Mike Pence is Coronavirus czar, clearly not a Modello guy, and other politics discussion related to the virus

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

How Has President Trump Handled the COVID Crisis?

  • He gave a powerful, dominant response. COVID is defeated.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yeah, he made some mistakes, but on the balance he did well.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3.6 Roentgens. Not bad, not great.

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Trump did not help things and could have done better.

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Trump's response was an utter disaster and catastrophic in lives and treasure.

    Votes: 17 77.3%
  • Who cares. We all deserve to die.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Maine Coon would have done better.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Total voters
    22
  • This poll will close: .

Green Demon

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
1,872
Points
113


A study of 96,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients on six continents found that those who received an antimalarial drug promoted by President Trump as a “game changer” in the fight against the virus had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those who did not.

People treated with hydroxychloroquine, or the closely related drug chloroquine, were also more likely to develop a type of irregular heart rhythm, or arrhythmia, that can lead to sudden cardiac death, it concluded.
The study, published Friday in the medical journal the Lancet, is the largest analysis to date of the risks and benefits of treating covid-19 patients with antimalarial drugs. Like earlier smaller studies, it delivered disappointing news to a world eager for promising treatments for the novel coronavirus as the global death toll grows to more than 300,000 and cases pass five million. While doctors have refined how they treat the disease, they have yet to discover a magic bullet against a virus for which humans have no known immunity.


The Lancet analysis is based on a retrospective analysis of medical records, not a controlled study in which patients are divided randomly into treatment groups — the method considered the gold standard of medicine. But the sheer size of the study was convincing to some scientists.
“It’s one thing not to have benefit, but this shows distinct harm,” said Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “If there was ever hope for this drug, this is the death of it.”
David Maron, director of preventive cardiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, said that “these findings provide absolutely no reason for optimism that these drugs might be useful in the prevention or treatment of covid-19.”


While past studies also found scant or no evidence of hydroxychloroquine’s benefit in treating sick patients, reports have mounted of dangerous heart problems associated with its use. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration last month warned against the use of the drug outside hospital settings or clinical trials.


The new analysis — by Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard Medical School professor and physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues at other institutions — included patients with a positive laboratory test for covid-19 who were hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, at 671 medical centers worldwide. The mean age was 54 years, and 53 percent were men. Those who were on mechanical ventilators or who received remdesivir, an antiviral drug made by Gilead Sciences that has shown promise in decreasing recovery times, were excluded.
Mehra said in an interview that the widespread use of antimalarials for covid-19 patients was based on the idea of “a desperate disease demands desperate measures,” but that we have learned a hard lesson from the experience about the importance of first doing no harm.

In retrospect, Mehra said, using the drugs without systematic testing was “unwise.”

“I wish we had had this information at the outset,” he said, “as there has potentially been harm to patients.”
Nearly 15,000 of the 96,000 patients in the analysis were treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine alone or in combination with a type of antibiotics known as a macrolide, such as azithromycin or clarithromycin, within 48 hours of their diagnosis.

The difference between patients who received the antimalarials and those who did not was striking.
For those given hydroxychloroquine, there was a 34 percent increase in risk of mortality and a 137 percent increased risk of a serious heart arrhythmias. For those receiving hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic — the cocktail endorsed by Trump — there was a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias.

Those given chloroquine had a 37 percent increased risk of death and a 256 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias. For those taking chloroquine and an antibiotic, there was a 37 percent increased risk of death and a 301 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias.


Cardiologist Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic said the new data, combined with data from smaller previous studies, suggests that the drug “is maybe harmful and that no one should be taking it outside of a clinical trial.”
Jesse Goodman, a former FDA chief scientist who is now a Georgetown University professor, called the report “very concerning.” He noted, however, that it is an observational study, rather than a randomized controlled trial, so it shows correlation between the drugs and certain outcomes, rather than a clear cause and effect.


Peter Lurie, a former top FDA official who now heads the Center for Science in the Public Interest, called the report “another nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine — this time from the largest study ever.”
He said it was time to revoke the emergency use authorization issued by the FDA, which approved the drug for seriously ill patients who were hospitalized or for whom a clinical trial was not available.

Michael Felberbaum, a spokesman for the FDA, said Friday that the agency generally “does not comment on third-party research” but that an emergency use authorization may be revised or revoked under certain circumstances, such as when there are linked or suspected adverse events, new data about effectiveness, or changes in the risk-benefit assessment of the drug.

The new study’s findings cannot necessarily be extrapolated to people with mild illness at home or those, like Trump, who are taking the antimalarials as a prophylactic. The president stunned many doctors earlier this week when he said he was taking a pill “every day” — despite FDA warnings that the use of the drug should be limited to those in a hospital setting or in clinical trials. (He has since said he is close to finishing his course of treatment and would stop taking the medication in “a day or two.”)
AD

A large study of health-care workers that examines the use of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure against covid-19 is in the works, but no results have been released.
Some scientists have expressed alarm at the politicization of science in the debate over how to respond to the pandemic, and especially about the use of antimalarial drugs. The Lancet, one of the world’s oldest and best-known journals, also published an unsigned editorial last week criticizing Trump’s “inconsistent and incoherent national response” to the pandemic, and urging Americans to “put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics.”

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020
There have been at least 13 studies in recent months on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine as a treatment for covid-19 patients. They have included randomized controlled studies and observational analyses encompassing patients on the continuum from mild illness to those near death. Evidence of any benefit, such as viral clearance or improved symptoms, has been almost nonexistent. But many found an increased risk in adverse cardiac reactions — especially when combined with the antibiotic azithromycin.

