Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) Thread

[jc456]

Dr Stephen Smith and Dr Mehmet Oz?

Hahahaha

Oh man

Dr Oz? How embarrassing.

I do not totally disagree with Dr. Shiva. (sorry I don't remember how to spell his last name.)
Big pharma is a problem, and doctors are being trained to just prescribe.
He is also right that working to help control the immune system is the most important, and that the main cause of death from COVID-19 is an over active immune system that is attacking the compromised lungs.

But he admitted he is running for the senate, and that hydroxychloroquine itself is not a cure but a means of stopping the immune system from over reacting.

so that invalidates his credentials, huh? too funny. vitamins, which you need by going out and socializing. being a germaphobe is not a good thing. ask peanut victims.

It does not invalidate his credential that he is running for office, but I noticed he was selective in what he said and did not say. He did not say people should take hydroxychloroquine. He attacked Fauci, without any medical details. He implied he supported Trump, but said nothing Trump did that was positive. What he said was extremely political. Although he did not really lie. It was more by omission that he was being deceptive.

the entire thing is political. you finally noticed huh? all those smarts and you couldn't figure that out. Now will you jump in the boxcar when they tell you to?

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

neither is it scientific to shut down an economy without doing some other measures first. so I can say this self isolation has failed. you have no numbers to base any success off of. right?

Social distancing is based on numbers.
They know isolation can easily reduce spread.
It is all in the numbers.

{...
R0 is pronounced “R naught.” It’s a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.

R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

I do not know if they are correct, and they likely are guessing to a degree.
But a mistake on the side of caution is better than the other way.

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.
So I am not really arguing against your point entirely.
I can see both sides to this.

They know isolation can easily reduce spread.

how?

COVID-19 does not spread very easily.
Each infected person is only passing it to about 2 people.
So if you can slightly reduce it, to less then 1.5, the epidemic quickly goes away.

{...

What do R0 values mean?

Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:

• If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
• If R0 equals 1, each existing infection causes one new infection. The disease will stay alive and stable, but there won’t be an outbreak or an epidemic.
• If R0 is more than 1, each existing infection causes more than one new infection. The disease will spread between people, and there may be an outbreak or epidemic.

Importantly, a disease’s R0 value only applies when everyone in a population is completely vulnerable to the disease. This means:

• no one has been vaccinated
• no one has had the disease before
• there’s no way to control the spread of the disease

This combination of conditions is rare nowadays thanks to advances in medicine. Many diseases that were deadly in the past can now be contained and sometimes cured. For example, in 1918 there was a worldwide outbreak of the swine flu that killed 50 million people. According to a review article published in BMC Medicine, the R0 value of the 1918 pandemic was estimated to be between 1.4 and 2.8. But when the swine flu, or H1N1 virus, came back in 2009, its R0 value was between 1.4 and 1.6, report researchers in the journal Science. The existence of vaccines and antiviral drugs made the 2009 outbreak much less deadly.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

So social distancing makes all the difference in the world.
It is all a game of odds, and if everyone does things to reduce your chances, then it all goes away quickly.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

The study involved 1061 patients, and who said there wasn't a control group?

No one said it was a "cure," whatever that means. It helps you recover from the symptoms much quicker, which is all that is needed. The claim that it's not a "cure" is a straw man argument.

it separates the virus from the immune system and allows the immune system to work.

No, hydroxychloroquine suppresses the immune system and stops it from attacking the compromised lungs of severely infected patients.
You can not separate the virus from the immune system, and the problem is that the immune system can kill you if it tried too fast and hard to kill an invader.
For example, fevers are caused by the immune system, and if the fever gets to high, you will die.
Slowing the immune system can buy you more time, to attack the invader more slowly over a longer time.

yep and what the doctor I posted said.

 

[Likkmee]

If every person in the country, who hasn't been tested, was tested this week the backhoe sales at Kubota would soar due to fear digging as a result of the 'infected" positives

 

[Rigby5]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

real doctors? like who?

I have about 50 or so personal contact doctors I talk to, that you would not know.
And they contract hundreds of other doctors each.
So I get a pretty good summary.

I work at the WH and I have many more. see how that works?

The White House has far fewer educated and reliable contacts.
When you get that high up, the money and power corrupts more, so your trustworthy contacts greatly diminish.

That is easy to prove.
For example, with Iraq and WMD, it was clear to anyone who bothered, that Iraq had none.
The chemical weapons they used back in 1987 they got from the US. They never successfully were ever able to make their own. Everyone should have known this. But the WH is too insular, and started to believe its own rumor.

 

[Rigby5]

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.

