• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

"Coronavirus and the US" or "We are all going to die!!!!"

George S said:
There are RCTs which show that (gasp) HCQ+ works to lower the death rate by 76%.
Click to expand...

Citation? And somebody should tell them:

Hydroxychloroquine - Infectious Diseases Society of America

In summary: While observational studies of the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) in patients with COVID-19 have had mixed results, several randomized controlled trials conducted in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have not shown clinical benefit, nor have randomized controlled trials focused on post-exposure prophylaxis. In addition, some data suggest the use of HCQ may be associated with significant cardiac adverse events in patients with COVID-19. The use of HCQ or CQ is not recommended in patients with COVID-19.
Click to expand...
 
GenesisNemesis said:
GenesisNemesis said:
Lol conservatives are going to use this as "more evidence Covid was a democrat hoax!" all along, just because the news came after Trump's defeat in the election. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I FUCKING PREDICTED IT.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/salty...imed-its-vaccine-announcement-to-hurt-his-dad
Click to expand...

No, if we really wanted to hurt his Dad, it'd be announced in Biden's inaguration speech. Or instead.

Biden (tosses sheaf of papers down. "Never mind that. I was just given some hopeful news! Pfizer..."
 
The assumption that side is making is that Pfizer was sitting on the information.

Assuming this was true (BIG IF) and we were in an alternate universe where Pfizer had come out with this information on say October 27th.

What would have been the response?

I think it would have been seen as EXTREMELY irresponsible and as 100% giving the election to Trump. They would have been so savaged, my goodness.

However, good chance this was going through hurdles and the timing was what it was.
 
blastula said:
George S said:
There are RCTs which show that (gasp) HCQ+ works to lower the death rate by 76%.
Click to expand...

Citation? And somebody should tell them:

Hydroxychloroquine - Infectious Diseases Society of America

In summary: While observational studies of the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) in patients with COVID-19 have had mixed results, several randomized controlled trials conducted in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have not shown clinical benefit, nor have randomized controlled trials focused on post-exposure prophylaxis. In addition, some data suggest the use of HCQ may be associated with significant cardiac adverse events in patients with COVID-19. The use of HCQ or CQ is not recommended in patients with COVID-19.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And another study came out today saying it has no benefit. It's time to forget about it as being a COVID-19 treatment.
 
repoman said:
The assumption that side is making is that Pfizer was sitting on the information.

Assuming this was true (BIG IF) and we were in an alternate universe where Pfizer had come out with this information on say October 27th.

What would have been the response?

I think it would have been seen as EXTREMELY irresponsible and as 100% giving the election to Trump. They would have been so savaged, my goodness.

However, good chance this was going through hurdles and the timing was what it was.
Click to expand...

I think that rational people would see your alternate timeline as being just a coincidence, just like rational people in this timeline. Phizer isn't Trump, and the existence of a vaccine made independantly of Trump's influence neither negates Trump's (abundant) flaws, nor accentuates them.
 
George S said:
There are RCTs which show that (gasp) HCQ+ works to lower the death rate by 76%.
My conclusion is that when the anti-Trump, anti-HCQ crowd politicized his crowing about the drug they murdered thousands of people.
Government and medicine do not mix well. Government is top-down. Medicine is bottom-up. Individual doctors practicing medicine. (HCQ was know to be safe and might work early. So some doctors were using it. It worked. Anecdotes. Anecdotes drive safe medical practice. Doctors tell each other what has worked.)
Click to expand...

Very poor studies show it works. Good studies show it's harmful. Just because you gave it to a patient and they got better doesn't mean it's the cause, most patients get better anyway. While individual doctors might come up with an idea it needs a proper trial to figure out if it's real or coincidence.

Furthermore, HCQ is most certainly not known to be safe! It's got a bad side effect profile and a dangerously narrow therapeutic index when used against malaria. HCQ works in the test tube against several viruses but never has worked in the real world because the required dose is too high, there's no point in curing the disease if you kill the patient in the process.
 
repoman said:
The assumption that side is making is that Pfizer was sitting on the information.

Assuming this was true (BIG IF) and we were in an alternate universe where Pfizer had come out with this information on say October 27th.

What would have been the response?

I think it would have been seen as EXTREMELY irresponsible and as 100% giving the election to Trump. They would have been so savaged, my goodness.

However, good chance this was going through hurdles and the timing was what it was.
Click to expand...

Note that it's not even Pfizer that came out with this even. There's an independent group tabulating the results from the vaccine trial, they're the ones that released this data.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
repoman said:
The assumption that side is making is that Pfizer was sitting on the information.

Assuming this was true (BIG IF) and we were in an alternate universe where Pfizer had come out with this information on say October 27th.

What would have been the response?

I think it would have been seen as EXTREMELY irresponsible and as 100% giving the election to Trump. They would have been so savaged, my goodness.

However, good chance this was going through hurdles and the timing was what it was.
Click to expand...

Note that it's not even Pfizer that came out with this even. There's an independent group tabulating the results from the vaccine trial, they're the ones that released this data.
Click to expand...

I see, there was a firewall if it was done without any backdoor shenanigans. Lot of money riding on it to assume shenanigans of giving Pfizer an inside line on how the study was developing is impossible.
 
repoman said:
The assumption that side is making is that Pfizer was sitting on the information.

Assuming this was true (BIG IF) and we were in an alternate universe where Pfizer had come out with this information on say October 27th.

What would have been the response?

I think it would have been seen as EXTREMELY irresponsible and as 100% giving the election to Trump. They would have been so savaged, my goodness.

However, good chance this was going through hurdles and the timing was what it was.
Click to expand...

Even if Pfizer deliberately delayed the announcement until after the election, it would have made sense. They didn't want to become a political football at the end of a major political campaign. Trump almost certainly would have claimed credit for what he had nothing to do with, and Democrats would have been crying foul, as you say. Worse, it would undermine confidence in their product, since it would risk boycott by one side or the other. Making the announcement after the election was the right decision.
 
Copernicus said:
repoman said:
The assumption that side is making is that Pfizer was sitting on the information.

Assuming this was true (BIG IF) and we were in an alternate universe where Pfizer had come out with this information on say October 27th.

What would have been the response?

I think it would have been seen as EXTREMELY irresponsible and as 100% giving the election to Trump. They would have been so savaged, my goodness.

However, good chance this was going through hurdles and the timing was what it was.
Click to expand...

Even if Pfizer deliberately delayed the announcement until after the election, it would have made sense. They didn't want to become a political football at the end of a major political campaign. Trump almost certainly would have claimed credit for what he had nothing to do with, and Democrats would have been crying foul, as you say. Worse, it would undermine confidence in their product, since it would risk boycott by one side or the other. Making the announcement after the election was the right decision.
Click to expand...

If only James Comey had had as much sense.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
barbos said:
Russian vaccine is 92% effective. So they claim.
Click to expand...

Last I knew they didn't have enough patients in their trial to draw such a conclusion.
Click to expand...
Well, mathematically, you need 2/25 ratio between two groups to claim 92%. Statistical uncertainty be damned.

Google says 16K people took part in trials, 20 people ended up infected. Seems not enough but it could be these Russians actually had 0 number infected among vaccinated and 92% is actually 95% confidence level.

There were two vaccinated doctors who got infected but they got infected way before vaccine was supposed to take effect.
 
What about antibodies developed from these vaccine injections? When do they disappear? And if so and still effective, does that mean some other aspect of immune system has memory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom