv) any alien who is the sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that both are unmarried and under the age of 21;

(v) any alien who is the child, foster child, or ward of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, or who is a prospective adoptee seeking to enter the United States pursuant to the IR-4 or IH-4 visa classifications;

(vi) any alien traveling at the invitation of the United States Government for a purpose related to containment or mitigation of the virus;

(vii) any alien traveling as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(C) or (D) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(C) or (D), as a crewmember or any alien otherwise traveling to the United States as air or sea crew;

(viii) any alien seeking entry into or transiting the United States pursuant to an A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 (as a foreign government official or immediate family member of an official), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-4, or NATO-6 visa;

(ix) any alien whose entry would not pose a significant risk of introducing, transmitting, or spreading the virus, as determined by the CDC Director, or his designee;

(x) any alien whose entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees based on a recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee; or

(xi) any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their designees.

(b) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to affect any individual’s eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consistent with the laws and regulations of the United States.

 

Maybe not two wrongs but hindsight is always right. There's that.

 

next they'll tell us it is our drinking water!

AND They'd love to convince us it is on all Republican ballots .. oops! I hope I not giving them any ideas!

 

So? The dead are still dead are they not?

I HIGHLY resent your saying they are insignificant because you want to go bowling

And that stat is a lie and I think you know it. Overall survival rates for a disease where most people don't even show symptoms are meaningless

Oh, and the latest info says that people survive far worse off than "just fine" Thousands of people are showing up with all sorts of terrible maladies and damages which we will have to deal with in the coming years.

And all because President Ego could not simply say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong, we should have locked down a lot harder at first and we're going to do so now" about 3 months ago

And STILL he's making a credible show of being reelected. Jeebus, hating the right people means a LOT to some, doesn't it?

 

had two reports of covid deaths here.. one had a stroke and a heart attack.. the other had been battling cancer for months.. go figure... must be money in reporting all deaths as "covid"

 

Dear, I'm the peer reviewer... I won't say more but it is guaranteed that if he thinks what you say he thinks, I know way more about this than he does, because he is just plain wrong. Yes, I'm an "Internet guy" but you don't suppose I'm some sort of keyboard AI, right? Even though I have this hobby of posting here, I also am a real person in the real world with real degrees and real professional experience. But anyway, you don't need to take me for a reference (although if you knew me in real life you would, and your college friend would too) but you can take the FDA for a reference.

https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download

"FDA has concluded that, based on this new information and other information discussed in the attached memorandum, it is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of HCQ and CQ may be effective in treating COVID-19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks. Accordingly, FDA revokes the EUA for emergency use of HCQ and CQ to treat COVID-19, pursuant to section 564(g)(2) of the Act. As of the date of this letter, the oral formulations of HCQ and CQ are no longer authorized by FDA to treat COVID-19."

You may find that the title of this FDA publication is suggestive:

FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safe...oroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

That is, your friend is wrong.

Or, if you want someone else because you might suspect that the FDA might be influenced by domestic politics, what about Oxford University, the freaking number 1 university in the entire world according to most rankings?

https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/...oquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19

What exactly is your basis to disprove the safety data???

Since March the American College of Cardiology was already worried about it. Here:

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardi...loroquine-azithromycin-treatment-for-covid-19

Is it domestic politics? Hell, no, it's shared by the European Society of Cardiology:

https://www.escardio.org/Education/...y/chloroquine-and-cardiovascular-side-effects

Too many damn exceptions. That's exactly what I was saying. And worse, NO WORD on any quarantine for these numerous exceptions. QED.

 

Like I said, since the beginning I was for a total travel ban. I grant you that I can't prove it here because I wasn't a member here at the time so I can't link you to a post of mine saying so, therefore you can choose to doubt me; that is perfectly fine. But I know what I was thinking at the time. In my case it is not hindsight.

 

And just about every reputable scientist that's actually investigated the matter, but if course Q-anon knows better than them. Besides, they're all IN ON IT. Right along with all the "pointy-bearded intellectuals" who believe in climate change and a spherical Earth. You tell those commies, Rush and Donald.

 

What happens in your corner of the woods doesn't determine what has happened everywhere else. This would be the equivalent of saying "in my town there hasn't been a bank robbery therefore I conclude that bank robberies don't exist and are a figment of filmmakers imagination." And no, there is no money in reporting all deaths as Covid. The partisan talking point that pretends that there is, is based on a small Medicare fund allocated by the CARES act to compensate hospitals for treating uninsured patients with Covid-19, and there is no evidence that it was ever misused. A doctor doing that would commit fraud and a federal felony against Medicare and risk incarceration and loss of license. Nobody is crazy enough to do that for ridiculously small gain.