Good job, by and large, Rigby, but here's were I think you are wrong. Doing nothing would collapse the healthcare system, and that doesn't just mean care not rendered to Covid-19 patients, but to all others who happen fall seriously ill during that time, not least because of overworked and under-equipped healthcare workers falling ill and dying. The exact number is everybody's guess, but the survival rate would have been way lower than 98%.

That's what all those who argue for "let's get through this, and aim for herd immunity" are also getting wrong, at least until there's some highly effective anti-viral cure. Reportedly, we may be seeing some of that already, as people feeling sick won't get treated for fear of being infected if they sought treatment. Mind those secondary effects.

Oh I agree.
Greater speed of spread would have overwhelmed hospitals.
It also would have killed all those susceptible, and with a slower spread, many of the susceptible will survive once the contamination rate gets low enough.
And I agree that vaccines and other treatments need the time that slowing things down allows for.
I am just saying I can also see the other side somewhat.
I just prefer the error of the side of caution and slowing, vs what the error on the other side of doing nothing could bring.

 

[Rigby5]

If every person in the country, who hasn't been tested, was tested this week the backhoe sales at Kubota would soar due to fear digging as a result of the 'infected" positives

That is an interesting point, in that the Dec flu that went around, I got in early Jan.
And it was the worst flu ever, with the exact same lung symptoms of COVID-19.
So I am very suspicious about what a good universal test would show?

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

neither is it scientific to shut down an economy without doing some other measures first. so I can say this self isolation has failed. you have no numbers to base any success off of. right?

Social distancing is based on numbers.
They know isolation can easily reduce spread.
It is all in the numbers.

{...
R0 is pronounced “R naught.” It’s a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.

R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

I do not know if they are correct, and they likely are guessing to a degree.
But a mistake on the side of caution is better than the other way.

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.
So I am not really arguing against your point entirely.
I can see both sides to this.

They know isolation can easily reduce spread.

how?

COVID-19 does not spread very easily.
Each infected person is only passing it to about 2 people.
So if you can slightly reduce it, to less then 1.5, the epidemic quickly goes away.

{...

What do R0 values mean?

Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:

• If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
• If R0 equals 1, each existing infection causes one new infection. The disease will stay alive and stable, but there won’t be an outbreak or an epidemic.
• If R0 is more than 1, each existing infection causes more than one new infection. The disease will spread between people, and there may be an outbreak or epidemic.

Importantly, a disease’s R0 value only applies when everyone in a population is completely vulnerable to the disease. This means:

• no one has been vaccinated
• no one has had the disease before
• there’s no way to control the spread of the disease

This combination of conditions is rare nowadays thanks to advances in medicine. Many diseases that were deadly in the past can now be contained and sometimes cured. For example, in 1918 there was a worldwide outbreak of the swine flu that killed 50 million people. According to a review article published in BMC Medicine, the R0 value of the 1918 pandemic was estimated to be between 1.4 and 2.8. But when the swine flu, or H1N1 virus, came back in 2009, its R0 value was between 1.4 and 1.6, report researchers in the journal Science. The existence of vaccines and antiviral drugs made the 2009 outbreak much less deadly.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

So social distancing makes all the difference in the world.
It is all a game of odds, and if everyone does things to reduce your chances, then it all goes away quickly.

nope, you can't say that. you have no idea that being exposed means you get it. so you are not correct. Your example implies that anyone can get it. that isn't so. In your example you make more people susceptible to the virus by destroying the immune system.

 

[jc456]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

real doctors? like who?

I have about 50 or so personal contact doctors I talk to, that you would not know.
And they contract hundreds of other doctors each.
So I get a pretty good summary.

I work at the WH and I have many more. see how that works?

The White House has far fewer educated and reliable contacts.
When you get that high up, the money and power corrupts more, so your trustworthy contacts greatly diminish.

That is easy to prove.
For example, with Iraq and WMD, it was clear to anyone who bothered, that Iraq had none.
The chemical weapons they used back in 1987 they got from the US. They never successfully were ever able to make their own. Everyone should have known this. But the WH is too insular, and started to believe its own rumor.

we have access to every doctor in every county of this nation as well as globally.

 

[bripat9643]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

The study involved 1061 patients, and who said there wasn't a control group?

No one said it was a "cure," whatever that means. It helps you recover from the symptoms much quicker, which is all that is needed. The claim that it's not a "cure" is a straw man argument.

We were discussing the Dr. Smith interview which was only 72 patients, and no control group.
There are some larger tests from China, France, Brazil, etc., but from what I have seen, hydroxychloroquine by itself if not very useful and can cause harm, especially if given before there is pneumonia. It is best in very advanced cases, and even then only along with other things.

