Lol of course you are the one to respond on this.
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
- Status
Lol of course you are the one to respond on this.
You have something to back up your bolded statement? Because it has not been true in NJ:
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020...en-increasing-why-arent-hospitalizations.html
In fact, the 90 day curves for hospitalizations and deaths diverge from infections, with a steady downward trend while infections are rising:
https://covidtracking.com/data/state/new-jersey
Maybe it is because NJ killed off so many of the old and infirm in the first wave and more young people are testing positive and not getting sick now?
In Arizona, however, the curves for infections, deaths and hospitalization are in sync.
https://covidtracking.com/data/state/arizona
Nice find. Is that Biden campaign sign on the right? (Just having a little fun):
I saw an interesting story about how 2 cities handled and were impacted by the 1918 pandemic. I believe it was Philadelphia and San Francisco.
I will see if I can find it
Worldometers is not showing a rise in cases in NJ over the past couple moths.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-jersey/
Nor is John Hopkins. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/new-jersey
If you check the 7 day average on Worldometers and it's clear NJ.com merely cherry picked a couple days #'s.
But recent rises in cases AZ, FL, CA, TX GA, and the country as whole for that matter, was subsequently followed by increases in hospitalizations and then deaths. Maybe you weren't in this discussion at the time but we did go over it as it was happening.
I haven't looked at hospitalizations, but I have no doubt they ticked up in Australia in wake of the rise in cases. Deaths have.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/
Though as you see it appears the measures to mitigate spread have been working and their case #'s are coming down without it ever really getting to problematic levels.
I think it's pretty much irrefutable at this point. Rises in cases will be followed by rises in hospitalizations and deaths.
Louie Gohmert is COVID-19-free, and he credits hydroxychloroquine
Gohmert, who turns 67 next week, told the Washington Examiner he believes his recovery was aided by the use of vitamin supplements and hydroxychloroquine, the drug touted by Trump and some medical doctors that is not endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration for use in treating the coronavirus.
“I had a couple of bad days, but I started taking hydroxychloroquine, [Zithromax], and zinc, along with vitamins D3 and C," he said. "And I took a steroid nebulizer for a few days to help coat the alveoli in the lungs and protect them somewhat from the COVID virus attack.”
He added, “I feel sorry for patients whose doctors are not even allowed to consider the hydroxychloroquine regimen. That’s a real shame.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...vid-19-free-and-he-credits-hydroxychloroquine
Gohmert, who turns 67 next week, told the Washington Examiner he believes his recovery was aided by the use of vitamin supplements and hydroxychloroquine, the drug touted by Trump and some medical doctors that is not endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration for use in treating the coronavirus.
“I had a couple of bad days, but I started taking hydroxychloroquine, [Zithromax], and zinc, along with vitamins D3 and C," he said. "And I took a steroid nebulizer for a few days to help coat the alveoli in the lungs and protect them somewhat from the COVID virus attack.”
He added, “I feel sorry for patients whose doctors are not even allowed to consider the hydroxychloroquine regimen. That’s a real shame.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...vid-19-free-and-he-credits-hydroxychloroquine
Almost made it a few days without a mention of HCQ, was nice.
Here’s another article of a Republican politician who recently took HCQ. The magic cure didn’t help him too much, real treatment helped save his life though.
Randy Fine says hydroxychloroquine is 'not magic' COVID-19 cure, but believers won't let go
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/...droxychloroquine-therapy-covid-19/5573368002/
I keep coming back to the same conclusion on HCQ, maybe somewhat effective, but not worth anywhere near the amount of discussion it has gotten. And that goes for those that derided it as dangerous, as well as those acting like the world is being done a disservice because it is no longer a part of the countries prescribed regiment.
I think there are no tests with hydro used without steroids where it was effective
Did you read the whole thread? I know correlation does not equal causation, but the whole thread raises important questions.
If data determines dates then why isn’t everything open?
I'm no twitter expert but this is the top reply in the section, and it looks like it is from the guy that posted the graph.
"It's not perfect as HCQ was also used in Belgium and Spain and later in Italy,"
All 3 of those countries were in "No HCQ use" portion of the graph.
Color me confused.
Last edited:
"The goal is to keep the transmission rate below 1, which means means each new case is leading to fewer than one additional infection. Anything above that, and the virus is spreading."
Cases have been super flat for 2 months. The hospitalizations being down is likely because a younger cohort are testing positive as well as those hospitalized from early on finally getting out (or passing away).
If you need anything else figured out let me know.
More ridiculousness. Case fatality ratios are very difficult to correlate to anything, given the huge variability in cases across countries. Most of those countries with high CFRs were countries that suffered the worst in the first wave, when testing was not readily available, so their cases per capita are lower, meaning their deaths per case will be artificially high. There are also many countries with low CFRs that never used HCQ (Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore off the top of my head) and they have some clear errors in the graphic (for example HCQ wasn't used in South Korea, as their huge outbreak was before HCQ was even touted as a potential cure).
