ADVERTISEMENT

COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

Status
Not open for further replies.
That
Damn fine article. Thanks for posting! You are the Common Sense King of this thread!
:ThumbsUp

Did you really like this part: "So: Sars-Cov-2 isn’t all that new, but merely a seasonal cold virus that mutated and disappears in summer, as all cold viri do — which is what we’re observing globally right now."?

Guess that looked like a possibility on June 8, when the article was published.

Strong work, troll trio.
 
Costs money to save the world. Don't worry, pharma will get it done!
Will they??? How many Covid virus vaccines have been made? A lot came close. Zero approved. There is better chance for a treatment than a vaccine.
 
Going back several months , we were a few weeks into the pandemic and the issue arose that children , very young children under 10 years were being seen with a strange viral syndrome mimicking Kawasaki Disease. I have not seen much in the news about that condition in several months . Any idea why.
 
Going back several months , we were a few weeks into the pandemic and the issue arose that children , very young children under 10 years were being seen with a strange viral syndrome mimicking Kawasaki Disease. I have not seen much in the news about that condition in several months . Any idea why.
They found an effective treatment. Also usually happens 6-8 weeks after virus so I expect an uptick in the south at some point soon since their outbreaks got rly bad 6-8 weeks ago, but treatments have been discovered that really help with it.
 
Yep, remdesivir cannot claim a mortality benefit. Right now we have dexamethasone and very, very likely convalescent plasma showing mortality reduction (in a pooled statistical analysis of several controlled trials) and that's it. The CP study does bode very well, though, for the engineered antibody cocktails/treatments which should be ready by September. The Regeneron animal studies in macaques and hamsters look quite promising.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.02.233320v1.full.pdf

Didn't have time to dive into this yesterday, but Regeneron's antibody cocktail showed some strong results in both prevention and treatment for both macaques and hamsters (hamsters are used, too, since macaques don't get nearly as ill from COVID, so hamsters provide good insight into treatment effects). If we see results like these in humans, we're looking at, by far, the most effective treatment to date (a "near cure"), as well as a potentially effective prophylactic for most people. The paper is linked below and the abstract is very nicely done - concise, but gets the key points across. Phase III clinical trials are ongoing and approval could come as early as the end of August. Really need this to work - this has been my pick, since March, to be the best treatment, mostly based on their Ebola success - having done it before counts (being a potential prophylactic would be a bonus).

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.02.233320v1.full.pdf

Abstract: An urgent global quest for effective therapies to prevent and treat COVID-19 disease is ongoing. We previously described REGN-COV2, a cocktail of two potent neutralizing antibodies (REGN10987+REGN10933) targeting non-overlapping epitopes on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. In this report, we evaluate the in vivo efficacy of this antibody cocktail in both rhesus macaques and golden hamsters and demonstrate that REGN-COV-2 can greatly reduce virus load in lower and upper airway and decrease virus induced pathological sequalae when administered prophylactically or therapeutically. Our results provide evidence of the therapeutic potential of this antibody cocktail.

However, we just don't know how long something like this might work as a prophylactic, however (probably for at least a few months - not as long as a vaccine, though, based on the Ebola experience, where a similar cocktail was used successfully for treatment, but the Merck vaccine was used for prevention) The other issue is that the large cell culture bioreactors that make these antibodies will only likely be able to make enough for treating moderately ill to worse patients and for prevention in a subset of the population (likely health care workers and those in other high risk occupations and highly vulnerable populations) - at least through the end of the year. The link below is to Derek Lowe's blog on this, which was excellent, as it nicely explains the details of the treatment and prevention studies in both animal species as well as what it all means; the comments also contain some good intel on the manufacturing challenges.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeli...rons-monoclonal-antibody-cocktail-in-primates

For those who don't recall, the cocktail features two monoclonal antibodies developed to target different parts of the all-important spike protein, which is the key for how the virus connects to and infects cells. The idea was to have dual activity in case some mutation occurred within patients, that could help the virus "get around" just a single antibody, as multiple viral mutations to elude both antibodies was deemed extremely unlikely; see the link below for a discussion of the cocktail approach and all the R&D that went into it (and links to the primary papers on it).

It'a also worth reminding people of the difference between the antibody cocktail approach and a vaccine. A vaccine is supposed to elicit a full immune response to the antigen (RNA/DNA/attenuated virus, etc.), producing a suite of antibodies and T-cells to detect and disable/destroy the virus, while the antibody approach simply is giving examples of antibodies shown to work against the virus, but it's likely not as complete of an "attack" on the virus, since the immune system isn't activated at all (as per the Ebola example). This is a different virus, though, so maybe this can work as well as a vaccine for prevention.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...entions-and-more.191275/page-176#post-4609892
 
Summary:
  • Note: I'm using 7-day moving averages on a per capita (per 1MM) basis for these discussions of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, from the Covidtracking site. The biggest issue right now, data-wise, is the Covidtracking site has incorporated the extra 600 TX deaths on one day on the TX chart, but appears to have spread them out over the last 6 days in the national chart (and Worldometers hasn't put them in yet, which is why they're death 7-day avg is about 100 less than Covidtracking).
  • Nationally, cases definitely have now peaked and remain roughly at ~2X vs. the first wave, while hospitalizations look to be just peaking now and will likely be slightly more than the peak in the first wave, but only a little more than half of what they were in the first wave (relative to cases, which are now twice as much per capita). Deaths are up nearly 2X from their early July low and climbing steadily and are now about 47% of the April peak (1050 now vs. 2250 in April - 7-day averages).
  • Cases are clearly declining in AZ and are just starting to decline in FL/TX/CA. The AZ peak was about 30% more, per capita (per 1MM people) than the NJ peak (about 3500/day or 400/1MM) per day or , while the FL peak was ~50% more, the TX peak was ~10% less and the CA peak was ~40% less.
  • AZ's hospitalizations peaked (and are declining) at ~55% of NJ's (which were 8000 total or 900 per 1MM), while FL is peaking at about 50% of NJ's per capita rate and TX is peaking at ~45% of NJ's rate, but it's still too early to call the peak for FL/TX yet; CA looks like it's about to peak at maybe 25-30% of NJ's peak. These reductions vs. NJ are likely due to the much younger age of those infected in this wave.
  • My guesstimate has been that deaths in AZ/FL/TX would likely be about 1/3-2/3 of the peaks of NJ (about 270-300/day or ~31/1MM); NY's was a little higher), partly due to the younger age of those infected (as above) and partly due to improved treatments and procedures. AZ has likely peaked at ~40% of NJ's peak, but they're having major fluctuations, so hard to call a peak yet. FL and TX are now at 20-25% and 30% of NJ's peak, respectively, and neither has peaked. CA's case/hospitalization rates have been well below the other 3 states and is why CA is only at 10% of NJ's peak and will likely max out at <15% of NJ's peak.
Details - Cases

Still going to try to do this weekly for awhile, as weekly as likely infrequent enough to not be fooled by 1-2 day deviations that aren't that relevant (like the usual weekend dips), but frequent enough to see changes occurring. Let's look at cases first, starting with the national picture, where total cases have definitely now reached a peak (a 2-week plateau, so far) around 65-67K cases per day (7-day avg) which is about twice what the peak in the first wave was (around 31-32K cases/day over a 4-week plateau).

The "good" news is Arizona has clearly peaked in cases and started to decline significantly, while Florida, Texas, and California all appear to be at their peaks and just starting to decline. Many other states could be discussed, but these seemed relevant, as FL/TX/CA are the three most populous states and they're peaking and AZ peaked a bit earlier and has a similar population as NJ, which I'm including as a comparison from the worst of the first wave and since there's so much local interest. It should be noted that AZ peaked ~30% above NJ's peak of ~400/1MM, FL peaked ~50% above NJ's peak, TX peaked ~10% below NJ's peak, and CA peaked about 40% less than NJ's peak (I'm using per capita data for all the graphs, so they're "apples to apples" comparisons).