The point is that self medicating does not help, and hording would be even worse.

Who is "we?" I'm certainly not discussing that. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from such a small sample of patients.

 

[playtime]

My best wishes to the participants in this study. I hope their hearts are working properly again soon and I hope we continue to try to find cures for this horrible coronavirus.

Small Chloroquine Study Halted Over Risk of Fatal Heart Complications (Published 2020)

A research trial of coronavirus patients in Brazil ended after patients taking a higher dose of chloroquine, one of the drugs President Trump has promoted, developed irregular heart rates.

www.nytimes.com

Yes. If you take drugs at nearly TWICE the recommended dosage, bad things can happen.

It's breathtaking, how truly ghoulish you cretins are. I mean that.

Plaquenil (Hydroxychloroquine): Side Effects, Uses, Dosage, Interactions, Warnings

Plaquenil (Hydroxychloroquine) may treat, side effects, dosage, drug interactions, warnings, patient labeling, reviews, and related medications including drug comparison and health resources.

www.rxlist.com

that's not what my sister's doctor said. any amt would kill her.

No one claimed it was a cure or good for everyone. If it can only be used by a half or even a third of people as an effective treatment, then what is wrong with that?

It’s almost as if the far left don’t want any treatment to work and they want to prolong this whole thing out and have the maximum amount of deaths.

That is exactly what they want.

you're insane. & it's ironic as hell - when you can't stand the idea of wearing a mask to help keep those around you safe & cheerlead for those willing to buck the shelter in place to go to church because of 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you don't give a damn about possibly infecting someone's gramma or a pregger or a newborn.

you're pro life stance is just a farce.

You thugs just want an excuse to shut down churches.

^ um ... no.

Bishop who said 'God is larger than this dreaded virus' dies of Covid-19
CNN Profiles - Rebekah Riess - News Editor, National Content Center - CNN
By Rebekah Riess, CNN
Updated 5:44 AM ET, Tue April 14, 2020

Bishop who said 'God is larger than this dreaded virus' dies of Covid-19

And? People are dying of the virus with the shutdown in place. Can you prove he wouldn’t had gotten the virus if there was no church services?

Why is it okay for people to go to a grocery store or liquor store, but not a church?

all people need to eat. but restaurants aren't a necessity for eating. some people need to numb themselves but bars aren't necessary for that & actually home is safer for that activity anyway. worship may be essential to one's soul, but to do that in a building with others isn't a requirement of religion.

it's only temporary & for the greater good of society. the gov'ment isn't restricting one religion from practicing their faith & not others, so the 1st amendment doesn't apply.

 

[flacaltenn]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

Dont think anyone is calling it "a cure".. It's a therapy.. There aren't many cures for ANY form of Corona virus or flus...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exagerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

Duh....he is a real dumbass. Arguing against real doctors when he is a librarian.

Worse than that, I am not even a librarian, but a computer science MS.

But I am not arguing against any real doctors. All the real doctors are saying what I am saying because that is where I am getting what I am saying from.
Those claiming hydroxychloroquine to be a possible cure are not doctors but media figures misquoting the actual doctors.

Dont think anyone is calling it "a cure".. It's a therapy.. There aren't many cures for ANY form of Corona virus or flus...

It is an effective treatment.

 

[MarathonMike]

No study not one would order one million doses, let alone multiple millions.

And yet that is precisely what they are doing, despite the fact that it has not been scientifically shown to be effective. These are just simple facts. And no amount of cultish chanting and crybabying will get around them.

You dont know that the drug is saving lives. You know exactly jack shit. That is determined on scientific evidence, not anecdotes and wishful thinking.

I see what you did there. You use "scientifically" to dismiss the indisputable evidence that is coming from all over the world as to the drug's effectiveness. Oh but there hasn't been a whoopdy doopdy "scientific" trial with thousands of patients and thousands in a control group and yadda yadda yadda. The drug works, you are blowing smoke.

 

[Fueri]

This should help answer a few questions. Didn't see it posted elsewhere in the thread although I could have missed it....

SOUTH DAKOTA WILL BECOME FIRST TO HOLD STATEWIDE CLINICAL TRIAL OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE TO TREAT CORONAVIRUS

South Dakota will become first to hold statewide clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus

The drug has shown signs that it could be an effective treatment, but without clinical trials officials have been unable to determine its efficacy and safety.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Dragonlady]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

neither is it scientific to shut down an economy without doing some other measures first. so I can say this self isolation has failed. you have no numbers to base any success off of. right?

Social distancing is based on numbers.
They know isolation can easily reduce spread.
It is all in the numbers.

{...
R0 is pronounced “R naught.” It’s a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.

R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

I do not know if they are correct, and they likely are guessing to a degree.
But a mistake on the side of caution is better than the other way.

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.
So I am not really arguing against your point entirely.
I can see both sides to this.

They know isolation can easily reduce spread.

how?

COVID-19 does not spread very easily.
Each infected person is only passing it to about 2 people.
So if you can slightly reduce it, to less then 1.5, the epidemic quickly goes away.

{...

What do R0 values mean?

Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:

• If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
• If R0 equals 1, each existing infection causes one new infection. The disease will stay alive and stable, but there won’t be an outbreak or an epidemic.
• If R0 is more than 1, each existing infection causes more than one new infection. The disease will spread between people, and there may be an outbreak or epidemic.

Importantly, a disease’s R0 value only applies when everyone in a population is completely vulnerable to the disease. This means:

• no one has been vaccinated
• no one has had the disease before
• there’s no way to control the spread of the disease

This combination of conditions is rare nowadays thanks to advances in medicine. Many diseases that were deadly in the past can now be contained and sometimes cured. For example, in 1918 there was a worldwide outbreak of the swine flu that killed 50 million people. According to a review article published in BMC Medicine, the R0 value of the 1918 pandemic was estimated to be between 1.4 and 2.8. But when the swine flu, or H1N1 virus, came back in 2009, its R0 value was between 1.4 and 1.6, report researchers in the journal Science. The existence of vaccines and antiviral drugs made the 2009 outbreak much less deadly.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

So social distancing makes all the difference in the world.
It is all a game of odds, and if everyone does things to reduce your chances, then it all goes away quickly.

And that information is out of date:

Coronavirus may spread faster than WHO estimate

An analysis of existing studies suggests that the real spread of the virus may be higher than what the World Health Organization have estimated so far.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

From the linked report:

The studies they selected estimated basic R0 for the virus in China and overseas. These estimates ranged from 1.4 to 6.49 and had an average of 3.28 and a median of 2.79.

Both of these numbers are significantly higher than the numbers that the WHO suggested — which were 1.4–2.5.

 

[flacaltenn]

So aside from 100s of testimonials?

Right, those are not informative.

These "scientists" Cum "activists in labcoats -- lose 100% of their credibility RIGHT HERE in the link..

Please, you are a nonsecientist and the biggest louodmouth of them all. You have less cred. And certainly none of them have less than this Raoult quack.

So again are you going to answer me? Or keep dodging? You’re such a coward.

There are no testimonials, much less 100% of them.
There are people who survived and believe hydroxychloroquine was responsible, when it likely was not.
Hydroxychloroquine by itself is not showing much promise at all.
The only way it is showing promise is as a transport mechanism for other things like zinc or antibiotics, and only seems to help with extreme cases where the harm it can cause no longer matters.

Just ask yourself why should anything be released to the public, when it is only the doctors who understand what and when anything like this can be helpful?

I disagree. It is likely that it WAS. So you're smarter than Dr. Stephen Smith who has treated over 100 with this medicine successfully and it has been released to the public. Millions of doses world wide. You are a consistent negative Nelly and a contrarian. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

No, Dr. Smith ran no tests at all.
Here is what he did:
{...
Smith, who is treating 72 COVID-19 patients, said that he has been treating "everybody with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [an antibiotic]. We’ve been doing so for a while.”
...}
Notice first of all he treated "everybody" the same.
That means he had no control group.
He then has no idea if anyone in such a small group would have died at all.
Remember it only has a 1.8% death rate, so one would not expect anyone to die in a group of only 72.
In order to tell what effect any particular drug has, you have to divide into 2 groups, one with and one without, and then compare. He did not do that. So has nothing to base anything on.

Second is that he is only treating people who are already in advances cases and have pneumonia, and it is then not at all surprising that giving antibiotics helps. Of course we should expect antibiotics to help with those who have advanced pneumonia. But that does not allow us to tell if hydroxychloroquine alone helps or not?

Of course opinions can be wrong when they are not based on fact, but instead on emotional reaction. Opinions based on emotions can be wrong but still useful before you have any facts. But once you have the facts, then you are supposed to re-evaluate your opinion to base it on fact instead of emotions.

And it is easy to show why it is wrong to be overly enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is that already such over confidence has killed one person who over dosed on hydroxychloroquine. Second is that this over confidence is going to cause hoading of hydroxychloroquine, which will harm medical facilities that can actually use it. Third is that since it lowers the immune response of the person, it likely will increase spread if lots of uninfected people start taking it.

Why would he need a control group when it worked on 99% of his patients? He is not running an experiment, he is saving lives. Control group means you let people die.

I already explained that.
The COVID-19 only has a mortality rate of 1.8%.
So working on 99% of his patients is pretty much identical to what you would expect if you gave them just a placebo instead.
It is true that with a control group, you are not doing everything for that small test group you use as a control, but then without a control group, you have no idea if anything you did had any effect at all. The total infection period is only about 2 weeks, and the sever risk period is only about 3 days, so these patients could all just have gotten over it on their own. He and we have no way of knowing.

You just proved what a dumbass you are. Even if the mortality rate is 1.8% (extreme exaggerated), the mortality rate with medication will be fare lower because a large percentage of the people who would have died will no longer die. You have to be a real dumbass not to understand that.

If the medication were effective, that would be true, but the point is when you only medicate 72 patients, without any control group, you can't tell if you improved anything or not?
The death rate normally is too small to see any change with that small of a group.

There has never ever been any medication known to work effectively on any viruses.
All anyone has ever done in the past was just treat the symptoms and keep the person alive long enough for the body to finally win itself.
The fact they may actually be able to now discourage a virus is a totally new thing, and while encouraging, is going to be very complex, difficult, slow, and only partially helpful.
The idea there is going to be a "cure" is just totally wrong.
Natural immunity is still the main protection and always will be with viruses.

neither is it scientific to shut down an economy without doing some other measures first. so I can say this self isolation has failed. you have no numbers to base any success off of. right?

Social distancing is based on numbers.
They know isolation can easily reduce spread.
It is all in the numbers.

{...
R0 is pronounced “R naught.” It’s a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.

R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

I do not know if they are correct, and they likely are guessing to a degree.
But a mistake on the side of caution is better than the other way.

But I also agree economic disaster can be worse then death to some degree, and that 98% would have survived if we did nothing at all.
So I am not really arguing against your point entirely.
I can see both sides to this.

They know isolation can easily reduce spread.

how?

COVID-19 does not spread very easily.
Each infected person is only passing it to about 2 people.
So if you can slightly reduce it, to less then 1.5, the epidemic quickly goes away.

{...

What do R0 values mean?

Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:

• If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
• If R0 equals 1, each existing infection causes one new infection. The disease will stay alive and stable, but there won’t be an outbreak or an epidemic.
• If R0 is more than 1, each existing infection causes more than one new infection. The disease will spread between people, and there may be an outbreak or epidemic.

Importantly, a disease’s R0 value only applies when everyone in a population is completely vulnerable to the disease. This means:

• no one has been vaccinated
• no one has had the disease before
• there’s no way to control the spread of the disease

This combination of conditions is rare nowadays thanks to advances in medicine. Many diseases that were deadly in the past can now be contained and sometimes cured. For example, in 1918 there was a worldwide outbreak of the swine flu that killed 50 million people. According to a review article published in BMC Medicine, the R0 value of the 1918 pandemic was estimated to be between 1.4 and 2.8. But when the swine flu, or H1N1 virus, came back in 2009, its R0 value was between 1.4 and 1.6, report researchers in the journal Science. The existence of vaccines and antiviral drugs made the 2009 outbreak much less deadly.
...}

What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections

R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.

www.healthline.com

So social distancing makes all the difference in the world.
It is all a game of odds, and if everyone does things to reduce your chances, then it all goes away quickly.

And that information is out of date:

Coronavirus may spread faster than WHO estimate

An analysis of existing studies suggests that the real spread of the virus may be higher than what the World Health Organization have estimated so far.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

From the linked report:

The studies they selected estimated basic R0 for the virus in China and overseas. These estimates ranged from 1.4 to 6.49 and had an average of 3.28 and a median of 2.79.

Both of these numbers are significantly higher than the numbers that the WHO suggested — which were 1.4–2.5.

Actually, many epidemiologists and virologists believe that number is closer to 15 or 20... We'll know in a couple months when the antibody testing has an adequate data collection.. The CDC has ALWAYS used the educated guess of 2... But it's becoming clearer that MANY TIMES more people were infected than the #reported cases seeking med attention... In multiple countries.

 

[Likkmee]

'Going on offense': South Dakota implements first statewide hydroxychloroquine trial in fight against coronavirus

 

[eagle1462010]

If every person in the country, who hasn't been tested, was tested this week the backhoe sales at Kubota would soar due to fear digging as a result of the 'infected" positives

That is an interesting point, in that the Dec flu that went around, I got in early Jan.
And it was the worst flu ever, with the exact same lung symptoms of COVID-19.
So I am very suspicious about what a good universal test would show?

Same here...........guy brought it to work......was a pretty bad bug