COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,234 comments
  • 553,608 views
Looks like 2 more confirmed re-infections appeared in Europe.
AMSTERDAM/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Two European patients are confirmed to have been re-infected with COVID-19, raising concerns about people’s immunity to the coronavirus as the world struggles to tame the pandemic.

The cases, in Belgium and the Netherlands, follow a report this week by researchers in Hong Kong about a man there who had contracted a different strain of the virus four and a half months after being declared recovered - the first such second infection to be documented.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ted-with-coronavirus-nos-report-idUSKBN25L0LF
 
McLaren
Looks like 2 more confirmed re-infections appeared in Europe.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ted-with-coronavirus-nos-report-idUSKBN25L0LF
Click to expand...
Is it possible that they are being infected with a different strand? I do know that at least 2 types of COVID-19 exist (the original and the more easily spread US strain). Not sure if there are more.

In other news, New York City and New Jersey are expected to open gyms in the next 2 weeks at 25% capacity. Despite having a gym membership up until the pandemic hit, I am less likely to return and more likely to go the route of purchasing a cardio machine for the house.
 
Blitz24
In other news, New York City and New Jersey are expected to open gyms in the next 2 weeks at 25% capacity. Despite having a gym membership up until the pandemic hit, I am less likely to return and more likely to go the route of purchasing a cardio machine for the house.
Click to expand...
I have a nephew who is an avid boxer. But currently his gym permits only individuals working out on a bag - no boxing. I on the other hand have a hard time living happily without indulging my obsession with fencing. We're doing that now at my academy, but with only four fencers and two instructors in the main rom, which formerly accommodated 20+.
 
Dotini
I have a nephew who is an avid boxer. But currently his gym permits only individuals working out on a bag - no boxing. I on the other hand have a hard time living happily without indulging my obsession with fencing. We're doing that now at my academy, but with only four fencers and two instructors in the main rom, which formerly accommodated 20+.
Click to expand...
Just remember, no touching!
 
Dotini
I have a nephew who is an avid boxer. But currently his gym permits only individuals working out on a bag - no boxing. I on the other hand have a hard time living happily without indulging my obsession with fencing. We're doing that now at my academy, but with only four fencers and two instructors in the main rom, which formerly accommodated 20+.
Click to expand...

Of course you are a fencer.
 
https://www.aier.org/article/lockdo...nsmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/

Governments have conducted an unprecedented social, economic, and political experiment in controlling whole populations’ behavior, with high economic and human cost. The authors ask the right question: has this experiment in government-managed virus control and suppression made a difference? The startling answer they found, after examining data from around the country and the world, is that the evidence simply is not there.

If we are concerned about the evidence on this global experiment, we must concede that most government authorities have likely acted in error.
 
x3ra
https://www.aier.org/article/lockdo...nsmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/

Governments have conducted an unprecedented social, economic, and political experiment in controlling whole populations’ behavior, with high economic and human cost. The authors ask the right question: has this experiment in government-managed virus control and suppression made a difference? The startling answer they found, after examining data from around the country and the world, is that the evidence simply is not there.

If we are concerned about the evidence on this global experiment, we must concede that most government authorities have likely acted in error.
Click to expand...

I don't think that your conclusion is supported even if you took the premise at face value. But the paper cited in that article has a pretty simple and obvious flaw. Its results are based on asynchronous timing between infection (or even more complicated, death) rates as compared to the timing of government mandates. But the government mandates are not synchronous with implementation in the general population. So you'd expect a timing difference, including factors which can lead or lag as compared to government action.

It may well be that some (or even all) government action has been ineffective. But the paper, in my personal, non-expert opinion, falls short of demonstrating that. And even if they were completely ineffective, "acted in error" is a conclusion that still requires additional support. Because they made their decision based on the information they had going in, not the information we had today. You'd have to judge their decision based on what we knew at the time to say it was "in error". Which, again, might be possible to do, but the paper appears to fall short of that.
 
Danoff
I don't think that your conclusion is supported even if you took the premise at face value. But the paper cited in that article has a pretty simple and obvious flaw. Its results are based on asynchronous timing between infection (or even more complicated, death) rates as compared to the timing of government mandates. But the government mandates are not synchronous with implementation in the general population. So you'd expect a timing difference, including factors which can lead or lag as compared to government action.

It may well be that some (or even all) government action has been ineffective. But the paper, in my personal, non-expert opinion, falls short of demonstrating that. And even if they were completely ineffective, "acted in error" is a conclusion that still requires additional support. Because they made their decision based on the information they had going in, not the information we had today. You'd have to judge their decision based on what we knew at the time to say it was "in error". Which, again, might be possible to do, but the paper appears to fall short of that.
Click to expand...
This is possibly the most polite and eloquent way of saying "It's total bollocks" that I've ever seen.
 
Add another study to the growing list of studies that show hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and could be dangerous when combined with azithromycin:

Effect of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin on the mortality of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
In conclusion, this meta-analysis clearly shows that hydroxychloroquine alone is not effective for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increases the risk of mortality.
Click to expand...
 
JoeyD is apparently engaged in a disinformation campaign. This is according to a Yale professor

Risch accused the opponents of HCQ use of being engaged in “a massive disinformation campaign that stretches from the government to the media, that’s either suppressing this message, or it’s countering it with a false message.”
Click to expand...
In reality, “the science is so one-sided in supporting this result that it’s stronger than anything else I’ve ever studied in my entire career,” said Risch. “The evidence in favor of hydroxychloroquine benefit in high-risk patients treated early as outpatients is stronger than anything else I’ve ever studied.
Click to expand...

”https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yale-prof-evidence-overwhelming-for-fighting-covid-with-hydroxychloroquine?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=aae97349c8-Daily%20Headlines%20-%20World_COPY_825&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-aae97349c8-402264009



This may or may not work
 
x3ra
JoeyD is apparently engaged in a disinformation campaign. This is according to a Yale professor
Click to expand...

Miss me with that crap, you're the one who keeps posting absolutely ridiculous things that have zero scientific merit.

Also, Dr. Risch is a hack, I've addressed this once before this thread:
Joey D
Ok fine, I read it and it's crap because it cites absolutely nothing. Thankfully, after some Googling, I was able to find the actual academic paper written by Dr. Risch which he references in the Newsweek op-ed.

Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis

What's even odder is that he touts that the study was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, but conveniently neglects to mention that Dr. Risch is on the editorial board for that publication.

In his paper, Dr. Risch leans heavily on a study from March by several French doctors (referred to commonly as Gautret et al). That study is inherently flawed and was conducted under unethical means. The study was first submitted on March 16th, accepted on March 17th, and published on March 20th. This means that at least one of the peer review processes was done in less than 24 hours, which while possible seems highly unlikely. Shortly after the paper was published, there was a whole slew of academics chiming in on how terrible the study was.

Ethically, the paper Dr. Risch leans on is also pretty bad. The French National Agency for Drug Safety approved hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment on March 5th, 2020. The Gautret paper also says that it followed the approved protocol for 14 days. Now I'm not a math whiz by any means, but 14 days prior to March 16th (the time the paper was published) is March 2nd. So either patients were given hydroxychloroquine without it being an approved drug, which is unethical, or the numbers are fudged, which is also unethical.

If I'm able to find this out, then certainly a Yale academic can figure it out too.

The other researcher that Dr. Risch relies on is Vladimir Zelenko, who published some drivel in April. It's since been deleted from the Goolge Docs page that was sharing it though. The only thing that still exists is an open letter to Trump that cites nothing and there's nothing to prove the reliability of it.

Dr. Risch also cites this Brazilian study:

Empirical treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for suspected cases of COVID-19 followed-up by telemedicine

That was suspended for being unethical (sorry I can't find an English source, but Google Translate works).

What Dr. Risch did was cite three flawed studies to come up with his argument. That's not good science and we should not accept that.
Click to expand...
 
x3ra
JoeyD is apparently engaged in a disinformation campaign. This is according to a Yale professor




”https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yale-prof-evidence-overwhelming-for-fighting-covid-with-hydroxychloroquine?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=aae97349c8-Daily%20Headlines%20-%20World_COPY_825&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-aae97349c8-402264009



This may or may not work
Click to expand...


You should be careful what you accuse other members of. That's a pretty outrageous statement.

https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/...oroquine-and-its-use-in-covid-19-47d0dee7b2b0

I suppose these 25 Yale Doctors who all vehemently disagree with Dr. Risch's findings are also engaged in a disinformation campaign? Or are they simply pointing out that Dr. Risch is NOT an expert on the subject.