Earlier this month, some proponents of hydroxychloroquine seized on a study out of New York University’s Langone Health center that threw zinc into the mix with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, and showed the treated group had a higher rate of survival. But researchers emphasized that it only showed that the combination had some promise. They said the results also could have been due to other factors, such as the zinc being added to patients’ regimens later in the pandemic when hospital treatments and procedures had been refined.
Last week, the National Institutes of Health announced a clinical trial of 2,000 adults to determine if hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin could be used to treat coronavirus patients.

Topol, of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, suggested that the researchers should reconsider the ethics of those trials, given the increasing evidence of potential harm. “It’s very hard to ignore that signal, and it’s worrisome to continue giving it,” he said.

Geoffrey Barnes, a cardiovascular specialist at the University of Michigan, said the study’s approach and its findings were “striking” in making the case that “the risk with these drugs is real.” However, he said that due to the enthusiasm some Americans have for the drug and the Lancet study’s findings, randomized trials are even more important.
“There has been so much discussion about this drug that I think the scientific and medical community has an obligation to define what the potential benefit or risk is in the best way possible,” Barnes said.

When the first large wave of sick patients began showing up at hospitals in March, doctors had very little to offer them. As a result, many took a gamble on hydroxychloroquine. The drug had been shown to have strong antiviral properties in cell cultures, was widely available and was thought to be rather benign in terms of side effects. For years, hydroxychloroquine has been considered a generally safe and effective treatment for malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
But those findings of safety were at lower doses than were being used at hospitals during the early days of the surge in patients in the United States and mostly in patients who were healthy. The population infected with covid-19 in hospitals, it turned out, was already at higher risk of cardiovascular complications because many suffer from high blood pressure or other heart issues. Doctors also discovered that, to their surprise, the novel coronavirus appeared to directly or indirectly attack the heart, including by reducing its ability to pump, creating an imbalance in its electrical rhythms, and attacking blood vessels.

Another political hit job study I'm sure
 

Bob_The_Cat

NBA Starter
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
4,490
Reaction score
4,672
Points
113
Agreed. No need for this. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the country is on lockdown and people are told what to do, despite what is and isn’t a law.
People don’t realize that companies are allowed to require a mask.
I'd say what's even more shocking is the number of people that don't realize this is going on during non-COVID times. It might not be so publicized, but it happens nonetheless.

The difference here is during non-COVID times it generally just applies to black and brown people, whereas now certain areas of entitlement are being exposed even when the intent is to protect the health and safety of the general public.
 

Sebastian

Maréchal d'Empire (AKA King Stannis)
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
16,064
Reaction score
23,776
Points
135
Wow, murder. Does that make an involuntary sneeze manslaughter?
And what are your thoughts about people who deliberately infected people with HIV?

I think they are grades to this: Certainly if you know you have COVID and cough on people, that is an intent to harm. And with a potentially lethal "weapon."

If one does not know they are infected then it becomes simple assault given the circumstances.
 

KI4MVP

formerly LJ4MVP
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
26,189
Points
135
Wow, murder. Does that make an involuntary sneeze manslaughter?
what else would you call this besides murder if the coughing was intentional or manslaughter if the decision to not cover the cough was intentional? One person is dead for doing their job because another person didn't care who they harmed.

 

Wrathe

Lurking in the shadows....
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,056
Reaction score
2,511
Points
113
And what are your thoughts about people who deliberately infected people with HIV?

I think they are grades to this: Certainly if you know you have COVID and cough on people, that is an intent to harm. And with a potentially lethal "weapon."

If one does not know they are infected then it becomes simple assault given the circumstances.
Real talk?

I think someone infecting someone w/ HIV on purpose is a pretty asshole thing to do.
So is coughing in someone's face, CV era or not.

Purposely infecting someone w/ HIV on purpose is a much more "direct" action, however. I mean trying to prove someone coughing on you is why you caught CV when you work in public and deal w/ hundreds of people a day is going to be pretty impossible. I mean, establishing reasonable doubt would be extremely easy.

You're not going to pick up HIV walking through a crowded store. Either someone knew they had HIV and didn't disclose then had sexual intercourse w/ you, they raped you, or they stabbed you w/ a needle. Those are all pretty specific actions most people in the world aren't exposed to on the daily, let alone hundreds of times a day.
 

Rich

Saucin'
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
31,550
Reaction score
37,311
Points
148
Intentionally coughing on someone is one thing. That's already probably criminal regardless, along the same lines as spitting on someone.

But accidental? And if you dont know you have it? For a lot of reasons, that shouldn't be criminalized.
 

Wrathe

Lurking in the shadows....
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,056
Reaction score
2,511
Points
113
what else would you call this besides murder if the coughing was intentional or manslaughter if the decision to not cover the cough was intentional? One person is dead for doing their job because another person didn't care who they harmed.

That's a huge, giant assumption on anyone's part that believes the woman who didn't cover her mouth in this story is the source of his infection. Absolutely impossible to prove. So I wouldn't call it murder or manslaughter as it'd be impossible to convict.

At best, you could get an assault charge.
 

Jack Brickman

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
31,198
Reaction score
39,080
Points
148
But accidental? And if you dont know you have it? For a lot of reasons, that shouldn't be criminalized.
I don't think anyone here thinks an accidental cough should be criminalized. But in the videos linked above, it was very clearly intentional and the people doing it were clearly assholes. That should be, in my opinion, assault.
 

KI4MVP

formerly LJ4MVP
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
26,189
Points
135
Intentionally coughing on someone is one thing. That's already probably criminal regardless, along the same lines as spitting on someone.

But accidental? And if you dont know you have it? For a lot of reasons, that shouldn't be criminalized.
in the videos I posted, the coughs were very intentional
 

September Through December Server Costs

Total amount
$1,275.00
Goal
$1,200.00
Donation ends:

Radio

Top