[Cyberyeti]

 hrothgar, on 2020-March-22, 05:02, said:

Mega doses of arsenic have been found to extremely effective, both in suppressing breathing problems and stopping people from spreading the virus.
And yet, no one describes this as an effective treatment

Guys. Dr Fausti who has NOT trialled the treatment is rubbishing the results of Chinese doctors who have, that superior attitude is what I'm taking issue with. I have no horse in this (I've studied epidemics a long way in the past, but only the mathematics of them not the clinical side), and your examnple is ridiculous. Chloroquine if you get the dosage right is completely safe in most patients, some like with most medicines will get side effects and be unable to take it, but the correct dose is basically safe and it's approved for malaria treatment in many countries. The reason it's unwieldy is that the difference between correct dosage and overdose is quite small, only 2x.

And Cherdano's article just says they're recruiting for wider trials, not what those trials have shown.

[kenberg]

I have a long history of skepticism toward the medical profession, and like most skeptics of most systems, I could supply a fair sized list of reasons. I am also skeptical of the legal profession, financial experts, journalists, and so on. But life happens and we have to choose whom to trust.

I have had medical issues and I neither trust without question nor sink into depression and indecision. I do my best to judge and decide. If I get the virus I will not be looking for where I can get chloroquine. If indeed it has potential then it can be studied, I have no problem with studying it. But if I get the virus next week, I will not be taking chloroquine. This does not mean that I can write a paper for a medical journal listing my original and brilliant reasons for my choice, it just means that I will not be taking it.

I suppose that Donald Trump citing chloroquine. as a good thing strikes me as a pretty good reason for not taking it, but in itself that reason would not completely rule it out. If DT says today is Sunday I do not completely rule out the possibility that today is Sunday, but it a reason to check the calendar.

[hrothgar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-22, 05:50, said:

Chloroquine if you get the dosage right is completely safe in most patients, some like with most medicines will get side effects and be unable to take it, but the correct dose is basically safe and it's approved for malaria treatment in many countries. The reason it's unwieldy is that the difference between correct dosage and overdose is quite small, only 2x.

Yes

If you assume away the whole f$cking problem, there's no problem

I readily admit, it is possible that chloroquine might be a useful palliative.
I look forward to seeing more and better studies

But, what we're dealing with here is yet another example where the US President is being grossly irresponsible and identifying this as a potential cure before a whole lot of necessary work has been done. You know, just like he was saying that we could all get flu shots...

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-22, 05:50, said:

Guys. Dr Fausti who has NOT trialled the treatment is rubbishing the results of Chinese doctors who have, that superior attitude is what I'm taking issue with. I have no horse in this (I've studied epidemics a long way in the past, but only the mathematics of them not the clinical side), and your examnple is ridiculous. Chloroquine if you get the dosage right is completely safe in most patients, some like with most medicines will get side effects and be unable to take it, but the correct dose is basically safe and it's approved for malaria treatment in many countries. The reason it's unwieldy is that the difference between correct dosage and overdose is quite small, only 2x.

And Cherdano's article just says they're recruiting for wider trials, not what those trials have shown.

Perhaps you are thinking about the wrong thing? Ask yourself if the Chinese had a potential magic bullet that would stop the virus, why would they stop using it? As a totalitarian regime, it's not like the government would be sued if a few thousand died.

No, it is not Asia or Asians that make the story suspect - race has no bearing. It is a regime that has a strong history of not being forthcoming and transparent; As the Trump administration can't be trusted to give accurate information, neither can the present government of China. Those are not racists-based observations.

Nor is it incorrect or racist to describe Donald Trump as a snakeoil salesman for touting an unproven remedy which was used successfully for one ailment as a likely curative for a host of other problems.

[Cyberyeti]

I think we're getting entangled in terminology. Trump is a snake oil salesman, we've seen that in lots of places. Whether it's apt in this case is not clear.

Chloroquine is not a magic bullet, it doesn't cure coronavirus, nobody (unless Trump has) claims it does. The Chinese claim it is useful in relieving the symptoms but dangerous to use. If it cured them, they might well have continued to use it, as it is they've decided it's not worth it.

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-22, 09:47, said:

I think we're getting entangled in terminology. Trump is a snake oil salesman, we've seen that in lots of places. Whether it's apt in this case is not clear.

Chloroquine is not a magic bullet, it doesn't cure coronavirus, nobody (unless Trump has) claims it does. The Chinese claim it is useful in relieving the symptoms but dangerous to use. If it cured them, they might well have continued to use it, as it is they've decided it's not worth it.

Fair enough. I'm through with this discussion until further tests results - here or in China, or France, for that matter - merits another look. O.K.?

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-22, 09:47, said:

I think we're getting entangled in terminology. Trump is a snake oil salesman, we've seen that in lots of places. Whether it's apt in this case is not clear.

Chloroquine is not a magic bullet, it doesn't cure coronavirus, nobody (unless Trump has) claims it does. The Chinese claim it is useful in relieving the symptoms but dangerous to use. If it cured them, they might well have continued to use it, as it is they've decided it's not worth it.

The point is that Trump has been exaggerating the promise of Chloroquine significantly. According to ABC News:

Quote

On Thursday, Trump declared an anti-malaria drug called chloroquine a “game changer” in the effort to develop a coronavirus treatment and announced the drug had been “approved.”

Chloroquine, or hydroxychloroquine, has been approved to treat and prevent malaria since 1944. But no drug has been approved to treat COVID-19, and a vaccine is estimated to remain at least a year away.

Dr. Fauci (please note the correct spelling) answered a question from a reporter, explained that signs of the drug's promise were anecdotal.

Trump then said: “It may work, it may not work,” he said. “I feel good about it.”

Excuse me if Trump's feelings don't inspire me with much hope.

[johnu]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-March-22, 04:03, said:

Dr Fausti was wrong that it was ineffective, but may be right that it is not the answer.

Dr. Anthony Fauci certainly did not say that Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were ineffective against COVID-19. He did say that news of effectiveness was anecdotal, there hadn't been peer reviewed clinical study, and that the FDA had not recommended using the drug. In other words, he didn't know at this time whether it was effective or not.

[Cyberyeti]

 johnu, on 2020-March-22, 14:26, said:

Dr. Anthony Fauci certainly did not say that Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were ineffective against COVID-19. He did say that news of effectiveness was anecdotal, there hadn't been peer reviewed clinical study, and that the FDA had not recommended using the drug. In other words, he didn't know at this time whether it was effective or not.

I'm not sure how Chinese research is done, whether peer review is normal, but yes it requires further testing.

And apologies on the name, I just used what others had used before.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2020-March-22, 14:26, said:

The point is that Trump has been exaggerating the promise of Chloroquine significantly. According to ABC News:

Dr. Fauci (please note the correct spelling) answered a question from a reporter, explained that signs of the drug's promise were anecdotal.

Trump then said: "It may work, it may not work," he said. "I feel good about it."

Excuse me if Trump's feelings don't inspire me with much hope.

Largely I believe that everything that can be said about Trump has been said, but I still want to make a point. We are all used to politicians (and others) sometimes shading the truth or phrasing it a little to cleverly. Usually they have thought this through and see an advantage in it. But Trump just sounds stupid. I would not think he would want to sound stupid. He says things that the expert standing beside him will immediately reject. And they are simple things, such as accurately describing the symptoms of the virus. Yes, we all might misspell Fauci but we try not to do such things. We do not wish to look careless, ignorant or stupid. Trump just doesn't care. Or has no self-control. Or something. It's bizarre. Lying, hoping to fool someone, is deplorable but at least one can imagine a purpose in it. But how can a guy just not care how dumb he looks?

It's not that I never make a mistake, far from it, but if I were standing in front of a camera addressing the nation on a matter of great importance, I would try not to say things that are dazzlingly stupid.

I really don't get it.

