CoudyBills Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Artful Dodger said: 800 people died in Italy today from the CoronaVirus. That's a big number no matter how you look at it. 600 died yesterday; 400 died the day before. Yesterday, 221 people died in the US from the CoronaVirus. 172 died two days ago; 122 died three days ago. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Um, that accounts for more Corona deaths in the US than have actually died from Coronavirus in the US. I am starting to see the point you are making.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 ... (shrug) ... I don't love the telegraph in general, so this is just sharing not endorsing. 4 1
B-Man Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 FTA: Total cases are the wrong metric A low probability of catching COVID-19 The World Health Organization (“WHO”) released a study on how China responded to COVID-19. Currently, this study is one of the most exhaustive pieces published on how the virus spreads. The results of their research show that COVID-19 doesn’t spread as easily as we first thought or the media had us believe (remember people abandoned their dogs out of fear of getting infected). According to their report if you come in contact with someone who tests positive for COVID-19 you have a 1–5% chance of catching it as well. The variability is large because the infection is based on the type of contact and how long. The majority of viral infections come from prolonged exposures in confined spaces with other infected individuals. Person-to-person and surface contact is by far the most common cause. From the WHO report, “When a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it was most often (78–85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person. Cases globally are increasing (it is a virus after all!), but beware of believing metrics designed to intentionally scare like “cases doubling”. These are typically small numbers over small numbers and sliced on a per-country basis. Globally, COVID-19’s growth rate is rather steady. Remember, viruses ignore our national boundaries. Growth rates are tricky to track over time. Smaller numbers are easier to move than larger numbers. As an example, GDP growth of 3% for the US means billions of dollars while 3% for Bermuda means millions. Generally, growth rates decline over time, but the nominal increase may still be significant. This holds true of daily confirmed case increases. Daily growth rates declined over time across all countries regardless of particular policy solutions, such as shutting the borders or social distancing. Declining fatality rate As the US continues to expand testing, the case fatality rate will decline over the next few weeks. There is little doubt that serious and fatal cases of COVID-19 are being properly recorded. What is unclear is the total size of mild cases. WHO originally estimated a case fatality rate of 4% at the beginning of the outbreak but revised estimates downward 2.3% — 3% for all age groups. CDC estimates 0.5% — 3%, however stresses that closer to 1% is more probable. Due to COVID-19’s sensitivity to UV light and heat (just like the normal influenza virus), it is very likely that it will “burn off” as humidity increases and temperatures rise. https://medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894 1
TPS Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ... (shrug) ... Ummmm...you're basically supporting why it is so important to reduce the spread, their health system has become so overwhelmed that they can't provide the care that would save many of these people--that's the point of taking extreme measures. Quote And there’s also no question that parts of Italy’s health system have been overwhelmed with a surge of coronavirus patients and are struggling to cope. “Doctors in Italy haven’t been dealing with one or two patients in care... but up to 1,200,” says Dr Mike Ryan, health emergencies programme executive director at the World Health Organization. “The fact they’re saving so many is a small miracle in itself.” This pressure is likely to get worse as more healthcare workers are infected and have to isolate - already, 2,000 have contracted the virus in Italy. 1
CoudyBills Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 2 hours ago, TPS said: Really, you're linking some guy's blog post? I wish he would've started with this paragraph instead of ending... I'll focus on one point. There is a figure posted that compares "case fatality rates" for the flu vs the virus but he doesn't really address the dramatic difference that screams out from that figure--the CFR is 2.3% for the virus vs. 0.1% for the flue. There is an interval given that states the CFR for the virus is somewhere between 12 and 24 times higher. Let's see, nanker posted earlier today that 80,000 people died from the flu, which makes that interval 960,000 to 1.92 million.... So dismiss it because you disagree?