Details - Hospitalizations

With regard to hospitalizations, on a national level, hospitalizations are just starting to peak and will probably peak just a little bit above what they were in the first wave, despite there being twice as many cases. This was expected several weeks ago, when it became clear that there was a much younger average age of those infected in most states in this current wave (vs. wave 1) and the hospitalization rates in AZ (which had a 1-2 week earlier outbreak than FL/TX/CA) were tracking at about half the rate of NJ's. Note that if COVID were as deadly as it was in the first wave (it's thought to be) one would expect eventual death peaks to mirror relative hospitalization rates, i.e., if a state peaks at 50% of NJ's peak hospitalization rate, one would expect deaths to be around 50%, also (assuming no improved treatments/procedures).

Looking at states, AZ peaked at about 55% of NJ's hospitalization rate, i.e., about 500 per 1MM vs. NJ's 900 per 1MM. FL looks to be peaking at about half of NJ's peak rate, TX is peaking at about 45% of NJ's peak rate, and CA is peaking at about 25-30% of NJ's peak (although still a little early to call these peaks). It's not surprising that CA's case and hospitalization numbers (and likely deaths) are not as bad as the other three states in this comparison, as CA reopened later and after having achieved better reopening metrics, plus CA made masking mandatory on 6/18, just as cases were starting to rise significantly, while the other three states didn't start issuing mask requirements until later and they're not nearly as strong as California's.

Details - Deaths

With respect to deaths, on a national level, they've doubled from the low in early July (500-550/day), as they're now up around 1050/day on a 7-day moving average (with the 600 extra TX deaths factored in), which is almost 50% of the death rate at its peak in April (which was more like a 3-week plateau). Note that the 4 states (FL/TX/CA/AZ) I've been discussing account for about half of that death toll per day, which also means that there are many other states with less people, many of which are also spiking in cases, hospitalizations and deaths. We still don't know where death peaks for these states will end up (or total deaths, since that will also depend on whether a peak is sharp or a plateau and long decline, like NJ had), but my guesstimate has been 1/3-2/3 of the peaks of NJ, partly due to the younger age of those infected (as above) and partly due to improved pharmaceutical treatments (such as remdesivir, dexamethasone, tocilimuzab and convalescent plasma) and improved medical procedures.

With regard to specific states, AZ appears to have peaked at almost 40% of NJ's peak of about 31/1MM (I think, although they're fluctuations are very large, i.e., some are at 60% of NJ's peak, so need to keep an eye on that to be sure they've peaked), which aligns well with my 33-66% guesstimate. FL is now at 20-25% of NJ's peak and still climbing, so it's unclear where they'll end up (especially if they have any large TX-style "adjustments" - today's all-time high peak was at 30% of NJ's peak).

As discussed in the summary, TX had a major "adjustment" made to their death count with ~600 deaths added (all deaths were on death certificates - this looks to be an accounting issue), which the Covidtracking incorporated into their TX death graphic all on today, jacking their 7-day avg up from about 170 to 250 per day (which makes sense as Worldometers is still at about 170/day, as they haven't added the 600 deaths in yet). This brings TX up to about 30% of NJ's peak and TX rate is still climbing, so it seems likely that FL and CA will reach at least 1/3 of NJ's peak level and maybe more. However, CA is only at 10% of NJ's peak death rate per capita and likely won't reach more than 15% of the NJ peak given the lower hospitalization rates (as expected).

Keep in mind that all of these are educated guesses and a big wild card is assuming cases don't go way up amongst the elderly from here on out - they already are increasing in FL and if that continues and also occurs in the other states, these states could easily reach or exceed the upper end of my estimated range of 2/3 the level of NJ's deaths. Hope people find these to be informative - please let me know if any obvious errors (hard to keep all the #'s straight, lol).

https://covidtracking.com/data#chart-annotations

colmDF1.png


ExNMYEf.png


s8XomMs.png


GvgURJe.png


lBoDem5.png


XNz3mXJ.png

Am a day late, due to our power outage and don't have time for the full analysis of past weeks either, so just going with a summary...
  • Note: I'm using 7-day moving averages on a per capita (per 1MM) basis for these discussions of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, from the Covidtracking site.
  • National Stats: cases peaked and plateaued for about 3 weeks at roughly ~2X the first wave, but are clearly now on the decline, while hospitalizations have also started to decline, after peaking at slightly more than the peak in the first wave, but this turns out to be only a little more than half of what they were in the first wave (relative to cases, which were 2X, as much per capita). Deaths are up over 2X from their early July low and look like they might be starting to peak at about half of the April peak (1100-1150/day now vs. 2250/day in April). So, relatively speaking, a bit of better news, although our current peak death rates are still worse than all but a handful of countries with over 50MM in population (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and South Africa), per capita.
  • Cases in AZ/FL/TX/CA: For the 4 states I've been looking at, closely (Florida, Texas, California, as all three spiked and are the 3 largest states, plus Arizona, as it peaked earlier and has a similar population as NJ, the comparator) cases are continuing to decline in AZ and in FL/TX/CA, cases appeared to be just starting to decline last week, but are definitely declining now. The AZ peak was about 30% more, per capita (per 1MM people) than the NJ peak (about 3500/day or 400/1MM), while the FL peak was ~50% more, the TX peak was ~10% less and the CA peak was ~40% less.
  • Hospitalizations in AZ/FL/TX/CA: AZ's hospitalizations peaked (and are declining) at ~55% of NJ's (which were 8000 total or 900 per 1MM), while FL peaked at about 50% of NJ's per capita rate (and is declining) and TX peaked at ~45% of NJ's rate and is now declining. CA peaked last week at 25% of NJ's peak and have started to decline. As per previous reports, these reductions vs. NJ are likely due to the much younger age of those infected in this wave, combined with far more aggressive testing than during our peak (we had positivity rates of 40-50% due to lack of tests), which is discovering more mild/asymptomatic cases.
  • Deaths in AZ/FL/TX/CA: My guesstimate has been that deaths in AZ/FL/TX would likely be about 1/3-2/3 of the peaks of NJ (about 270-300/day or ~31/1MM), partly due to the younger age and milder cases of those infected (as above) and partly due to improved treatments and procedures. AZ peaked at ~40% of NJ's peak and despite having major fluctuations, they're death rates finally appear to have levelled off and may be starting to decline. FL is now at about 30% of NJ's peak and it's possible they're approaching their peak, while TX looks like it may have peaked at 30% of NJ's peak, but their death data have been all over the map, so let's wait another week before declaring they've peaked. CA's case/hospitalization rates have been well below the other 3 states and is why CA is only at 12% of NJ's peak and will likely max out at <15% of NJ's peak, as I've been predicting based on lower case rates per capita vs. the other 3 states. It's quite possible that deaths have been on the low side of my guesstimates given the recent data showing convalescent plasma likely has over a 50% mortality reduction and it's being used heavily in seriously ill patients.
w33jR2O.png


Cw26j8s.png



nSNWoko.png


aAmDPVj.png


C6MvjiF.png


8eGu0i6.png
 
No I am not

I said there was an anecdotal story that someone who took it found it did not work

Anecdotal meaning that specific instance

What do the studies showing it works indicates for effectiveness. Studies not anecdotes
Yeah, I know what the **** anecdotal means but why bring it up? It proves nothing.
 
Last edited:
Question on quarantine in NJ. So in additional to baseball players add linemen and other workers coming in from other states to help restore power as people who don't spread Covid. They go to stores, stay at hotels. Amazing on this pick and choose.
 
Going back several months , we were a few weeks into the pandemic and the issue arose that children , very young children under 10 years were being seen with a strange viral syndrome mimicking Kawasaki Disease. I have not seen much in the news about that condition in several months . Any idea why.
Treatment came out but media, not surprisingly, kept good news quiet.
 
