Jump to content

Co-vid 19: What Is and Isn't Known, Discussion and Debate


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Can you point me to some vocal opposition to the protests by a health expert? One that got news coverage from the big news sources?

That was pretty easy:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dr-fauci-voices-concerns-coronavirus-spreading-amid-nationwide/story?id=71171103

If major news sources don't cover it as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean the experts aren't saying it.  That is on them and on the public health experts. 

26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The CDC was concerned but the bigger headlines were protests were more important. A simple google search makes it clear. 

Ok?  So you admit the public health leaders and CDC were concerned with the protests, and?  It sounds like your beef is with the media and not the public health agencies.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, pogi said:

We will all eventually die of the exact same thing actually - oxygen deprivation.  What matters more to me is not how, but when that will happen.  I plan to suck as much juice out of this life as I possibly can before I die. 

Meh. It's not as though I won't leave behind anyone who will miss me when I kick off (I hope! :huh: Will anyone show up at my funeral?  I guess I won't care because I'll be elsewhere and otherwise occupied, but still ...), and I'm not going to do anything drastic, but the thrill is gone ... It is completely gone.  There isn't a lot keeping me here, and that's a gross overstatement. :rolleyes:

Link to post
49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a tempting reaction but there are much less horrible ways to die.

Carbon monoxide comes to mind. :rolleyes:

Link to post
2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I've been watching the left celebrate the death of this man all day. Pretty sad.

With US deaths passing 150k it is hard not to see some ghoulish 'reap what you sow' irony in death coming to someone who rejoiced at the lack of mandatory masking at the rally that was the most likely vector for him to get infected. It is completely understandable and human. He seemed to enjoy that kind of irony when he used a 'reap what you sow' situation with a mayor that supported BLM whose home was later vandalized.

I am more worried then ever I am going to get that steak dinner when I bet my friend the total death toll in the US will be closer to 500k than 250k. It may not work out anyways. I am not even sure if that steakhouse will survive. I hope so and I hope I am buying. :( 

 

In general news Russia is pushing their vaccines at an incredibly dangerous pace. Russia's process seems to have involved stealing data from researchers, skipping steps in upgrading test group sizes, reportedly injected into too-young infants, and beta-testing on the military. Scary, but a quintessentially Russian approach. It is reported that the Russian elite (political and corporate) have already gotten the vaccine. More then anything that convinces me Russia is trying to hide how bad it is there. If Russian oligarchs all start having strange illnesses in the next few years we will know. They want to start distribution in August. Frightening.

 

In another horrifying development a sample of 100 coronavirus survivors was taken. About 2/3rds of them recovered at home without hospitalization and the sample size was aimed at younger survivors. The average age was 49. They found that 78 had structural changes to the heart, 76 had a biomarker that you usually see after a traumatic cardiac event like a heart attack, and 60 had inflammation. No one knows if the damage will heal itself in time or how dangerous it is but many doubt it will fix itself. Hopefully it will in most or all cases.

The sample size excluded people with known pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. This is in addition to or possibly tied to the blood clotting issues also reported in survivors. Oh, and the potential lung damage and lungs are one of the hardest things to do anything about when they go bad.

Please do not get the virus with the idea of "getting it over with". It is looking more and more like there could be long term complications that could go on for years in some patients. This study has not been done yet on asymptomatic survivors so it is unknown if being asymptomatic mitigates this effect. In addition a lot of anecdotal reports are coming out about longer recoveries. I was talking to someone online earlier today who has recovered but still felt they had not yet fully recovered in terms of physical wellness three months after the symptoms subsided. There are a lot of these stories. Having had Covid could end up being a preexisting condition for many people in the years ahead.

Be careful out there.

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

That was pretty easy:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dr-fauci-voices-concerns-coronavirus-spreading-amid-nationwide/story?id=71171103

If major news sources don't cover it as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean the experts aren't saying it.  That is on them and on the public health experts. 

Ok?  So you admit the public health leaders and CDC were concerned with the protests, and?  It sounds like your beef is with the media and not the public health agencies.  

So, yay, we are equally outraged that the protests and large funerals should not be happening and are bad. The public hypocrisy from many has muddied the message and is bad for public health.  The media plays a large role in sending conflicting information to the public.

I am not a anti-masker or covid denier. But, politics has corrupted the messaging and I understand why people don't trust everything they hear...especially when public health experts and officials change their advice from month to month and situation to situation and the media play games with dueling experts. It's all just a mess.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)

I feel this is getting more into the political side of the discussion...hard not to given the topic of masks these days. I think concerns about accuracy and POV have been well expressed, but why some think -_______ is okay to violate safe practices while other -______ they are not personally supporting are not okay isn’t so much a medical issue, but a sociological one. 
 

So can we move back to the more concentrated medical info, please. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post

Not sure if it has been discussed, but "close contact" has an interesting and somewhat alarming definition.

I think if more people knew how  "close contact" was defined there would less animosity about masks. 

 

"For COVID-19, a close contact is defined as any individual who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to positive specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated."

