Coronavirus Outbreak...

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually the House had plenty enough evidence to warrant the Presidents removal, which a few republican Senators admitted to after the fact, but not enough evidence to force this republican Senate to do the right thing and remove him rather than their doing the politically expedient thing for themselves and exonerating him. The House would have needed the equivelent evidence of hundreds of people witnessing him shoot someone on 5th ave in broad daylight in order to get this Republican Senate to convict. And even that might not have done the trick, certainly not for you.

So much that they forgot to include it in the impeachment articles.

[Watermelon]

So much that they forgot to include it in the impeachment articles.

Did you forget that a republican voted to remove on one article and several republicans admitted that the house proved their case?

They had enough evidence, the fact that not enough senators thought it was deserving of removal is another matter.

[lilpixieofterror]

Did you forget that a republican voted to remove on one article and several republicans admitted that the house proved their case?

One out of how many?

They had enough evidence, the fact that not enough senators thought it was deserving of removal is another matter.

Than the jury said there wasn’t enough. Case closed. Stop wit the sour grapes because your side didn’t win a near impossibility.

[NorrinRadd]

I've done a bit of backtracking. This article is widely disseminated on far-right websites, blogs, and social media, and many well-known conspiracy sites. AFAICT, it has zero presence anywhere in the medical literature nor has it been reported in any mainstream news outlet. If it has, I cannot find it.

As best I can tell, it was written by Mycahya Eggleston who appears to be a Photolithography Engineer (i.e., he designs/makes very small electronics).

I am dubious.

The observations that it is not pneumonia, does not behave like typical ARDS, and that standard ventilator protocols seem to make it worse rather than better have been addressed by E.R. doc Cameron Kyle-Sidell in various places, including an 18-minute WebMD interview.

[NorrinRadd]

...
Finally, the article goes on to outline how chloroquine could be used to ease the symptoms of respiratory distress. If it proves to be correct, it suggests chloroquine is indeed a treatment option for Covid-19 and constitutes the first documentation of this in a formal study that I am aware of. It's encouraging, but needs to be replicated and peer reviewed. Until then, it certainly gives clinicians a basis for using this option when they are running out of options.

The problem with this approach is that infectious disease expert Dr. Stephen Smith has found in his practice that HCQ is much more effective when used early than as an almost-last resort.

[NorrinRadd]

It's an experimental and unproven treatment at the moment, so Fauci's caution is reasonable. It should be rolled out slowly on a small scale and the patients carefully monitored. Can you imagine if it was used to treat thousands only to later discover that there are undesirable long-term side effects?

Dr. Oz has been touting it, partly based on his communication with numerous rheumatologists who use it regularly in their practices to treat lupus and other ailments. He says they've assured him they've had patients use it for decades with no adverse effects.

[carpedm9587]

The observations that it is not pneumonia, does not behave like typical ARDS, and that standard ventilator protocols seem to make it worse rather than better have been addressed by E.R. doc Cameron Kyle-Sidell in various places, including an 18-minute WebMD interview.

I'll chase it down tomorrow. Thanks for the info.

[carpedm9587]

The problem with this approach is that infectious disease expert Dr. Stephen Smith has found in his practice that HCQ is much more effective when used early than as an almost-last resort.

Understood - and this is certainly a choice a clinician and their patient will have to make together. I would never, however, suggest that anyone in a position of significant power (like a president) advocate for widespread use of any solution whose consequences have not been explored. It's too much rolling the dice. I realize it has been used as a treatment for other ailments, but this is a novel coronavirus. The problem is, we just don't know. The experts need to shake this out.

[NorrinRadd]

We have 19,100 new cases so far today, but 1,371 deaths already...

We also now have more cases than the next three countries combined. Those are now Spain, Italy, and France. The France situation is getting ugly. Fortunately, our deaths are nowhere the total of theirs.

I wonder what the death rate would be if Dr. Birx had not directed that records not distinguish between deaths "from" Kung Flu and deaths "with" Kung Flu.

[carpedm9587]

I wonder what the death rate would be if Dr. Birx had not directed that records not distinguish between deaths "from" Kung Flu and deaths "with" Kung Flu.