TPS Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: FTA: Total cases are the wrong metric A low probability of catching COVID-19 The World Health Organization (“WHO”) released a study on how China responded to COVID-19. Currently, this study is one of the most exhaustive pieces published on how the virus spreads. The results of their research show that COVID-19 doesn’t spread as easily as we first thought or the media had us believe (remember people abandoned their dogs out of fear of getting infected). According to their report if you come in contact with someone who tests positive for COVID-19 you have a 1–5% chance of catching it as well. The variability is large because the infection is based on the type of contact and how long. The majority of viral infections come from prolonged exposures in confined spaces with other infected individuals. Person-to-person and surface contact is by far the most common cause. From the WHO report, “When a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it was most often (78–85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person. Cases globally are increasing (it is a virus after all!), but beware of believing metrics designed to intentionally scare like “cases doubling”. These are typically small numbers over small numbers and sliced on a per-country basis. Globally, COVID-19’s growth rate is rather steady. Remember, viruses ignore our national boundaries. Growth rates are tricky to track over time. Smaller numbers are easier to move than larger numbers. As an example, GDP growth of 3% for the US means billions of dollars while 3% for Bermuda means millions. Generally, growth rates decline over time, but the nominal increase may still be significant. This holds true of daily confirmed case increases. Daily growth rates declined over time across all countries regardless of particular policy solutions, such as shutting the borders or social distancing. Declining fatality rate As the US continues to expand testing, the case fatality rate will decline over the next few weeks. There is little doubt that serious and fatal cases of COVID-19 are being properly recorded. What is unclear is the total size of mild cases. WHO originally estimated a case fatality rate of 4% at the beginning of the outbreak but revised estimates downward 2.3% — 3% for all age groups. CDC estimates 0.5% — 3%, however stresses that closer to 1% is more probable. Due to COVID-19’s sensitivity to UV light and heat (just like the normal influenza virus), it is very likely that it will “burn off” as humidity increases and temperatures rise. https://medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894 DR already posted this Bman. It's some guy's blog, who says himself that he's "a nobody." 2 minutes ago, CoudyBills said: So dismiss it because you disagree? I prefer to listen to experts. I highlighted the most important criticism that he seems to completely ignore. However, I can give you several other problems with his analysis if you'd like? Or just read some of the responses to his piece. 1
CoudyBills Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 7 minutes ago, TPS said: DR already posted this Bman. It's some guy's blog, who says himself that he's "a nobody." I prefer to listen to experts. I highlighted the most important criticism that he seems to completely ignore. However, I can give you several other problems with his analysis if you'd like? Or just read some of the responses to his piece. By all means, if you've got it handy, I appreciate it.
B-Man Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 12 minutes ago, TPS said: DR already posted this Bman. It's some guy's blog, who says himself that he's "a nobody." I am aware of that sir. But rather than take one sentence of his post and dismiss him from on high............ I read the whole thing and checked his links/sources. Then I clipped several parts (with links) that I thought many on the board would like to see. POST-QUARANTINE: Needed: the reopening plan. Fast. “Needed fast: a plan to open up the economy again in a virus-safe way. Every business should be (and likely is) working hard to figure out how to operate in a virus-safe way. Federal state and local government need to be working 24 hours a day during the next few weeks to promulgate virus-safe practices. Not because they are particularly good at it, but because they are the ones shutting things down, and their permission is needed to reopen, fully or partly. People also will want the confidence to know that businesses they patronize are compliant. You’ve got two weeks — figure out what combination of personal distancing, self-isolation, testing, cleaning, etc. will allow each kind of business to reopen, at least partially.” Here is an update on the photo I posted yesterday, it is real, but NOT as presented by the media. It’s a triage area for testing new arrivals, not “overflow” space because the hospital is full with coronavirus cases. More here. 1 1
TPS Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 12 minutes ago, CoudyBills said: By all means, if you've got it handy, I appreciate it. I'll save us both some time and just copy some of the criticisms in the comments to this piece... This article is deeply flawed, both in its analysis of the disease and in its analysis of international response to the disease. This is a response to every problem I could find. Flaws in his analysis of the disease: He argues that for considering virus spread on a national per-capita basis instead of absolute as a better way to account for the spread of the disease. This doesn’t make sense to me because coronavirus doesn’t take population size into account as in continues its exponential growth. Let’s take a parallel example. Instead of cornovirus spreading through a population, let’s consider e coli bacteria spreading in a Petri dish. The size of the Petri dish does not seem relevant to measuring the rate of e coli population growth until you get to a point where the e coli has covered the Petri dish and there’s no more room to expand. The same applies for coronavirus. He argues that a 10% per day growth rate is acceptable. At 10% growth rate per day, a virus that has infected 1000 people as of today would infect the entire population of the earth in 168 days. If that virus killed 1% of hosts, that would be over 75 million people. Corona has a higher death rate than that and has already infected many more people. 10% daily growth rate is not acceptable. “Among cases in people under age 19, only 2.5% developed severe disease” — this is still a lot of people, especially if we fail to flatten the curve and they all get sick at once He argues that viral infections are declining, then points to the example of China where decline in infections followed extremely harsh government action unlikely in Western countries “~95% of people who are tested aren’t positive” this is to be expected early in a viral outbreak and doesn’t imply anything about the actual potential of the virus to spread. “the fatality rate and severity rate will decline as more people are tested and more mild cases are counted” — not exactly true: the measured fatality and severity rates will decline as testing capacity increases because we will be able to test more borderline cases, but testing will have no impact on the actual fatality rate Argues that per-capita hospital beds doesn’t seem to be correlated to current fatality rates at the moment, and gives six examples of countries with highly divergent approaches and in different stages of viral infection. These conflicting variables void his statement about correlation between per-capita hospital beds and fatality rates. Saying anything meaningful about this would require a more detailed analysis. Other than these inaccuracies, he mostly paints a pretty accurate picture of a bleak situation, but tries his best to put a positive spin on the terrifying numbers his graphs portray. Flaws in his analysis of the response to COVID: Then he argues against draconian measures to reduce viral spread (using lots of scare quotes), while also repeatedly holding up China (the most draconian of all) as an example where viral spread fell. He argues that there is little evidence of disease spread in schools but this is to be expected because most places with high infection rates have closed schools. Is he implying that we should make our schools into Petri dishes to test this theory? He points to Singapore and South Korea as examples of societies that have remained running while also controlling the virus, but these countries started testing and other prevention mechanisms very early in the spread of the disease. We were not equipped like they were and it’s now too late for us to catch up. He argues that “we will spend more money on “shelter-in-place” than if we completely rebuilt our acute care and emergency capacity.” This is an interesting point but not relevant — even if we could spend this money as he seems to suggest, we wouldn’t have time to build any hospitals before we reach peak viral infection rates. Also even if we were able to instantly double our hospital capacity that might or might not be enough beds anyway. “big government came barrelling in like a bull in a china shop claiming they could solve COVID-19” — not really, actually big government in the US and China systematically downplayed the issue for critical weeks and thereby put their populations and economies at greater risk. “Let Americans be free to be a part of the solution, calling us to a higher civic duty to help those most in need and protect the vulnerable. Not sitting in isolation like losers.” — he’s calling for volunteer participation, which is admirable and something that many including are advocating alongside social distancing. This is a false dichotomy. He misleadingly summarizes this yahoo article: “75% of Americans are scared not of COVID-19 but what it is doing to our society.” The article never compares fear about government response to fear of COVID as he suggests https://finance.yahoo.com/news/harris-poll-on-americans-and-coronavirus-104636493.html This points to a general trend in his approach — saying “numbers don’t lie” then proceeding to state mistruths or misdirections about the numbers he throws out. Like other commentators, I don’t want to do a full point-by-point, but here are some examples: 1. Author’s claim: “According to Nobel Laureate and biophysicist Michael Levitt, the infection rate is declining: ‘Every coronavirus patient in China infected on average 2.2 people a day — spelling exponential growth that can only lead to disaster. But then it started dropping, and the number of new daily infections is now close to zero.’” First, it started dropping because China took draconian measures. The lockdown began nearly overnight on January 23rd. The provincial government in Hubei began enforcing round-the-clock “closed management” of all residential complexes, banning the private use of cars, forbidding residents from leaving their apartments without permission and requiring purchasers of cold medicine to disclose their temperature, address and identification number at the pharmacy. Citizens were also financially rewarded for reporting those who fail to follow quarantine orders. (https://www.npr.org/.../life-during-coronavirus-what...). The real conclusion? The infection rate declined because the government essentially locked people in their homes. To be clear, I’m not saying we should do this in the U.S. But the infection rate didn’t just magically or naturally decline. Second, the author left out this great tidbit from his source: Dr. Levitt said, “Currently, I am most worried about the U.S. It must isolate as many people as possible to buy time for preparations. Otherwise, it can end up in a situation where 20,000 infected people will descend on the nearest hospital at the same time and the healthcare system will collapse.” (https://www.calcalistech.com/.../0,7340,L-3800632,00.html). 2. Author’s Claim: “Children and Teens aren’t at risk” Just because children and teens are less susceptible to infection and severity doesn’t mean they are not at risk. On Severity: 90% of cases were mild or moderate — great. But 6% of children still developed severe or critical illness. (https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-children-serious...). That number’s too high for me to be comfortable with. On infection rate: The worry is less that children will spread it to other children, full-stop (although, see above, 6% is still a dangerous number). The concern is that children will spread it to their own families and to folks who are more prone to serious illness (which, strikingly, the author AGAIN recognizes in a later section: “[children] are more likely to expose older vulnerable adults as multi-generational homes are more common.”) 3. Author’s Claim: “What about asymptomatic spread?” (suggesting it isn’t a problem) Even if what the author says is true — that 10% of infections come from people who don’t yet show symptoms, and 1.2% of cases were truly asymptomatic — that is still a problem. The median incubation period is about 5 days (https://annals.org/.../incubation-period-coronavirus...). And 2.5% of people still have not shown symptoms after 11.5 days (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150748). In the author’s world where things are pretty much business as usual, the median person has 5 days to spread the virus to other people. Again, that’s why, if left unchecked, the virus could spread exponentially and cripple the world. 4. Author’s Claim: “Watch the Bell Curve… Both the CDC and WHO are optimizing virality and healthcare utilization, while ignoring the economic shock to our system. Both organizations assume you are going to get infected, eventually, and it won’t be that bad.” Again, I am amazed at the author’s ability to recognize facts (“Flattening the curve’s focus is a shock to the healthcare system which can increase fatalities due to capacity constraints”), yet completely leap to contrary conclusions. First, a peaked Bell Curve WILL lead to more fatalities, it is not just a possibility. (see the graph https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/.../flattening-curve...). Second, to the extent the criticism is that this concept isn’t being weighed against economic harms: (i) WHO is a health organization, not an economic organization. Sure, WHO didn’t do a detailed weighing of the public health effects of “flattening the curve” against the economic harms of allowing the curve to peak. But the author didn’t either (nor has anyone else as far as I’ve seen.) (ii) In the absence of such a study, I imagine the economic loss from 1–2 months of isolation is far more favorable than the economic loss in a world where half the world gets sick (https://www.cnbc.com/.../coronavirus-will-infect-half-the...) and 55,000 Americans are killed in just a single day (peak in mid-June https://www.theatlantic.com/.../how-we-beat.../608389/). Consider the first visual the author uses under the section “1% of cases will be severe.” If, left unchecked, half of Americans get the virus, then 81% of this people will “just” be sick with a mild case. That alone is horrible for economic productivity. But even worse, 14% are severe cases (requiring hospitalization which, again, gets worse when it’s happening to everyone at the same time) 5% are critical cases, and 2.3% of people are killed. Even if a fruitful economy is the #1 goal of humanity, this kind of infection scenario would absolutely devastate our economy. When you also consider that we, as a society, should probably protect our citizens from illness and death, the balancing test has a clear winner. To sum up: “Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist. Everything we do after will seem inadequate.” — Michael Leavitt, former HHS Secretary under President George W. Bush I don’t get the point of this kind of skepticism. Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are on the same side here. All the world’s leading epidemiologists agree that this is a crisis, that severe actions need to be taken to prevent the spread of this virus. Does the author think this is some sort of conspiracy? Some sort of cover-your-ass political paranoia? I say we listen to the experts (who have no incentive to crash the world economy, by the way) instead of the 2010 econ grad. 2 2 claps 1
CoudyBills Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TPS said: I'll save us both some time and just copy some of the criticisms in the comments to this piece... Thank you. Edited March 22, 2020 by CoudyBills
B-Man Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 5 minutes ago, TPS said: I'll save us both some time and just copy some of the criticisms in the comments to this piece... The responses were funny, easily 80 to 20 % negative. Actually, the funny thing is that we are apparently supposed to automatically believe the outraged responses without knowing who they are and why we should believe their arguments (unless of course it matches what we want to believe) I will just add this. Aaron Ginn is a Silicon Valley technologist who has written for TechCrunch, TheNextWeb, and Townhall. Ginn has published a piece at Medium about the Wuhan coronavirus. It’s called “Evidence over hysteria — COVID-19.” Ginn is not a scientist or a doctor, but he seems like a capable numbers cruncher and analyst. Moreover, he marshals views of medical and health professionals. I think his piece is worthy of your consideration. However, as with just about everything written on this subject, it should not be considered definitive. At this point, some level of skepticism is almost always in order. More information is a good thing, dismissing it, using the same methods that you claim the article does................is narrow-minded. . 1
Buffalo Bills Fan Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: The responses were funny, easily 80 to 20 % negative. Actually, the funny thing is that we are apparently supposed to automatically believe the outraged responses without knowing who they are and why we should believe their arguments (unless of course it matches what we want to believe) I will just add this. Aaron Ginn is a Silicon Valley technologist who has written for TechCrunch, TheNextWeb, and Townhall. Ginn has published a piece at Medium about the Wuhan coronavirus. It’s called “Evidence over hysteria — COVID-19.” Ginn is not a scientist or a doctor, but he seems like a capable numbers cruncher and analyst. Moreover, he marshals views of medical and health professionals. I think his piece is worthy of your consideration. However, as with just about everything written on this subject, it should not be considered definitive. At this point, some level of skepticism is almost always in order. More information is a good thing, dismissing it, using the same methods that you claim the article does................is narrow-minded. . Agree with more information is a really good thing.
Buffalo Bills Fan Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroquine Side effects[edit] Side effects include neuromuscular, hearing, gastrointestinal, brain, skin, eye, cardiovascular (rare), and blood reactions.[15] Seizures[15] Deafness or tinnitus.[15] Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and anorexia.[15] Mild and transient headache.[15] Skin itchiness, skin color changes, hair loss, and skin rashes.[15] Chloroquine-induced itching is very common among black Africans (70%), but much less common in other races. It increases with age, and is so severe as to stop compliance with drug therapy. It is increased during malaria fever; its severity is correlated to the malaria parasite load in blood. Some evidence indicates it has a genetic basis and is related to chloroquine action with opiate receptors centrally or peripherally.[16] Unpleasant metallic taste This could be avoided by "taste-masked and controlled release" formulations such as multiple emulsions.[17] Chloroquine retinopathy May be irreversible.[15] This occurs with long-term use over many years or with high doses. Patients on long-term chloroquine therapy should be screened at baseline and then annually after five years of use.[18] Patients should be screened for vision changes such as blurring of vision, difficulty focusing, or seeing half an object.[15] Hypotension and electrocardiographic changes[15][19] This manifests itself as either conduction disturbances (bundle-branch block, atrioventricular block) or cardiomyopathy – often with hypertrophy, restrictive physiology, and congestive heart failure. The changes may be irreversible. Only two cases have been reported requiring heart transplantation, suggesting this particular risk is very low. Electron microscopy of cardiac biopsies show pathognomonic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies. Pancytopenia, aplastic anemia, reversible agranulocytosis, low blood platelets, neutropenia.[20] Pregnancy[edit] Chloroquine has not been shown to have any harmful effects on the fetus when used for malarial prophylaxis.[21] Small amounts of chloroquine are excreted in the breast milk of lactating women. However, because this drug can be safely prescribed to infants, the effects are not harmful. Studies with mice show that radioactively tagged chloroquine passed through the placenta rapidly and accumulated in the fetal eyes which remained present five months after the drug was cleared from the rest of the body.[20][22] It is still advised to prevent women who are pregnant or planning on getting pregnant from traveling to malaria-risk regions.[21] Elderly[edit] There is not enough evidence to determine whether chloroquine is safe to be given to people aged 65 and older. However, the drug is cleared by the kidneys and toxicity should be monitored carefully in people with poor kidney functions.[20] Happy Chloroquine helps lots with Chinese virus but we all must be aware the side affects as well. In case. Edited March 22, 2020 by Buffalo Bills Fan
GG Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Declining fatality rate As the US continues to expand testing, the case fatality rate will decline over the next few weeks. There is little doubt that serious and fatal cases of COVID-19 are being properly recorded. What is unclear is the total size of mild cases. WHO originally estimated a case fatality rate of 4% at the beginning of the outbreak but revised estimates downward 2.3% — 3% for all age groups. CDC estimates 0.5% — 3%, however stresses that closer to 1% is more probable. Due to COVID-19’s sensitivity to UV light and heat (just like the normal influenza virus), it is very likely that it will “burn off” as humidity increases and temperatures rise. https://medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894 As of today, USA's mortality rate is 1.25%, and will drop as more people are diagnosed. There's also wide disparity across the states, with NY & WA having higher numbers. This thing defies any rational patterns of disease spreading.