[Winstonm]

The irony here is making me near explode: Libertarian Rand Paul has tested positive for Covid 19. I'm sure the market can take care of him, though.

[awm]

 Winstonm, on 2020-March-22, 15:59, said:

The irony here is making me near explode: Libertarian Rand Paul has tested positive for Covid 19. I'm sure the market can take care of him, though.

In true libertarian fashion, he did not bother to self-quarantine while awaiting his test results, and probably got many other people sick as well. Hopefully he can be held criminally liable if anyone he had contact with dies or has serious complications.

[Winstonm]

 awm, on 2020-March-22, 16:15, said:

In true libertarian fashion, he did not bother to self-quarantine while awaiting his test results, and probably got many other people sick as well. Hopefully he can be held criminally liable if anyone he had contact with dies or has serious complications.

We can send them all to Libertarian Island, which means living by themselves as "everyone is an island" is their mantra, and Simon and Garfunkel's "I am a Rock" is their theme song. And a rock feels no pain. And an island never dies. Maybe. Who knows? We'll see.

[johnu]

 awm, on 2020-March-22, 16:15, said:

In true libertarian fashion, he did not bother to self-quarantine while awaiting his test results, and probably got many other people sick as well. Hopefully he can be held criminally liable if anyone he had contact with dies or has serious complications.

WTF? Why is Rand Paul being tested in the first place when there are thousands of ordinary people who are actually sick with symptoms who can't get tested? He had no symptoms and did not have a verified point of contact with somebody who was infected. He should have just self quarantined and waited things out.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2020-March-22, 14:26, said:

The point is that Trump has been exaggerating the promise of Chloroquine significantly. According to ABC News:

Dr. Fauci (please note the correct spelling) answered a question from a reporter, explained that signs of the drug's promise were anecdotal.

Trump then said: “It may work, it may not work,” he said. “I feel good about it.”

Excuse me if Trump's feelings don't inspire me with much hope.

Is there any harm in the Grifter in Chief touting a drug that hasn't been vetted?

Lupus Patients Can’t Get Crucial Medication After President Trump Pushes Unproven Coronavirus Treatment

Quote

The drug Plaquenil keeps Anna Valdez’s lupus in check.

Late last week, as she sheltered in place at her home outside Santa Rosa, California, Valdez called her local pharmacy and ordered a refill to treat her autoimmune disorder, thinking a 90-day supply would help her ride out the coronavirus outbreak.

But the pharmacy told her it had only 10 pills left. Valdez called other pharmacies. They, too, had run out.

In other words, those pills don't grow on trees. There is a very limited supply of those pills right now, and it will take time to ramp up production and there may not be the capacity to supply the entire country in a timely manner.

[Chas_P]

 kenberg, on 2020-March-22, 15:47, said:

Largely I believe that everything that can be said about Trump has been said, but I still want to make a point. We are all used to politicians (and others) sometimes shading the truth or phrasing it a little to cleverly. Usually they have thought this through and see an advantage in it. But Trump just sounds stupid. I would not think he would want to sound stupid. He says things that the expert standing beside him will immediately reject. And they are simple things, such as accurately describing the symptoms of the virus. Yes, we all might misspell Fauci but we try not to do such things. We do not wish to look careless, ignorant or stupid. Trump just doesn't care. Or has no self-control. Or something. It's bizarre. Lying, hoping to fool someone, is deplorable but at least one can imagine a purpose in it. But how can a guy just not care how dumb he looks?

It's not that I never make a mistake, far from it, but if I were standing in front of a camera addressing the nation on a matter of great importance, I would try not to say things that are dazzlingly stupid.

I really don't get it.

Just for the sake of discussion...not argument, just discussion...let's assume that HRC had won the election in 2016 and is sitting in The White House right now facing this crisis. What do you think she could have DONE (not SAID, but DONE) better than what Trump has DONE to address it? You say Trump "sounds stupid". I respect your opinion though I don't share it; in my opinion he sounds practical, e.g. "It may work, it may not. Let's see." So the question remains...What could HRC have done better?

[kenberg]

 Chas_P, on 2020-March-22, 18:00, said:

Just for the sake of discussion...not argument, just discussion...let's assume that HRC had won the election in 2016 and is sitting in The White House right now facing this crisis. What do you think she could have DONE (not SAID, but DONE) better than what Trump has DONE to address it? You say Trump "sounds stupid". I respect your opinion though I don't share it; in my opinion he sounds practical, e.g. "It may work, it may not. Let's see." So the question remains...What could HRC have done better?

Actually what is said is very important. I was speaking to someone not long ago who saw no need to take any precautions because DT had clearly explained that everything is under control we are doing time and it will probably all be over in April. Now that DT has changed his tune, hardly a tune, but changed his babble this person is now taking precautions. . From the beginning the actions of people at large has been an important part of how this is going to go. Early acknowledgement that the situation was serious would have been the first good step.


As to further steps, wait. I am not an expert om the transmission of viral diseases. So I cannot tell you exactly what steps would have been best. For me to try to say exactly what should have been done would be for me to pull a Trump, pretend I know more than I do.


I have been wondering just what Trump supporters have been thinking, and I guess in your case I now know. I am honestly incredulous. I have always been able to see why people might be lest than pleased with the direction of the Democratic party. That I can understand. But I gather you think nobody else would have done better, or at least Clinton would not have.. I am speechless. At a moment of extreme danger we have a bizarre creature in the WH. Stupid doesn't really quite cover it. Totally uncaring might be closer. But I will settle for disastrous..


If you can still find him to your liking,we just live in different worlds.I will not be understanding this, we should not try.

[hrothgar]

 Chas_P, on 2020-March-22, 18:00, said:

What could HRC have done better?

Let's see, at the most basic level I suspect that HRC would have treated this as a health crisis rather than a public relations problem. However, if you want to get more specific

1. HRC might have actually made use of the Pandemic Response team that the government created after the Ebola outbreak rather than trusting the response to Trump's idiot son-in-law. In a similar vein, I doubt that HRC would have fired the CDC employee who we had working in China tracking infectious disease outbreaks.

https://www.reuters....k-idUSKBN21910S

2. Back in January, when coronavirus was largely contained in China, Joe Biden gave a speech identifying this as a significant danger. If the US had started a more comprehensive testing regime at this point in time, coupled with the sorts of efforts that South Korea and Singapore used to break the infection chain we'd be in enormously better shape.

3. The Trump administration has failed completely at prioritizing the production of testing kits, ventilators and masks. They also blocked the US from using the WHO's tests. Trump still hasn't used any of the powers that the Defense Production Act vests in the Presidency.

4. Trump consistent downplayed the dangers of the virus even when it was clear that countries that failed to implement social distancing were experiencing geometric growth. He was referring to this all as a conspiracy up until roughly a week ago when he started claiming that he was a wartime president

5. Trump's press conferences are atrocious. He is an incoherent mess. He is making ***** up. Almost every time he speaks, the markets crater even more.

6. He just mocked the fact that Senator Romney had to go into self-quarantine

[Chas_P]

 kenberg, on 2020-March-22, 18:21, said:

At a moment of extreme danger we have a bizarre creature in the WH.

As previously stated I respect your opinion. I don't share it.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

At a private New York meeting in October of 1940, William Knudsen made a desperate plea to the automobile industry’s top executives. Knudsen himself had been the president of General Motors until a few months earlier. But he had stepped down to help oversee military production at President Franklin Roosevelt’s request. The position paid $1 a year.

Knudsen told the executives that American military officials surveying the Nazis’ bombing of England had concluded that the country with the strongest airpower was going to win the war. And the United States was badly behind. So Roosevelt and his military advisers wanted the car companies to forget about making cars, Knudsen said. They needed to begin making warplanes.

It was a radical request. It also matched the urgency of the situation. The car executives said yes, and the overhaul of Detroit became crucial to winning the war.