The distinction would be almost impossible to make consistently. If a man with pulmonary fibrosis gets the coronavirus and dies, was it the coronavirus or the pulmonary fibrosis? The fact is the person would probably have lived longer without either; the coronavirus was likely to have been made more deadly by the compromised nature of the lungs.

Further, it is almost certain we are under-counting the deaths because of the lack of testing and the decision not to test those who have already died without being tested (so as to keep the tests for the living). Hopefully, the over counting on one side and the under counting on the other cancel out - but the fact is we will never know. Add to that the possible/probable influence of politics on reporting. Total deaths and infections, ultimately, are statistically determined. There is no way to precisely count either infections or deaths.

[Mountain Man]

Did you forget that a republican voted to remove on one article and several republicans admitted that the house proved their case?

They had enough evidence, the fact that not enough senators thought it was deserving of removal is another matter.

The House proved its case that Trump did something (which was never a point of contention). It did not prove its case that Trump did something illegal.

[Mountain Man]

Dr. Oz has been touting it, partly based on his communication with numerous rheumatologists who use it regularly in their practices to treat lupus and other ailments. He says they've assured him they've had patients use it for decades with no adverse effects.

Is it possible that a medication could have a side effect when treating one disease but not another?

[carpedm9587]

The House proved its case that Trump did something (which was never a point of contention). It did not prove its case that Trump did something illegal.

The constitution explicitly does not require "illegal." This is all over the FFs discussions about this issue. Their concern was not just illegal, but also a corrupt person using the presidency to further corruption, or entangling themselves with foreign influences, or anything else that Congress believed was potentially harmful to the nation. That is why the phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" was inserted. Its historical roots are well described here. There are many things a president could do that would be harmful to the nation while not explicitly illegal.

Consider the following scenarios: A president could decide that every single office in the military is inept, demote them all to private and promote every private to the vacated officer positions. There is nothing about this action that is explicitly illegal - the president is the commander-in-chief and has the authority to do this. They also have the power of pardon which has little limit on it, and they could decide that every convicted person in the U.S. should be pardoned because the justice system is corrupt! Again, not illegal. But both actions are almost certainly harmful to the nation. Congress would have the duty to remove such a president for these actions.

The language around impeachment was specifically chosen to make it possible for Congress to remove someone from any civil office if they acted in a way - legal or illegal - that was harmful to the people they serve.

Now - take what Trump did, and put it in Obama's administration. Congress discovers that Obama has been approaching government leaders and making their financial support and/or presidential audiences dependent on their willingness to open investigations into their political rivals. What if it was shown that Obama had been asking the leaders of any country that had a Trump property to publicly open an investigation into Trump during the fall of 2015 through the summer of 2016. Close your eyes and imagine it actually happening. What is your reaction now?

[little_monkey]

Some preliminary studies on the coronavirus:

A team from Fudan University analysed blood samples from 175 patients discharged from the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre and found that nearly a third had unexpectedly low levels of antibodies.

In some cases, antibodies could not be detected at all.

All of the patients had recently recovered from mild symptoms of the disease and most of those with low antibody levels were young.

The team also found that antibody levels rose with age, with people in the 60-85 age group displaying more than three times the amount of antibodies as people in the 15-39 age group.

Many questions about the virus remain unanswered, including how the virus made the jump from animal to humans; why some people die from Covid-19 and others are asymptomatic; and why some recovered patients test positive again.

... too early to declare victory against the disease even in China, where the situation was under control for now. “Who knows whether this will become something like a seasonal flu, or chronic disease like hepatitis B, or just vanish like Sars?”

See full article:https://www.scmp.com/news/china/scie...uestions-about

[carpedm9587]

Is it possible that a medication could have a side effect when treating one disease but not another?

Side effects can change based on person, condition, other medications, age, race, gender, combinations of existing diseases, etc. And any combination of these things can alter a side effect. If a drug has been extensively tested for use for one disease, that would typically include the most commonly encountered situations for that disease. That does not then mean that the drug in question is safe for use in other combinations of scenarios. Since this is a novel virus, by definition it has not been tested in ANY scenarios that have this virus as part of the combination. It may be efficatious for some, neutral for others, and deadly for still others. It may be efficatious for everyone. The fact is, we just don't know.