I was a bit put off by the definition and I think others would be also; but as I thought about it, there is no mention of masks and I took that to mean "close contact" means with or without mask, the contact is treated the same AND the contact even if all parties are masksed potentially results in infection.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, provoman said:

Not sure if it has been discussed, but "close contact" has an interesting and somewhat alarming definition.

I think if more people knew how  "close contact" was defined there would less animosity about masks. 

 

"For COVID-19, a close contact is defined as any individual who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to positive specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated."

I was a bit put off by the definition and I think others would be also; but as I thought about it, there is no mention of masks and I took that to mean "close contact" means with or without mask, the contact is treated the same AND the contact even if all parties are masksed potentially results in infection.

Worse, the 6 feet safety zone is mostly a guess and was originally intended for outdoor incidental interaction. If you are sitting six feet away from someone in a building for extended periods it is believed to be a pretty substantial risk with or without a mask.

The new interest I am seeing is combining a mask with a face shield (similar to riot face shields). The face shield is obviously not airtight but basic testing shows that it should mitigate risk a little more for the wearer while the face mask mostly mitigates the risk to everyone else. Not sure if the difference is worth it but some are doing it.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Oh, and one tip I do not remember seeing in this thread but I apologize if it is a repeat. If you or someone you are with are lying down and have Covid and are having trouble breathing or feel like they cannot get enough oxygen even if they are breathing try flipping yourself or them onto the stomach or, if they cannot bear that due to weight or pain or medical condition, onto their side. Stomach is best if possible. Many have experienced near immediate relief. Hope no one here ever needs it.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2
Link to post
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, and one tip I do not remember seeing in this thread but I apologize if it is a repeat. If you or someone you are with are lying down and have Covid and are having trouble breathing or feel like they cannot get enough oxygen even if they are breathing try flipping yourself or them onto the stomach or, if they cannot bear that due to weight or pain or medical condition, onto their side. Stomach is best if possible. Many have experienced near immediate relief. Hope no one here ever needs it.

I have read they have been able to avoid putting people on ventilators by doing this, but haven't seen general announcement.  Good idea to get it out there and repeat it a lot for it to sink in.

Link to post

Latest thing in fashion is antiviral clothing.  Before you buy....
 

https://www.everydayhealth.com/coronavirus/can-antiviral-clothing-protect-you-from-covid-19/

Quote

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) consider person-to-person contact with respiratory droplets produced while talking, sneezing, or coughing to be the main mode of coronavirus transmission. “The numbers of cases of COVID-19 transmitted by people who happened to touch a surface where someone recently sneezed — cases that might be prevented by wiping your hands on an antiviral fabric — are minuscule compared with the cases transmitted by droplet transmissions,” Dr. Kuritzkes says. “That’s why the CDC has deemphasized surface transmission.”

 

Link to post
50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, and one tip I do not remember seeing in this thread but I apologize if it is a repeat. If you or someone you are with are lying down and have Covid and are having trouble breathing or feel like they cannot get enough oxygen even if they are breathing try flipping yourself or them onto the stomach or, if they cannot bear that due to weight or pain or medical condition, onto their side. Stomach is best if possible. Many have experienced near immediate relief. Hope no one here ever needs it.

👍 Thank you! Don't have it that I know of, but good info!

Link to post
15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The sample size excluded people with known pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. This is in addition to or possibly tied to the blood clotting issues also reported in survivors. Oh, and the potential lung damage and lungs are one of the hardest things to do anything about when they go bad.

Please do not get the virus with the idea of "getting it over with". It is looking more and more like there could be long term complications that could go on for years in some patients. This study has not been done yet on asymptomatic survivors so it is unknown if being asymptomatic mitigates this effect. In addition a lot of anecdotal reports are coming out about longer recoveries. I was talking to someone online earlier today who has recovered but still felt they had not yet fully recovered in terms of physical wellness three months after the symptoms subsided. There are a lot of these stories. Having had Covid could end up being a preexisting condition for many people in the years ahead.

http://americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/hydroxy_hysteria_reaching_a_fever_pitch.html

Link to post
12 hours ago, provoman said:

Not sure if it has been discussed, but "close contact" has an interesting and somewhat alarming definition.

I think if more people knew how  "close contact" was defined there would less animosity about masks. 

 

"For COVID-19, a close contact is defined as any individual who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to positive specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated."

I was a bit put off by the definition and I think others would be also; but as I thought about it, there is no mention of masks and I took that to mean "close contact" means with or without mask, the contact is treated the same AND the contact even if all parties are masksed potentially results in infection.

I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate?  

I educate people about this everyday so I am curious as to what you saw as off-putting in that definition, it might help me better educate my patients.  People seem to accept it just fine, but if there is some way I could teach it better, I would like to know.  I guess I don't quite understand what you are saying about masks and how that alters your perception of this definition. 

