Doc Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 17 minutes ago, Taro T said: The cynical answer is because the left would rather see people die than see 45 get "a win." Really believe it is less sinister than that. The left reflexively believes that anything 45 supports is necessarily wrong or nefarious, sometimes both. And it takes a bit of doing to get over that reflexive 'this has to be fake or bad' reaction. That the national level media almost entirely in unison can't stand him being president and most all the people they interact with daily think like mindedly, and it isn't too hard to see why they still can't open up to the possibility that this might work. And except in very rare cases, at a minimum it won't hurt. I'm not so sure it's "cynical." They've been against it for weeks, even though they should have seen reports of it working for people, again in the face of no other treatment.
Scraps Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Doc said: I'm not so sure it's "cynical." They've been against it for weeks, even though they should have seen reports of it working for people, again in the face of no other treatment. Can you show me anyone who has been against this?
Warren Zevon Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, Scraps said: Can you show me anyone who has been against this? I've asked the same thing and all he can say is "libs."
meazza Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gary Busey said: Of course not. We need a a study that shows how HCQ shifts that 50% (if it's right) figure. I think if someone is on a ventilator the medicine might not make a difference. Seems to be in the case in which the virus is beginning to spread. i also read a study in which doctors seem to think that ventilators are actually increasing the risk of death. Edited April 10, 2020 by meazza 1
Scraps Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, meazza said: I think if someone is on a ventilator the medicine might not make a difference. It could be that by the time your on a ventilator the medicine might not work, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure. It could be that the drug is totally ineffective, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure. The thin study sited to support the use of HCQ did not include people on ventilators. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Wacka said: You and others are so full of hate 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year (366 this year)n every year. The vast majority of every post he makes is littered projection. Has been for years -- because he's a bad person, intellectually dishonest, and competently inept.
meazza Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Scraps said: It could be that by the time your on a ventilator the medicine might not work, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure. It could be that the drug is totally ineffective, in which case you are increasing the risk of heart failure. The thin study sited to support the use of HCQ did not include people on ventilators. Maybe. I really wish the politics would be left out of this. I wish the media would shut the ***** up and trump would shut the ***** up. Hey maybe I'm really in the middle. 1 1
Nanker Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, Scraps said: Can you show me anyone who has been against this? Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it. Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862 https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/ https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24 https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197 6
meazza Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Nanker said: Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it. Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862 https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/ https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24 https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197 At this point, what difference does it make? Edited April 10, 2020 by meazza 1
Scraps Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Nanker said: Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it. Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862 https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/ https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24 https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197 Those were interesting links. Thank you. I didn't read them as "it's worse than dying" though and I don't think meaningful trials would take 3-4 years. This is a distortion in my opinion. 1
Doc Brown Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 4 hours ago, Wacka said: You libtards would deny help to somebody hit by a car if Trump asked you to pitch in. If it was Tom Brady I'd have reservations.
Doc Brown Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Taro T said: The cynical answer is because the left would rather see people die than see 45 get "a win." Really believe it is less sinister than that. The left reflexively believes that anything 45 supports is necessarily wrong or nefarious, sometimes both. And it takes a bit of doing to get over that reflexive 'this has to be fake or bad' reaction. That the national level media almost entirely in unison can't stand him being president and most all the people they interact with daily think like mindedly, and it isn't too hard to see why they still can't open up to the possibility that this might work. And except in very rare cases, at a minimum it won't hurt. I don't agree with this. It's more that in general the left is often overly reliant on science while the right has a healthy skepticism of it (think climate change debate). You saw that play out here with Trump calling an unproven drug that subdues an overreactive immune response a potential game changer. This is the same guy that's pushed in the past that vaccines give some children autism. Plus, there's no doubt that even the most partisan person on the left can see the disdain most of the media has for Trump.
Magox Posted April 10, 2020 Author Posted April 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Doc Brown said: I don't agree with this. It's more that in general the left is often overly reliant on science while the right has a healthy skepticism of it (think climate change debate). You saw that play out here with Trump calling an unproven drug that subdues an overreactive immune response a potential game changer. This is the same guy that's pushed in the past that vaccines give some children autism. Plus, there's no doubt that even the most partisan person on the left can see the disdain most of the media has for Trump. I'm not going to word it the way others have. But, let's put it this way, do I believe that many in the media and some of the most ardent lefties hope that Trump is wrong about Hydrochloroquine? Yes, yes I do.
Doc Brown Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Magox said: I'm not going to word it the way others have. But, let's put it this way, do I believe that many in the media and some of the most ardent lefties hope that Trump is wrong about Hydrochloroquine? Yes, yes I do. Fair enough. "Rather see people die" is a bit histrionic though.
Doc Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Scraps said: Those were interesting links. Thank you. I didn't read them as "it's worse than dying" though and I don't think meaningful trials would take 3-4 years. This is a distortion in my opinion. And mentioning 4 cases of unsupervised ingestion of it as being reasons not to use it isn't a distortion?
Doc Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Fair enough. "Rather see people die" is a bit histrionic though. I didn't come to that conclusion lightly. The left, who loves science, could have said from the beginning "there is evidence it works, it's had no issues so far in the millions of patients who use it daily and we have no other treatments." But instead they went in the opposite direction and tried to push a false narrative about the drug being too dangerous to use, using 4 cases of people being stupid, to push that narrative. And they're still largely doing it. 1
Doc Brown Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, Doc said: I didn't come to that conclusion lightly. The left, who loves science, could have said from the beginning "there is evidence it works, it's had no issues so far in the millions of patients who use it daily and we have no other treatments." But instead they went in the opposite direction and tried to push a false narrative about the drug being too dangerous to use, using 4 cases of people being stupid, to push that narrative. And they're still largely doing it. Agree with this part but when you say "the left" does that include all registered Democrats?
Taro T Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I don't agree with this. It's more that in general the left is often overly reliant on science while the right has a healthy skepticism of it (think climate change debate). You saw that play out here with Trump calling an unproven drug that subdues an overreactive immune response a potential game changer. This is the same guy that's pushed in the past that vaccines give some children autism. Plus, there's no doubt that even the most partisan person on the left can see the disdain most of the media has for Trump. Wouldn't expect you to agree with that, as I don't either for the VAST majority of people that consider themselves to be to the left. (See paragraph below it for my version of the less cynical, and likely more correct, answer for why the vast majority of those reflexively countering the suggestion do so.) But, it is a fallacy to claim that the left relies on science and the right doesn't trust science. Astrology and crystal power both find way more adherents from the left than the right. Neither of which is in any way shape or form "science." And another popular item of "science" from the left - single use plastic bag bans looks like it had a veritable truckload of science behind it. As for "climate change," nobody denies the climate is changing. Nobody claims that mankind has no impact on it either. What gets questioned is how much of changes we see are primarily due to natural fluctuations of the sun and Earth itself and how much are due to mankind. Also, and far more importantly, the proposed remedies are questioned far more than the "science" especially when darn near every single model that predicts climate changes has over predicted the change, the proposed remedies are all costing in the TRILLIONS of $'s, and the people pushing these draconian solutions tend to be big winners should any of the remedies get enacted, the scientists don't let people see their data (falsifiability being a huge part of good science as opposed to concensus) and none change their own behavior to limit their own "carbon footprint". Being old enough to not only remember the old "the next ice age is coming" warnings but to have read several books on the subject, tend to take all these predictions with more than a heavy grain of salt. And having been an air quality engineer for a number of years, have a bit of an understanding about the science of it too. A lot of the debates on whether to "believe science" or not (and science isn't about belief, it's about hypothesizing, testing, and measuring and quantifying what it can) aren't even really about science at all. They're about people wanting to tell others how they should act and live and others fighting back against that. And that happens with actors from both sides. Science and religion get pushed hard when they support one's preferred policy of what others must do and get questioned when they don't. The climate change scientists haven't proved their theories in the scientific meaning of that term. Until their models start accurately predicting events, don't see where we should drop more $T's on their theories. If they have remedies that cost in the $MM's, might be willing to see them implemented, but they'd better do better if they want to continue to push implementation of solutions that are 5-6 orders of magnitude greater. Personally, would much rather see the environmentalists get back to focusing on actual pollution rather than their current money grabs. Rant over. Sorry for the rant. Did not mean to take away from the focus of this thread. 2 1
Doc Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Agree with this part but when you say "the left" does that include all registered Democrats? No. And I hate generalizations but it was easier than saying "almost everyone on the left..." 1
RaoulDuke79 Posted April 10, 2020 Posted April 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Scraps said: Can you show me anyone who has been against this? 2 hours ago, Gary Busey said: I've asked the same thing and all he can say is "libs." 2 hours ago, Nanker said: Sure. According to these reports it's worse than dying. It must be tested under clinical trials that last for at least 3 - 4 years before Dr.s should be allowed to use it. Hey, if it can save one person in 5 - 6 years from now, it'll probably be worth burying 20 - 30 million people before we get to that date. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-trump-wrong-about-hydroxychloroquine-it-wont-help-treat-coronavirus-140862 https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-hypes-potential-covid-19-drugs-but-evidence-so-far-is-slim/ https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/covid-19-the-bitter-truth-about-using-hydroxychloroquine-as-a-preventive-drug-1659116-2020-03-24 https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/24/trump-backs-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-therapy-weak-science/2904846001/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197 I guess that answers that. 2
Recommended Posts