Skip to main content
Topic: CV and mad panic behaviour (Read 427897 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #810


Just about sums it up!

No one has said it's not dangerous, just it needs to be put into perspective and that it doesn't warrant a closure of our economy.

Are you really unable to grasp the distinction?
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #811
No one has said it's not dangerous, just it needs to be put into perspective and that it doesn't warrant a closure of our economy.

Are you really unable to grasp the distinction?
Yet you apparently miss that your own campaign for the use of HCQ is contradictory to your claims that Big Pharma has created the COVID-19 hysteria.

Do you grasp that?

Your campaign for people to suck down HCQ, without any causal proof it does a thing, encourages and enables "Big Pharma" to make a tidy profit in the process without foundation! I gather that "Big Pharma" didn't blink at supplying the generic royalty free version of HCQ in bulk to Brazil, not that it helped much.

Will you take offence at having your own claims weighed by your own standards, or are you just wilfully oblivious because one side of the debate doesn't fit your conspiracy?

All comments have to be weigh in the same framework or else that is cherry-picking, and cherry-picking leads the community up the garden path!

I suppose if we are going to accept and publish stuff like the "Surgisphere HCQ booster theory", then we had better not pick and choose, and we should publish other correlative stuff about COVID-19 that increases it's threat to everyone! For example a new study from University College London shows that there is an increased risk of brain disease in COVID-19 patients of all ages, not just the elderly. Summarised here in plain language at The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/how-coronavirus-affects-the-brain-141100

Quote
Extract;

The virus also has the potential to infect the brain directly. However, most of the physical effects we’ve seen in survivors look like secondary impacts of the virus being present in the brain rather than the effects of direct infection. For example, our immune system can appropriately fight the virus, but may start to attack our own cells – including our brain cells and nerves. This may be through the actions of immune cells and antibodies via an inflammatory mechanism known as a cytokine storm, or through mechanisms we don’t yet understand.
 
 


The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #812
Yet you apparently miss that your own campaign for the use of HCQ is contradictory to your claims that Big Pharma has created the COVID-19 hysteria.

Do you grasp that?

Your campaign for people to suck down HCQ, without any causal proof it does a thing, encourages and enables "Big Pharma" to make a tidy profit in the process without foundation! I gather that "Big Pharma" didn't blink at supplying the generic royalty free version of HCQ in bulk to Brazil, not that it helped much.

Will you take offence at having your own claims weighed by your own standards, or are you just wilfully oblivious because one side of the debate doesn't fit your conspiracy?

All comments have to be weigh in the same framework or else that is cherry-picking, and cherry-picking leads the community up the garden path!

I suppose if we are going to accept and publish stuff like the "Surgisphere HCQ booster theory", then we had better not pick and choose, and we should publish other correlative stuff about COVID-19 that increases it's threat to everyone! For example a new study from University College London shows that there is an increased risk of brain disease in COVID-19 patients of all ages, not just the elderly. Summarised here in plain language at The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/how-coronavirus-affects-the-brain-141100

I love how you never ANSWER a specific question, never debate an actual topic, just choose to obfuscate and/or play the ad hominem card. Total absence of intellectual rigour.

The observational study data is overwhelming - given at the right stage i.e. EARLY - and at the right dosage (recent UK study gave patients an initial dosage that was all but deadly)....The Zelenko protocol or the like works.

Causal proof? Saving lives isn't enough for you?

When did politics overrun science (rhetorical question). Watch the Unherd clip? Learn anything?

Don't be a lightweight LP.

Here are 4 recent studies AGAIN.

Four studies this past week in support of HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: HCQ/AZ/Zn, 99.3% outpatient survival rate (Zelenko): https://preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0025/v1

HCQ reduces mortality by >50% (Henry Ford): https://ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

HCQ+AZ w/ 0.5% mortality rate (Raoult) : https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817

Mount Sinai (NYC) study by Mikami et al showing HCQ resulted in a ~50% decreased mortality rate in COVID-19 patients (similar results as Henry Ford Hospital).

https://t.co/tgFtMcG2Q4?amp=1


You need to get out of your little bubble and think a bit rather than playing the game....
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #813
There are no questions to answer about these issues because they are all based on fake premises, there is no causal evidence for saving life from SARS-CoV-2 infections through the use of HCQ, so no answering the question based on a fake and fabricated premise.

You re-posting the same correlations over and over again is not offering facts or supporting evidence, and no matter how many times it gets re-posted, re-submitted or re-published by various people plagiarising the original work, won't help improve the quality of it. It's just a correlation, like The Donald claiming a thousand retweets legitimises his opinion.

So there is nothing to answer or debate, because what you are looking for doesn't exist, your language asserts causality where none exists. That is a matter for you, not me!

There are reputable journals and groups doing HCQ studies, and they do so without needing to distort the facts, and they are doing it on a scale that is relevant with thousands of patients in a double blind studies both as treatment and prophylactic . Not hand-picked small numbers of narrow band demographic already infected patients, and not in-discriminant screen scraping large scale meta-data studies like Surgisphere. It will probably be another year before the legit studies have locked down answers for any of the alternatives, bad, indifferent or good!

But I suppose the claim will be that the stuff those legitimate studies omit, generally things that they cannot prove or support from the data, will be proof of a Big Pharma conspiracy or political interference! I'd be justified to expect such a response, already we've seen a response in that manner, when a simple subset chart that uses the same basic set of figures as your preferred source allegedly omits data to "deliberately make things look worse!"

As for the other fake assertion, that of a better economic path. Sweden took the less economic damage approach for a COVID-19 strategy, regarding not taking an economic hit to control the virus, and it actually has turned out a hell of lot worse for them both from an economic and a health perspective. As reported by Sweden! Have they turned evil, has Sweden been got at, by Big Pharma perhaps? :o

If it's bogus from the start, a thousand copies of the same won't make it legitimate!

Yes the usual tactics, disparagement, smoking doesn't cause lung disease, guns don't kill people kill, vaccination kills, climate change isn't real, COVID-19 is biological warfare, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....! The pattern is obvious, it's a preferred tactic of the fakies, make some fake assertions and conclusions from cherry-picked data then draw in a bunch of well-meaning researchers or specialists into a debate on the premise in a hope to add legitimacy. It's a tactic that is now growing old, people across the internet are too well informed, they can see through the fakies!
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #814
All Im going to add to this debate is the following:

make sure that anything criticising the pandemic, isnt riddled with misinformation, and confirmation bias.

Correlation not causation.

likewise for anything affirming the steps we are taking to prevent things from getting out of hand.

The actions, and the reaction are sometimes hard to quantify in terms of what was the best possible outcome, and often the facts and figures get in the way of the human cost of such decisions.

When push comes to shove, the idea of shutting us down for the health, safety and well being of everyone isnt solely a control measure, it is done in the best interests of everyone.  For the greater good.

Whether or not this action is warranted is actually a seperate argument.  To answer that relies on having key data that we the people are not actually privy to.  Most of the arguments are generally happening at a level of "I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU".

That is already a false premise.  The worlds reaction to this pandemic tells me that no one really knows what we are looking at, and are acting based on potential outcomes, and only post pandemic will those outcomes really be understood.  Anyone asserting otherwise is actually motivated with a pre conceived idea on what the best course of action is, and will selectively choose evidence to confirm that.  Hence why I stated, dont act based on what the information is telling your confirmation bias.

The facts state the following:

1.  we have a virus no one has seen before.
2.  We dont have a good grasp on how it effects people.
3.  Our health systems that are normally geared to trying to help people achieve "normal levels" are continuing to do act as they normally do and are not winning that fight which is a cause for concern on multiple levels.
4.  This is an infectious disease.
5.  It has the capability to be a cause of death where ordinarily people wouldn't die from some of their other co-morbities.
6.  The reaction to the virus falls into an acceptable motivation that is geared towards preventing bad outcomes, rather than enforcing worse outcomes.


Anything else is HYPERBOLE.  No one knows what the cost of not shutting down is, and the cost to treat a patient requiring treatment in a pandemic might actually cost the same as the damage we are doing to the economy.

Did you know, that rooms in 5 star hotels are cheaper than a hospital bed on a per night basis?

When viewing this pandemic through that lense, think REALLY hard about the cost of flooding our hospitals with patients who are not in for one night, but multiple on a ventilator.  The hospitals are not free, and patient treatment is actually very expensive, whether you see a bed or not.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson


 

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #816
Very well authored Thry.

I see the economic debate as more of a political debate, ultimately it's about privilege, private versus public health ideology. But even for the privileged, it only makes sense if you think there is a certain cure, which it seems there isn't!

For example the actions in the UK are contradictory to experience. Does this mean Boris Johnson thinks he is now immune to a second bout of Sars-CoV-2? It would seem to be that he thinks the risk to health from opening the economy is justified, so he either hasn't learned or he thinks the rest of the population are collateral damage to economic management. But what if the worst case scenarios are correct or even under-estimated?

In the long term, isn't this just a shift of the real costs from the general population and small business into health? Yet ultimately we will all pay via taxes anyway!

If you fail politically, a good way to get rid of the NHS by some other means is to send it broke

Some may argue that re-opening the economy only makes sense if you think health care is the domain of the wealthy. It's the ultimate outcome of the worst case scenario of re-opening the economy, is this something Sweden and a couple of other European states are now learning the hard way? It seems they are proof the economic rationalism was fundamentally wrong, having grossly underestimated the economic cost of leaving a natural resolution to the infection. Brazil is now also in this same boat, with it seems Mexico to follow.

Some will argue there will be just as many deaths from economic suffering and stress, perhaps even from war. But the unaddressed infection will see millions starving anyway, which will then probably lead to dispute, I suppose the economic rationalists will say that is a NIMBY issue!
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #817
There are no questions to answer about these issues because they are all based on fake premises, there is no causal evidence for saving life from SARS-CoV-2 infections through the use of HCQ, so no answering the question based on a fake and fabricated premise.

You re-posting the same correlations over and over again is not offering facts or supporting evidence, and no matter how many times it gets re-posted, re-submitted or re-published by various people plagiarising the original work, won't help improve the quality of it. It's just a correlation, like The Donald claiming a thousand retweets legitimises his opinion.

So there is nothing to answer or debate, because what you are looking for doesn't exist, your language asserts causality where none exists. That is a matter for you, not me!

There are reputable journals and groups doing HCQ studies, and they do so without needing to distort the facts, and they are doing it on a scale that is relevant with thousands of patients in a double blind studies both as treatment and prophylactic . Not hand-picked small numbers of narrow band demographic already infected patients, and not in-discriminant screen scraping large scale meta-data studies like Surgisphere. It will probably be another year before the legit studies have locked down answers for any of the alternatives, bad, indifferent or good!

But I suppose the claim will be that the stuff those legitimate studies omit, generally things that they cannot prove or support from the data, will be proof of a Big Pharma conspiracy or political interference! I'd be justified to expect such a response, already we've seen a response in that manner, when a simple subset chart that uses the same basic set of figures as your preferred source allegedly omits data to "deliberately make things look worse!"

As for the other fake assertion, that of a better economic path. Sweden took the less economic damage approach for a COVID-19 strategy, regarding not taking an economic hit to control the virus, and it actually has turned out a hell of lot worse for them both from an economic and a health perspective. As reported by Sweden! Have they turned evil, has Sweden been got at, by Big Pharma perhaps? :o

If it's bogus from the start, a thousand copies of the same won't make it legitimate!

Yes the usual tactics, disparagement, smoking doesn't cause lung disease, guns don't kill people kill, vaccination kills, climate change isn't real, COVID-19 is biological warfare, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....! The pattern is obvious, it's a preferred tactic of the fakies, make some fake assertions and conclusions from cherry-picked data then draw in a bunch of well-meaning researchers or specialists into a debate on the premise in a hope to add legitimacy. It's a tactic that is now growing old, people across the internet are too well informed, they can see through the fakies!

So you ignore the 50 odd studies?

https://c19study.com/

And you're a scientist. Hah, says it all really. A total absence of intellectual rigour.

You have clearly read so little about the situation that you don't even understand the Lancet/Surgisphere study was entirely anti HCQ -but then shown to be fraudulent and quickly retracted by Lancet. As was another anti HCQ study.

Lightweight stuff LP, but apparently the norm from you.

You suggesting the Lancet isn't reputable LP? Pissweak stuff.

You keep throwing the word "fake" in yet you back it up with nothing.

You call Sweden a failure yet there were numerous countries that imposed severe lockdowns that had/have significantly higher death rates. How things pan out for them economically (especially relative to others) remains to be seen.

I note also that their method of reporting COVID deaths would clearly result in over reporting of the numbers. And at least they admit they screwed up wrt nursing homes, unlike idiots like Cuomo in NYC who should be put on trial.

You claim there is no existing or pre existing immunity in the community in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/300-million-people-may-infected-covid-19-stanford-guru-john-ioannidis-says/5717660

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53248660

https://www.wsj.com/articles/herd-immunity-may-be-closer-than-you-think-11594076237

People can draw their own conclusions.

And look, the great white hope promoted by Fauci and Big Pharma, Remdesivir - a wipe out!

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.093

You won't see that in MSM.

I'll stick to the footy - you neither have the the capacity nor the ability to have a reasoned discussion.


Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #818
288 new cases in Victoria and now masks are the preferred option when in close contact with others, lockdown in Victoria will exceed the six weeks for sure. Idiots still partying on and being caught by the cops, I'd jail these clowns, good luck trying to fine these bozo's and get the money out of them..

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #819
There are too many of them, we don't have enough jail cells. Check the photos from Mornington pier this morning. Melbourne just simply has too many people who care only about themselves, this will get very bad in a few weeks when the deaths start piling up

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #820
Was at the local supermarket yesterday for a few essentials and hardly anyone seemed to have heard of social distancing and very few had masks.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #821
The stupidity and self-interest of around 20% of people at present is breathtaking. Disappointing. Infuriating. They're fckng it up for the rest of us. Perhaps they believe Jones and Bolt and other similar far right c0ckheads of the grandest order.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #822
So you ignore the 50 odd studies?
Your resorting to personal abuse doesn't correct for your errors, it's just a sign of desperation to cover for your ignorance, and it exposes your lack of understanding of science and the scientific method.

Retrospective meta-data studies, which covers every paper you linked to, aren't rigorous investigations of HCQ efficacy for use in fighting COVID-19. As the studies are "retrospective", they take notice of correlations between the present of a drug either coincidentally or deliberately. They don't tell you if the people were on HCQ prior, as many people around the globe are already on HCQ for arthritis treatment. So claiming that that recovery is because of coincident use of HCQ and other antibiotics is just a correlation, a coincidence, no matter how many coincident cases they add the study. These retrospective meta-data studies are exactly the same as Surgispehere, and all they can identify is correlation with causality.

Further, these studies were retrospective, so did not pick people who are COVID-19 free and give them HCQ to see if their outcomes to an infection were better, a key aspect of a double blind efficacy study.

In reality, most of these studies looked at COVID infected people within a narrow age group, quite possible a demographic that could already contain a higher percentage of people already on HCQ, as you might find in an age care facility compared to the general population. So studying HCQ in that circumstance, and even if the recovery rate is high, normal or lower than normal relative to the general public, you end up finding HCQ is present in a higher percentage of people who recovered, which is a correlation that occurs because the sample set already has higher than normal HCQ exposure.

To prove something you have to take that correlation and perform a a double blind study, which will include people of demographics with and without COVID infections, as well as giving 1/3rd of the people a placebo which they and the doctors do not know about, and another 1/3rd of the people get nothing at all. That will take 12 to 18 months to get a result. None of those studies which have started, not one, are even close to being finished yet!

I'm sorry you can't understand this stuff, it's not my fault do not take it out on me! But I'll always refuse to let you or anyone post dangerously wrong opinionated rubbish without calling it out! If you are going to post correlations as causality, it will always result in this sport of debate.
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #823
Uh oh, exponential curves!

The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #824
288 new cases in Victoria and now masks are the preferred option when in close contact with others, lockdown in Victoria will exceed the six weeks for sure. Idiots still partying on and being caught by the cops, I'd jail these clowns, good luck trying to fine these bozo's and get the money out of them..
I was thinking about this today, people potting everyone from Scomo to Andrews. Ill tell you something, we can get rid of them tomorrow morning, but the bozos will still exist.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time