The coronavirus is not an actual war, but it does threaten modern society and human life in ways that nothing has in decades. More than two million Americans could die. Many will do so alone, separated from their family and friends. Funerals will often be impossible. Stores, schools and entire neighborhoods are shutting down. In the second quarter of this year, which starts next week, forecasters predict that the economy could shrink at the most rapid rate since the Great Depression.

This is a moment that calls for the urgency that Roosevelt and Knudsen summoned in the fall of 1940 — when, it’s worth remembering, the attack on Pearl Harbor was still more than a year away.

President Trump, however, has chosen a different response.

He has repeatedly decided not to get out in front of the virus. Instead of taking aggressive steps that public-health experts were urging, he has moved slowly, presumably in the hope that things would somehow work out for the best. Only when it’s clear that they aren’t working for the best has he followed the advice that experts had been offering for weeks. He has then tried to rewrite recent history and claimed that his response had been aggressive from the start.

The first example, of course, was his effort to play down the virus for almost two months, starting in late January. He falsely said that the number of cases was falling and that the virus might just go away, “like a miracle.” Even as medical experts were warning about the lack of testing, Trump did nothing to fix the situation, and the United States fell badly behind other countries.

The biggest current example of Trump’s relaxed response is his refusal to use his authority — from a 1950 law, the Defense Production Act — to order a sweeping mobilization of medical supplies. It could resemble the old overhaul of Detroit, with companies directed to produce millions of masks, ventilators, gowns, inhalers, prescription drugs, virus tests and more.

If you spend any time talking with doctors, nurses and other front-line workers, you will hear how badly they need these supplies. You will also hear them explain, sometimes in tears, that the lack of supplies will have deadly consequences. Patients will die needlessly, and so will doctors and nurses.

Esther Choo, an emergency-room doctor in Oregon, started an online campaign called #GetMePPE (which refers to personal protective equipment), and it’s led to an outpouring of anguished stories. Vidya Kumar Ramanathan, a Michigan doctor, has had to reuse the same mask all day, which makes it impossible to cleanse herself of the virus while working. Jessica Varga, a New York-area anesthesiologist, had to buy her own eye protection on Amazon. Amy Silverman, a Colorado nurse, says some of her colleagues have used the same mask for weeks.

The federal government has lamely suggested that doctors and nurses use bandanas or scarves to shield their faces “as a last resort” — even though those items may not offer protection. It’s a far cry from the can-do spirit of 1940.

Some private companies, to their credit, are increasing production of medical equipment. But it’s not happening quickly enough. It’s also not happening in any organized way: Caregivers have had to create Google spreadsheets to do their best to match supplies and need. The only way for a national mobilization to happen quickly and efficiently is with presidential leadership.

Instead, Trump has taken to the White House lectern to boast that he has invoked the 1950 Defense Production Act, which is technically true. He has then made vague and often incorrect claims about all the good it’s doing. On Sunday, he tweeted that Ford, G.M. and Tesla had “the go ahead” to make ventilators, a statement that appears to have little meaning. His advisers, in anonymous interviews, have admitted the truth: He doesn’t want to direct companies to produce medical supplies because doing so would violate the administration’s free-market economic views.

I want to emphasize that blaming Trump for the appearance of coronavirus would be deeply unfair. No matter who was president, the virus would likely have created a crisis, as it has in Europe.

But it’s also important to be clear about the responsibility that does fall on Trump. His months of denial — and his acceptance of the testing fiasco — meant that the United States failed to isolate people with the virus, as South Korea and Singapore did. His refusal to fix the medical-supply crisis means that the virus is unnecessarily spreading in hospitals and that Americans will unnecessarily die.

The severity of the virus, in turn, will make the economic downtown worse and longer lasting. And Trump will be partly at fault. A reality-based response in January and February would have produced a different economy in April and May.

There is still a lot of uncertainty about the next few months. Maybe coronavirus will turn out to be much less bad than now seems likely. If so, that would be wonderful. If not, the president will deserve significant responsibility — for the human toll, for the depth of the recession, for his refusal to act when he could have.