Thanks     

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, longview said:

I'm a middle-wayer, and I'm more than happy if this drug was given to those with Covid in the hospitals on ventilators or even those that want to treat it at home with a doctor's prescription. We should be open to the idea of it helping. I am more than willing to be proven wrong/right on this. I just want the US to figure it out soon. And I want the political parties to come together and unite in finding a way out of this. 

Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Worse, the 6 feet safety zone is mostly a guess and was originally intended for outdoor incidental interaction. If you are sitting six feet away from someone in a building for extended periods it is believed to be a pretty substantial risk with or without a mask.

Yep.  I have investigated a huge (around 100 infected within a few week period) outbreak in a single call center where desks where 10 feet apart.  They eventually closed it down and had their employees start working from home.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, longview said:

More political commentary than any medical info, so please delete and start your own thread if you want on this article. 
 

Medical claims have been addressed on the video, so please let’s move on. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, longview said:

Anything particular you want to discuss about that article that hasn't already been discussed 10 times?

This:

Quote

From the media’s reaction, you might have thought she was recommending bloodletting or exorcism as a cure for cancer and heart disease.

There is enough confusion around Chloroquine already, so when you have a witch doctor disguised as a white-coat confusing the public even more by recommending that people stop wearing masks because there is a "cure" for Covid, then yes, she deserves all the heat she received.   What she recommended was deadly.

Quote

“Dr. Fauci says all the ‘valid’ scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating coronavirus.” Perhaps he missed the Henry Ford study.

No, I'm sure he didn't miss the Ford study, but I am certain that whoever wrote this article didn't read past the headline of the study to learn about its limitations:

Quote

A large flaw in this study is that 77% of patients who got hydroxychloroquine also got a steroid, while only 37% of those who didn’t get hydroxychloroquine got a steroid.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Worse, the 6 feet safety zone is mostly a guess and was originally intended for outdoor incidental interaction. If you are sitting six feet away from someone in a building for extended periods it is believed to be a pretty substantial risk with or without a mask.

The new interest I am seeing is combining a mask with a face shield (similar to riot face shields). The face shield is obviously not airtight but basic testing shows that it should mitigate risk a little more for the wearer while the face mask mostly mitigates the risk to everyone else. Not sure if the difference is worth it but some are doing it.

I listened to one of the leading doctors in Los Angeles address face shields.  Yes you can get Covid through the eyes, but it is very rare.  Almost all infections come through the nose and mouth.  Face shields are most effective when within a foot of the patient such as health workers.  Since they aren't tight, even that has limited effectiveness.  His take is, yes there is a very minor benefit to eye shields, but probably not worth the practical use of them unless you are within a foot of an infected person.  Hope that is helpful.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Oh good, another deep article that quotes Trump's "sex with demons and witches in your sleep cause ovarian cysts" witch doctor who has 'cured hundreds of patients' with hydroxychloroquine despite not practicing medicine in years. When questioned about her at a press briefing a few days ago he walked out. That article lamentably fails to point out that the hysteria originated with nuts insisting it was a treatment, a cure, or even a prevention mechanism with little to no medical evidence while studies were still ongoing. Now they are accusing the medical community of "hysteria" for trying to counter their misinformation wishing people would shut up and leave the misinformation out there.

(In a building on fire)

"There is an easily accessible exit right here!"

"I am in charge of the theater and a lot of people are talking about this exit. It is very interesting and I think people should try to look into this exit in a big way.

"No, there isn't. It isn't on the plans and no one has gotten out that way except for a few unconfirmed reports that do not rule out them getting out another way."

"Look, I have a fire expert right here who says hundreds of people have escaped through this exit."

"No one listen to this crazy man! His expert thinks fires are caused by demons mating with cats and has not worked in fire safety for years. They were promoting cryptocurrency and snake oil for years."

"Dude, calm down. Don't be hysterical about the fire exit. So it might not work that well. It is not a big deal. You are blowing it out of all proportion."

(People continue to burn, some desperately trying to get to the alleged exit)

The hysteria is "don't take it" for Covid. If it takes hysteria to drive that into the brains of idiots so be it. Don't blame the corrective. Blame those who started the misinformation.

Link to post
57 minutes ago, california boy said:

I listened to one of the leading doctors in Los Angeles address face shields.  Yes you can get Covid through the eyes, but it is very rare.  Almost all infections come through the nose and mouth.  Face shields are most effective when within a foot of the patient such as health workers.  Since they aren't tight, even that has limited effectiveness.  His take is, yes there is a very minor benefit to eye shields, but probably not worth the practical use of them unless you are within a foot of an infected person.  Hope that is helpful.

Yeah, it is unlikely to catch on. One person I read this morning said she wears one not so much for the protection from the air but because it keeps her from touching her face and rubbing her eyes. I guess if you have a problem with unconsciously doing so it serves as a bit of an extra protection there. If you have that problem it is a remedy.

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

No, I'm sure he didn't miss the Ford study, but I am certain that whoever wrote this article didn't read past the headline of the study to learn about its limitations:

For an example of a scientific study easy to misinterpret:

"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

First line of the conclusion: "Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...