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 48 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Fan said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroquine Side effects[edit] Side effects include neuromuscular, hearing, gastrointestinal, brain, skin, eye, cardiovascular (rare), and blood reactions.[15] Seizures[15] Deafness or tinnitus.[15] Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and anorexia.[15] Mild and transient headache.[15] Skin itchiness, skin color changes, hair loss, and skin rashes.[15] Chloroquine-induced itching is very common among black Africans (70%), but much less common in other races. It increases with age, and is so severe as to stop compliance with drug therapy. It is increased during malaria fever; its severity is correlated to the malaria parasite load in blood. Some evidence indicates it has a genetic basis and is related to chloroquine action with opiate receptors centrally or peripherally.[16] Unpleasant metallic taste This could be avoided by "taste-masked and controlled release" formulations such as multiple emulsions.[17] Chloroquine retinopathy May be irreversible.[15] This occurs with long-term use over many years or with high doses. Patients on long-term chloroquine therapy should be screened at baseline and then annually after five years of use.[18] Patients should be screened for vision changes such as blurring of vision, difficulty focusing, or seeing half an object.[15] Hypotension and electrocardiographic changes[15][19] This manifests itself as either conduction disturbances (bundle-branch block, atrioventricular block) or cardiomyopathy – often with hypertrophy, restrictive physiology, and congestive heart failure. The changes may be irreversible. Only two cases have been reported requiring heart transplantation, suggesting this particular risk is very low. Electron microscopy of cardiac biopsies show pathognomonic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies. Pancytopenia, aplastic anemia, reversible agranulocytosis, low blood platelets, neutropenia.[20] Pregnancy[edit] Chloroquine has not been shown to have any harmful effects on the fetus when used for malarial prophylaxis.[21] Small amounts of chloroquine are excreted in the breast milk of lactating women. However, because this drug can be safely prescribed to infants, the effects are not harmful. Studies with mice show that radioactively tagged chloroquine passed through the placenta rapidly and accumulated in the fetal eyes which remained present five months after the drug was cleared from the rest of the body.[20][22] It is still advised to prevent women who are pregnant or planning on getting pregnant from traveling to malaria-risk regions.[21] Elderly[edit] There is not enough evidence to determine whether chloroquine is safe to be given to people aged 65 and older. However, the drug is cleared by the kidneys and toxicity should be monitored carefully in people with poor kidney functions.[20] Happy Chloroquine helps lots with Chinese virus but we all must be aware the side affects as well. In case. There's a derivation of Chloroquine called Hydroxychloroquine that is off the shelf and has less side effects. 1
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Crayola64 said: Is anyone (besides our very dumb 3rdnlong) actually dumb enough to believe this is a true story? Good lord, people will post anything to FB to get it shared You're an idiot. Don't you find it rather unfulfilling to be a so called trial lawyer and to only have been a 3rd chair once? Maybe being an abortion doctor actually is more in line with your psyche. Edited March 22, 2020 by 3rdnlng
Numark3 Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: You're an idiot. Don't you find it rather unfulfilling to be a so called trial lawyer and to only have been a 3rd chair once? Maybe being an abortion doctor actually is more in line with your psyche. Not my fault you don't understand litigators, firms, or the legal field. 1
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 https://nypost.com/2020/03/21/naturally-antibacterial-sex-doll-companies-trying-to-cash-in-on-coronavirus/ 1
TPS Posted March 22, 2020 Posted March 22, 2020 8 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: There's a derivation of Chloroquine called Hydroxychloroquine that is off the shelf and has less side effects. I was taking hydroxychloroquine aka plaquenil for my rheumatoid arthritis by prescription. Are you sure there's an "off the shelf" version? I assume you mean non-prescription?
Recommended Posts