But most importantly, there's no actual "data" in that graphic. Get back to me when they put together a graphic of HCQ use in which kinds of patients over what timeframe and in which they separate out all the other variables, such as mask use, shutdowns, distancing practice, etc. That graphic is useless, especially vs. the fact that every randomized, controlled clinical trial with HCQ, to date, has shown no medical benefit. Might be worth reading the article below, which is probably the most comprehensive one I've seen on the medical science weight of evidence on HCQ.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hy...iN8cQxkJyNhE7xiBAvFLoZ8saTvJBx3DuQsSSXXoJrdxs
Let's also look at an instructive example that shows how easy it is to illustrate the difficulty in ascertaining the usefulness of HCQ on a large uncontrolled population like a state or country. In NY, HCQ generally wasn't used at all before about 3/25, when the CFR was about 2%. From then until about April 30th, when HCQ use was at its peak (60-85% of patients in hospitals were being treated with HCQ during the height of the outbreak, as per two large published HCQ studies in NYC), the CFR went up to 7.7%.
Do I actually think this was due to HCQ use? Of course not, but I could tweet those stats and have many people believing it. The reality is very likely that deaths lag cases by 2-4 weeks, making the CFR naturally rise over time. However, if HCQ were truly a lifesaving drug, I would have at least expected there to be mortality reductions in those studies in NYC with so many people being treated with HCQ and there weren't, as we all know.
Thanks, that's high praise coming from one of the top 2-3 smartest, most knowledgeable (and logical) and fairly non-partisan posters on this site. Stop by more often!
You made the claim that pharma was all about innovation and invention. Then you list a bunch of data that doesn't support that claim. But maybe your intended point was something else.
Ya, check the graph. Been flat for 2 months.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-jersey/
That is an interesting statistical point for which I do not have an answer. If the overall positive #'s are generally flat over the last 2 month why is the R over 1? I would think it would be dead flat at one as well.
@RU848789 ?
SkilletBiden2, you need to reread the post I was replying to. Then comment. Thanks! But yo, still big respect to NZ for kicking lawyers to the curb.
By the way, who was SkilletHead1?
:)
My bad for reading what you actually said.
I have been Skillethead and Skillethead2. Had to adjust as my original account here was irretrievable when I moved to NZ. Been around a long time. There are other Skilletheads in the world, however. Several times I haven't been able to use Skillethead on sites. We're thinking of holding a convention.
@T2Kplus10: I am not #s but of course you can choose to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else/society negatively. And in this case it doesn’t, so feel free to believe what you want.
In any event, I have a very simple question and a proposition for you. You state that “your logic and facts are still faulty but nice try”. I wasn’t "trying" anything other than to satisfy my own curiosity re Merck but again, ok.
Here is my direct ask to you and also my commitment to you.
Please do point out specifically what I wrote that was either illogical our false. And if you want to, please do let me know what the opposing right logic and/or facts are. I commit to retracting anything I said that was illogical and/or not factual.
To recap, what I said was that at least as per the last 5 year financial performance, Merck was ahead of my two comparators (chosen somewhat arbitrarily by me as 2 other “pure” Big Pharmaceutical companies – one US based and the other European). Which is demonstrably true with a quick check on a finance website of your choice.
I could have chosen your pick of Roche of course. But when I just now checked Merck against Roche on Yahoo Finance, Merck had ALSO outperformed Roche over that same 5 year period, though by a smaller margin than either PFE or NVS.
Second, I said that Novartis had paid two large fines to the US taxpayers in the past 6 months accepting responsibility for illegal activities. Which is also demonstrably true as any Google search will show.
I didn’t say anything about innovation or invention but ANY rational business person will accept that the stock market, while often perverse in the short-term, is the ultimate arbiter of corporate performance over any long-term horizon. Leaders are hired and fired based on this and not on subjective rankings like innovation or invention. (Though the hope of course is that financial performance follows such innovativeness).
Finally, know that I am an admirer of Novartis’s CEO. He and I have worked together in the past and we also share a common “best friend”. I also believe (don't know, but believe) that it was his leadership that led to NVS’s deals with the Government in his quest to end an era of scandal. And I am hopeful that their past missteps are not repeated under his leadership.
Please do educate me on my illogic / incorrectness. As I said earlier, I will commit to correcting any errors.
Yeh I saw your reply to bac, another retread that goes like this: "...CDC made mistakes yada yada yada but Trump/Azar shoulda woulda coulda secured dual sourcing....so it's still Trump's fault..."
Since I agree it's hard for you to keep up with your political talking points, here's a quick link to my reply to your same storyline in the locked Covid thread about 2 months ago:
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...entions-and-more.191275/page-202#post-4618756
A frequent Fox News contributor has been hired to the task force. He is not an infectious disease doctor nor does he have public health experience, but has spoken out against lockdowns.
“Find advisors who tell you what you want to hear and confirm your views.” That’s what successful leaders always say, right?
“Find advisors who tell you what you want to hear and confirm your views.” That’s what successful leaders always say, right?
If the hydroxychloroquine crew spent half as much time brainstorming ways to reduce spread of the virus...
If you read his tweets, he knows what he is talking about. He is science-based, and is followed by some very prominent scientists and scholars.
No issue with him...Scott Atlas..good to have different voices advising...Fauci isnt an economist either
- Status
Similar threads