"One had a stroke and a heart attack..." Covid-19 *causes* strokes and heart attacks. This is abundantly known now, and it is due to the endothelial lesions it causes. That is one of the known causes of death for Covid-19 patients, which affects coagulation and directly attacks the heart. And if the cancerous patient was not about to die the day he died of Covid-19, and might have survived another year or two or more without Covid-19, it is correct to call the death, a death by Covid-19. I've posted extensively before, about how death certificates are written and what is the correct understanding of a sequence of events leading to death. If you want to understand this issue better, please read the post I'll be linking to next, and the one before and after it; these three posts should nail it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...uld-i-vote-for.577079/page-20#post-1072010976

 

I would think if we were shutting down to shut it down but then I don't know any of the effects that might cause. I would think the President would have had that information at hand as well as would Congress so it's good that they had the decision to make.

 

I guess I'm one of those who minimize the death count, even if it were accurate, which it's not. Likely one reason for that is that I'm a fatalist. I watched my father die when I was 13 years old, so I have always accepted death as inevitable, and I have heard many people at funerals say something to the effect of "Well, Joe is in a better place now that he's passed on".

More, I did a year in Vietnam, so I was conditioned early on to accept death as inevitable, which it is.

I make a distinction between the death of an old man and the death of a young person. A line from Prairie Home Companion I have always found to be simple wisdom: "The death of an old man is never a tragedy".

It is foolish and unrealistic to think that the government can really prevent deaths. It is sentimental and romantic to think that it can and does, but it is not realistic.

In fact, government is responsible for deaths all over the world in its global war of terror.

In this case, there is ample evidence to show this was a planned event, and that government bureaucrats and related interests were responsible for what we have now.

This doesn't mean I am happy about what has happened. It means only that I accept that many have died, the bulk of them with the virus, a relatively small portion FROM the virus.

 

Sorry buddy, respectfully I'm glad your a reviewer and I still believe the Dr that actually practices at a very high level in epidemiology. That being said, I never said he did anything but use it in conjunction with other drugs to treat over 300 cases and he said he had great results.

The reason I say it's safe is because there is over 5 million are prescribed it and have been for decades.

Which exception to the china ban do you disagree with be specific?

 

I'm not "just" a reviewer. Peer reviewers are invited by scientific journals to do the peer reviews because of their long expertise and accomplishments, and understanding of the sciences, the methodology, the biostatistics, the analysis of the evidence, the study design, the end points, etc. I've been a member of editorial boards too, and I have 40 years of experience in the medico-scientific field, and I've authored literally hundreds of published papers (all peer-reviewed too) and a number of textbooks, and chapters in other textbooks. Oh, throw in some awards, too. As for actually practicing at a very high level, the same applies to me.

Anyway, like I said, let's leave my credentials aside, they are not necessary, as my opinion on this is shared by so many who do not need to remain anonymous because they are not posting on an anonymous political forum. The reason to remain anonymous here (of course I'm not anonymous elsewhere) is that with this screen name I also post about politics. We know what passions it entails. One makes enemies, and one should not reveal one's real life identity in these circumstances. Actually not only that, but my university discourages faculty from being active in social media and forums because often their opinions there can be construed as being the official opinion of the university which is not allowed and somewhat unethical, so for those who still want to post, our bylaws say that we should not identify ourselves and should not identify our universities and departments (or else you'd learn that mine is quite prestigious). So the only way I can enjoy this hobby is to remain anonymous.

So, you don't need to know who I am, because others say the same, on record. Have you actually read my links? Have you read what the principal investigators at Oxford said? What the Cardiology societies said? If not, you should.

For lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and malaria. Not for Covid-19. For Covid-19 it is unsafe, like the links I posted will show you. And there are others; I didn't post an extensive list because it would be tedious (although I could), but look at one more: this study was stopped because the treatment was causing too many cardiac deaths:
https://www.sciencealert.com/clinic...oroquine-stopped-early-due-to-safety-concerns

Why do you suppose in one of the links I gave you, the FDA said this medication is NOT to be used for Covid-19 but remains safe for lupus, RA, and malaria? Like I said many times but it doesn't seem like you want to listen, safety is disease-specific. Let me give you an example. Say, chemotherapy for leukemia, a situation in which white blood cells are too numerous. Those drugs will kill the abnormal, excessive leukocytes and will save the patient. So when given to a patient will leukemia, they are life-saving. But if you give them to a patient who does not have leukemia, not only the drug will do no good, but will also kill the person's normal leukocytes, leaving the person exposed to all sorts of infections, causing a condition called agranulocytosis which is fatal. So the drug is safe for leukemia but not for other patients with other conditions. Therefore it is indicated for leukemia and contra-indicated for conditions that have low white blood cells to start with. Get it?

Do you want another example? Give a diabetes drug to a diabetic person. The high level of blood glucose (sugar) will come down and the person will be well. But give it to a person who does not have diabetes, and the blood sugar will drop too low, and the person will get a condition called hypoglycemia that can lead to coma and in certain cases, death.

Get a drug like bupropion. Give it to regularly depressed people and they get better from depression. But give it to people with eating disorders (which unfortunately has been tried until the problem was noticed) and they get dangerous seizures. So it is safe and indicated for depression, but unsafe and contra-indicated for eating disorders. Do you get it now?

The fact that HCQ and CQ are safe for lupus, RA, and malaria and have been for decades (which I'm not disputing, and the FDA isn't, either) has NOTHING to do with the fact that it is unsafe for Covid-19, and that's a fact, not speculation. That has been unequivocally demonstrated already and is accepted knowledge.

Again, your college friend may THINK that he got great results with HCQ for his 300 patients... but how does he know? 99% of people with Covid-19 recover anyway. How does he know that they recovered because of HCQ, as opposed to recovering anyway despite HCQ? Great results? From a drug that has been LAVISHLY PROVEN not to work? You've already accepted my point about efficacy, so why are you still touting his great results? How does he achieve great results with a drug that doesn't work, one that you've acknowledged yourself that it doesn't??? Does he have a magic wand or something??

That's what randomized controlled trials are set up to respond to (if a drug seems to work by chance or fluke, or if it actually does work when compared to placebo in matched, randomized patients, double-blind so that there is no bias), and they have responded. The RCTs have concluded that HCQ is NOT helpful for Covid-19 patients and is actually dangerous for a subset of Covid-19 patients so like the FDA said, the risks outweigh the benefits.

Your friend should consider himself lucky that his 300 patients hopefully haven't died of Torsade de Pointes due to HCQ, otherwise he would be successfully sued by the families of the dead patients, because he is practicing against accepted guidelines and against FDA recommendation. If he keeps doing what he is doing, he may run into trouble, soon. The fact that he persists shows that regardless of your high opinion of him, he is not up to date with the latest literature, because this issue has been settled, already. While earlier in the pandemic it was acceptable to try that, it is no longer acceptable. So if he keeps doing it, he is outdated, and wrong.

See, I keep teaching my students, "don't think that if a side effect is rare, you're safe from malpractice because it will rarely happen. Keep doing it, and statistically speaking you will run into it and if things go wrong you may be found liable." So, maybe he is treating younger people with good hearts, but if he keeps doing this, at one point someone will die of Torsade de Pointes and if the family is sophisticated enough, he'll get sued, and they will win, because it will be easy for the plaintiff's lawyer to show that he kept doing it despite the FDA telling him not to.

And by the way, what exactly is a practicing epidemiologist? Epidemiology is not a clinical science. Typically epidemiologists do not treat patients. They run population-disease models, they consult for public health organizations and departments, they do research to look into patterns that can enlighten policy, etc. Epidemiologists belong more in a School of Public Health than in a medical school, or a hospital. Epidemiologists are not concerned about therapeutics. They are concerned about transmission, R naught number, herd immunity threshold, inflection point in a contagion curve, models of exponential growth, incidence and prevalence of disease, etc., etc. So I'm a bit at a loss about your assertion that your epidemiologist friend has treated 300 patients with Covid-19. What? Are you sure he is an epidemiologist???

All of them. Argentina didn't allow ANY foreigner with ANY visa in, and no flight crew because they cancelled ALL flights except their own flights to rescue Argentines stranded abroad. They didn't even allow diplomatic visas to come in. No investors, no people that their equivalents of the State Department or NIH or CDC or whoever wanted to bring in, no nothing, no exceptions, period. They took the stance that these people can all come in after the pandemic is over or conduct their business through teleconference. By the way, if you keep looking at the current exceptions. the White House has increased the number of exceptions to even include F visas and J visas for students and exchange visitors, and even brothers and sisters and non-minor children of citizens. That is not happening in Argentina. Go to the State Department website and see the newest list of exceptions. There was outcry when the White House tried to limit foreign college students to come in if their colleges didn't have in-person classes, and then the White House caved in and allowed these, too. Preposterous.

The only exceptions should be American citizens, and lawful permanent residents + their immediate family (spouses, minor children) and ALL of these should have been quarantined for 14 days which Trump's executive order didn't do - and it is up to the Feds because the Feds have control of the borders.

 

40+ yrs in the same job.

 

I am sorry for the loss of your dad. I imagine that's difficult for most people regardless of their age.

I don't disagree. While death is unavoidable, it seems that much of this was preventable or, at least, mitigable.

The fact that governments are responsible for deaths all over the world doesn't exempt them from trying to prevent or lessen the death toll in any circumstances. Clearly, war is not productive for anyone except maybe weapons and uniform manufacturers.

Where do we draw the line? How much is "too much"?