Yeah I had like an hour conversation with my doctor when I went in for my routine checkup a few weeks ago. Since his practice was basically shut, he spent all his time at the hospital, in the front lines during it all. He said HCQ didn’t do much of anything, Remdesivir helped a little, and that they’ve been giving steroids for awhile (well before that study made the news). He eventually stopped giving HCQ after he saw the failed trials and from personal experience (had many patients die). This is all anecdotal stuff at the end of the day....who knows, maybe it works a little.
So he gave HCQ to patients already in the hospital, or when they first showed symptoms at home?
 
Even though cases are remaining at 300 to 400 per day, Covid deaths ( day of, not classifications from past) in NJ last few weeks averaging one to two per day. Huge drop off in this number. Why is this? Better treatment, severity of Covid down, more testing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2Kplus10
Even though cases are remaining at 300 to 400 per day, Covid deaths ( day of, not classifications from past) in NJ last few weeks averaging one to two per day. Huge drop off in this number. Why is this? Better treatment, severity of Covid down, more testing?
I was speaking to 2 nurses and they told me they have really made gains in treatment
 
Question on quarantine in NJ. So in additional to baseball players add linemen and other workers coming in from other states to help restore power as people who don't spread Covid. They go to stores, stay at hotels. Amazing on this pick and choose.

Well, we could always tell them to stay in their own states and delay power restoration for a few weeks. This isn't a pick and choose to bring out of state workers in, it's a necessity.
 
Even though cases are remaining at 300 to 400 per day, Covid deaths ( day of, not classifications from past) in NJ last few weeks averaging one to two per day. Huge drop off in this number. Why is this? Better treatment, severity of Covid down, more testing?
I think the deaths we were seeing a couple weeks ago were lingering cases. People who got sick a month or more earlier when cases were significantly higher, were put on ventilators and were kept alive for a time, but eventually did succumb to the virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020
I think the deaths we were seeing a couple weeks ago were lingering cases. People who got sick a month or more earlier when cases were significantly higher, were put on ventilators and were kept alive for a time, but eventually did succumb to the virus.
Seems pretty obvious that early intervention is important. Think of all those people who were told not to go to the hospital until they were really in trouble. So many are dead now. Meanwhile Javitz and the boat, and other field hospitals were barely used.
 
Seems pretty obvious that early intervention is important. Think of all those people who were told not to go to the hospital until they were really in trouble. So many are dead now. Meanwhile Javitz and the boat, and other field hospitals were barely used.
I would like to hear why those alternatives were not used more.

But we do know NYC hospitals were pushed to the brink, that was while we told people to stay home. If we told people, "if you feel like you might have symptoms come to the hospital", don't you think that would have been a complete shit show?
 
Last edited:
Mike Dewine posted a link that shows 1 person attending a church service was responsible for spreading the virus to 93 people.
I think @wisr01 posted something about this the other day.

The spread of this thing seems to be more about the individual super spreaders, when one infected person infects 100, moreso then many infected spreading it to 5 people each.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wisr01 and Greg2020
I think @wisr01 posted something about this the other day.

The spread of this thing seems to be more about the individual super spreaders, when one infected person infects 100, moreso then many infected spreading it to 5 people each.

Are the super spreaders asymptomatic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020
Interesting article written by Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine.

Hoping for concise responses--in layman's terms--from the pharma/medical-trained posters here to the highlights of this article absent political views. Thanks.

"HCQ and the Fauci Strategy"
So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:


When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast --- and in error -- the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.

On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.

In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.

In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.