We write with grave concern that too many are being distracted by the ardent advocacy of our Yale colleague, Dr. Harvey Risch, to promote the assertion that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when given with antibiotics is effective in treating COVID-19, in particular as an early therapeutic intervention for the disease. As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions. But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments. Over the last few weeks, all of us have spent considerable time explaining the evidence behind HCQ research, as it applies to early and late stage COVID-19 patients to the scientific community and general public, and now are compelled to detail the evidence in this open letter.
Click to expand...
 
x3ra
JoeyD is apparently engaged in a disinformation campaign. This is according to a Yale professor




”https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yale-prof-evidence-overwhelming-for-fighting-covid-with-hydroxychloroquine?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=aae97349c8-Daily%20Headlines%20-%20World_COPY_825&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-aae97349c8-402264009



This may or may not work
Click to expand...


Do you think the fact that it's a large number of doctors establish legitimacy to their claim?
 
x3ra
JoeyD is apparently engaged in a disinformation campaign. This is according to a Yale professor
Click to expand...

These days, it's important to think carefully about what someone is saying, and possibly even research it, rather than simply believing it because you want to.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Do you think the fact that it's a large number of doctors establish legitimacy to their claim?
Click to expand...

Apparently 97% of scientists say that we have global warming so yes, and no.

However it doesn't matter how many doctors or scientists, because something is either true or false, a consensus is not science.

But if any of you are interested in what a few doctors are saying then https://acu2020.org/english-versions/ .

that
Danoff
These days, it's important to think carefully about what someone is saying, and possibly even research it, rather than simply believing it because you want to.
Click to expand...

You said it.

I am interested in your motivations. Mine - the response to the virus is way over the top, and the cure is worse than the disease.

I heard a radio presenter say the other day to a listener who thought along similar lines to myself, that any Covid death would be down to him. Which I thought was a bit harsh. However by the same token, any death through un-diagnosed cancer, suicide, starvation etc would be conversely, down to the radio presenter.

There are two sides of the Covid Coin, and the majority of you are only looking at one side. I'm just showing you that there's another side. Someone has to, or you get no debate.

And BTW I wear a mask when I go shopping, doesn't mean I think it's right.


Well go on then win yourself $5000 if you can prove it.
 
x3ra
I'm just showing you that there's another side. Someone has to, or you get no debate.
Click to expand...
Which is an interesting concept from someone who avoids posting to avoid answering questions, apparently for long enough to believe everyone's forgotten about them.

Debate works by posing and answering questions. It starts by posing them to yourself.
 
x3ra
There are two sides of the Covid Coin, and the majority of you are only looking at one side. I'm just showing you that there's another side. Someone has to, or you get no debate.
Click to expand...

The only side you are showing is the conspiracy theory pseudoscience side, and then saying someone (i.e. me) is waging a "disinformation campaign" when they post legitimate scientific research. Can legitimate scientific research have different outcomes? Of course, but you're not posting those.
 
x3ra
There are two sides of the Covid Coin, and the majority of you are only looking at one side. I'm just showing you that there's another side. Someone has to, or you get no debate.
Click to expand...

...The more I read your posts and replies, the more I get the vibe that I'm actually reading a flat earth theorist who decided to branch out.

I remember an actual self-professed flat earther within in this very forum claim something or rather about providing debate there, too. Hmm...
 
x3ra
Well go on then win yourself $5000 if you can prove it.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I'm sure the stipulation is proving it in some asinine way so that it can't be proven akin to following:

"Prove Humans can travel to Australia!"
Ok, here's a plane.
"No."
Uh, here's a ship?
"No, try again."
There's not really another way; the human body can't get there on its own.
"Exactly! Australia can't be traveled to by humans".
 
McLaren
Sadly, I'm sure the stipulation is proving it in some asinine way so that it can't be proven akin to following:

"Prove Humans can travel to Australia!"
Ok, here's a plane.
"No."
Uh, here's a ship?
"No, try again."
There's not really another way; the human body can't get there on its own.
"Exactly! Australia can't be traveled to by humans".
Click to expand...
The false plane and ship claims are all a conspiracy by the travel companies. Wake up sheeple! #scamqantas
 
McLaren
Sadly, I'm sure the stipulation is proving it in some asinine way so that it can't be proven akin to following:

"Prove Humans can travel to Australia!"
Ok, here's a plane.
"No."
Uh, here's a ship?
"No, try again."
There's not really another way; the human body can't get there on its own.
"Exactly! Australia can't be traveled to by humans".
Click to expand...

My guess is that he could have it, test positive for it, and still claim it doesn't exist. Judging by his website, he'd probably say it was just toxins built up in his colon.
 

Latest Posts

Back