Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
COVID-19 Check-in 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This one was specifically for prophylaxis and the authors note they thought participants would have better access to testing, but in its absence they went on development of symptoms independently reviewed by four infectious disease physicians who were blinded to the groups.
There was a separate trial that looked at progression of mild symptoms to severe symptoms that also showed HCQ had no effect.
There you go projecting again, Yale! When you lose an argument based on data or logic, you place words and motives in your debate opponent's mouth and then pretend to argue/lecture against them. It makes you look bad. I say that as a fellow Dawg fan. You can take it or leave it.
I could care less what you think about vitamin D. I will listen to reason, and I don't fear vigorous debate. You haven't said anything I didn't already know on the subject and nothing you said threatens the hypothesis in the least. But, as I've repeatedly said, much more research has to be done to say whether it helps or not. You put words in my mouth there, too, by saying "vitamin D cures everything." That's what you do. Finally, the L talk from you tells me that's what is important to you! It isn't to me. My point with HCQ is that the jury is still out. Everybody needs to keep an open mind and let quality research make the call, not the debate team. The Yale epidemiologist's oped is certainly a strong counterpoint to your position.
Wouldn't say all their chips but treatment before a vaccine is found. I know several local Doctors using it and can't believe they are the only ones. But then again most people recover so maybe it doesn't help.
The jury is not out on HCQ. We know it doesn't work.
If they are testing whether HCQ works to prevent CV symptoms, the first thing that must be established is whether participants actually got CV 19, no? This disease can present with a host of different symptoms. If you are doing a drug test on a disease, you have to be able to test for that disease, especially one that may have no symptoms at all.
This is sad man. You go on and on about being this person of reason and vigorous debate while attacking sound science and holding up pseudo science and quackery as the pinnacle of medicine. Not once have you said you will withhold judgement on vitamin D until more rigorous studies have been performed. You looked at correlational studies and immediately touted it as a treatment.
So if a group does a study and gives everyone HCQ and says none of them get the Virus without actually testing them you would be OK wit that. It is like these Doctors I know that say it works but you shoot it down because a group tested it without actually testing.
The good news is.....HCQ isn't OTC.
If your personal physician believes it will help.....and you trust your Dr......they have the right to prescribe it.
If your physician doesn't believe in it......then he/she probably won't prescribe it.......and will suggest some other course.
At least there is still a choice and not some outside organization deciding what can or can't be done.
HCQ is an FDA approved medication that has been around for years.
Surely we can all agree that as long as the physician and patient have a choice whether to use or not use an FDA approved drug.....without the govt getting involved. Alls good.....doubt anyone has an issue with that.
There you go again. I can't believe you are defending a study that was designed to see if HCQ worked and they didn't even test the people for CV, but used symptoms instead, but that is your call. Instead of having a Yale meltdown and calling me names, I would suggest politely making your point and leaving it at that. We disagree on the quality of this study. IMO, it doesn't mean anything positive or negative for HCQ. Let's move on, unless you want to tell me exactly what you think is pseudo science and quackery, and I'll be happy to answer you.
Its not like they are guessing at who has it. There are a set of standards for diagnosing covid in the absence of testing. These standards were used by four infectious disease physicians who were not aware of which participant was receiving HCQ and placebo to determine infection. The vast majority of participants also had a high risk exposure with the rest having moderate risk exposure. Continuing to harp on PCR testing while knowing how the trial was run is incredibly dishonest.
While we parse out this one study that was carried out effectively would anyone like to a take stab at any of the other well run studies showing HCQ is ineffective or maybe even provide a high quality study that shows it works?
This is incredibly dishonest. This study shows HCQ does not work as a prophylactic agent for COVID-19. You jumped on the poorly thought out attack from bank without actually reading the study and you're too invested at this point to jump off even after being proven wrong.
Wrong again, Yale, this is perfectly truthful and objective. I was familiar with that study. I came across it looking to evaluate HCQ. I was interested in the prophylaxis idea. I found the problems very quickly. When I saw the discussion with BW I gave you my previously formed thoughts. BTW, it doesn't mean that I think HCQ works. It just means I think it was an unreliable study. You are getting so emotional about it that I'm beginning to wonder if you were involved with it. I think it could have been a great study. It is a great idea. I would add zinc to one of the arms. But, I would test 100% of the participants at the end of the incubation period if they weren't tested because of symptoms. I think it would have been a great study at that point. 2.7 and 2.2 😥
You can't compare NY, NY CFR with the current CFR for Florida etc. Even though the Florida testing is woefully inadequate the cases as a % of those newly tested is running at 12.6% since March 1st. The comparable % for NY and NJ as at April 14th were 41% and 49% respectively. This indicates that at that time the testing was so poor that only 1 in 4 cases that would be detected today were detected then. The deaths that were occurring at that time and throughout April and May were in part not identified as cases through testing and a result of the high severity of those that were. You would expect that the CFR would be higher when the cases were all requiring hospitalization and a significant number were dying before getting to the hospital.
The other factor is that in Florida the total cases as at June 30th was 150k with 290k coming in July. With an average Case to Death lag of 28 days, 65% of the cases would not yet expect to have resulted in any death determination. Texas and California would also have many deaths yet to happen from cases already confirmed.
Ah you've known about this study for a while and just how deeply flawed it was for a long time but chose not to say anything about it until bank made the same argument several days after I posted the study. Who do you think you are fooling? Yes, it is upsetting watching you and others push a dishonest narrative for political purposes.
The only legitimate criticism for this study would be that it is potentially, slightly under-powered. I can understand that line of reasoning.
No, you are wrong again, Yale. I had read it and I did notice it being discussed with BW for the first time when I commented. Let me take a different approach, Yale. Do you not agree that this study would have been much, much more powerful if they had done an HCQ+zinc arm, and they had tested everybody with a PCR test at the end of the incubation period? We don't know for sure who actually had CV and who didn't. The symptoms mimic many diseases.