There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...t_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html
Skepticism about the quality of the Minny HCQ studies:

To conduct these studies, the researchers made significant compromises. They could not obtain diagnostic testing for all patients, so included people who had symptoms but couldn’t get a test result. In the end, only 58% of the people in this study had diagnostic test results. The researchers mailed study drug or placebo to patients without examining them after they enrolled over the internet, meaning they used data patients self-reported. In the end, the study randomized 491 patients, 432 of whom contributed data to the final analysis…

“The study was of such low quality that it was fundamentally uninterpretable,” said Steven Nissen, a veteran clinical trialist at the Cleveland Clinic.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16...-against-hydroxychloroquine/?utm_campaign=rss
 
Numbers was ABSOLUTE in his opinion on HCQ. The MSM was atrocious with their fear mongering that it can kill you. Purely a political stance. While Trump may not have been right to push it, the violent absolute reaction from some was the issue here. Some doctors have had success with it, they are on the front lines
Fair enough.
 
Treatment came out but media, not surprisingly, kept good news quiet.
That is wrong and has become a huge problem regarding simple human integrity. I personally never saw anything on treatments except in the initial stages of reporting this syndrome. In total honesty did anyone from our science gurus post on it?
 
They found an effective treatment. Also usually happens 6-8 weeks after virus so I expect an uptick in the south at some point soon since their outbreaks got rly bad 6-8 weeks ago, but treatments have been discovered that really help with it.
Thanks I never saw any follow ups on the news or even on this thread. It just was strange as quickly as it manifested itself it just as rapidly became a no story. So I guess the initial panic was unwarranted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biker7766
That is wrong and has become a huge problem regarding simple human integrity. I personally never saw anything on treatments except in the initial stages of reporting this syndrome. In total honesty did anyone from our science gurus post on it?

Deleted, I think I mis-followed a quote thread leading up to this post.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020
Thanks I never saw any follow ups on the news or even on this thread. It just was strange as quickly as it manifested itself it just as rapidly became a no story. So I guess the initial panic was unwarranted.
I wouldn't say that. Without treatment many of those kids could have died, and even with it, some of the kids have diabities, or other conidtions that they previously didn't have. In terms of fataltiies though much better.
 
I wouldn't say that. Without treatment many of those kids could have died, and even with it, some of the kids have diabities, or other conidtions that they previously didn't have. In terms of fataltiies though much better.
You may be right on the severity with underlying conditions but the media never truly gave clarifications as to how many ..then no news follow ups for months that is strangely weird . This lends to a question as to what was truth and what was media hype. Thanks for the update.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biker7766
I would like to hear why those alternatives were not used more.

But we do know NYC hospitals were pushed to the brink, that was while we told people to stay home. If we told people, "if you feel like you might have symptoms come to the hospital", don't you think that would have been a complete shit show?
I think we have the benefit of hindsight and my comment wasn't meant to malign the decision-making (in this case). However in retrospect, if those field station beds were filled up with mild cases before they turned into severe cases, lives would have been saved. If the blame needs to be laid anywhere it is at the feet of the modelers who didn't get the needs for beds and vents correct.
 
That


Did you really like this part: "So: Sars-Cov-2 isn’t all that new, but merely a seasonal cold virus that mutated and disappears in summer, as all cold viri do — which is what we’re observing globally right now."?

Guess that looked like a possibility on June 8, when the article was published.

Strong work, troll trio.
tl; dr
but fyi the article was posted July 8th
 
So my coworkers daughter who is about 6 months old tested positive. She is fine thankfully. The Dr told her parents that both of them should isolate and probably have it as well. A few days later they both felt sick. Now around three weeks later my coworker can’t come back to work unless he has a negative test. He has clear go ahead to return to work from Dept of Health he said. He told them he needs a negative test to return even though he is symptom free and it’s been three weeks. They said he can test positive for up to 12 weeks. Well he took a test on Monday and got results today and is positive but he’s fine. He’s still unable to return until a negative test is the outcome. Dr even told him he may still test positive for up to 12 weeks. Dr also told him to eat healthy and exercise. He is not overweight but just good practice. This testing is such a joke it has become!
His wife’s friend who works in the ICU dealing with Covid tested positive in March she felt fine. She had another test in July and tested positive again. Makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biker7766
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT