Anyone know the odds of getting Cancer at age 50 versus the odds of getting Covid-19. Just wondering.
People are not trying to obfuscate facts purposely in many cases. Further, they are being misquoted and the victims of piss poor reporting + the American public having the attention span of gnats. The data from yesterday was from one study with no placebo group. All the patients were suffering severe Covid. Many feel in these cases, a placebo group is not ethical. A second study that reports at the end of May has a larger group of less severe Covid patients and it has a control group to compare against. As I say in the lab all of the time, the Devil is in the Details. Our cr@ppy standard of internet reporting these days is not very good on listing all of the details in a given story or providing full context of people's statements. From Gilead's website: Gilead Announces Results From Phase 3 Trial of Investigational Antiviral Remdesivir in Patients With Severe COVID-19
Actually, you're not wrong. A measured dose of doom and gloom to set the tone would actually help those on fringe right (not the mainstream right) take this thing more seriously. Which would have the ultimate effect of helping things get better faster.
More honesty and fact based approaches is what is needed and has been needed since the start of this, when Trump was receiving high level threat warnings in his daily intelligence briefings back in January. Honesty is obviously a bridge too far. Claiming victory is all that matters. Facts be damned. And our country be damned... it's all about DJT and what he thinks is good for him.
Maybe the OP grew up with everyone getting an award and sunshine and rainbows is all they can handle. Amazing that trump supporters think everyone else is a snowflake.
The whole snowflake meme is interesting. Has usually been more reflective of the accuser than the accused.
even their "severe" group in this study excluded people currently on ventilators. If someone was on the drug, did they remove them if they required a ventilation mid study? How many on drug required a ventilator after starting the drug? Lots of details not given. From what I have read, it seems to work much like Tamiflu in decreasing the viral load but not sure if effective at preventing immune overresponse which seems to be major mortality factor
There are odds one might get in a fatal car crash anytime you get behind the wheel. You already risk death every time you drive, so might as well get high on cocaine while driving, amiright? Same bad logic.
TY for more details, that was the device I had read about. Perhaps I misread it but I thought the UVA was not associated (Obviously the is a dose dependent exposure that will increase risk of cancer down stream) But that's not any different than many treatments we use now, X-ray/CT come to mind right off. If it was to save a life but you had a 5 fold increase in CA in 40 years is that worth it? Devil is in the details [
It may turn out as many have noted that early treatment is very beneficial to prevent severe illness. That doesn't mean some wont get very sick like with seasonal influenza, but it could go a long way to mitigate risk.
Some can it depends on the drug but often has to be reformulated and then tested for proper dose efficacy/safety.
I agree but would offer that early treatment requires massive testing when symptoms are as wide ranging as cough, fever, chills, headache, soreness. We still are not doing enough o procure supplies for a long term war on covid. Reagents, swabs (just used act, thank you), PPE supply chain is still not established. It seems to be slowly moving in that direction in spite of, and not because of, POTUS. We shouldn't have to fight covid and POTUS because POTUS doesn't like covid. It's like playing Bama with all the holding calls going against you because all the refs are from Bama or nearby Georgia. If the man would just get out of the way and quit appointing labradoodle breeders to critical decision making positions this would go so much smoother.
Thanks Phil. Here’s another article thinking about the challenges of determining the number of deaths. The problem with the Covid-19 death numbers (opinions) - CNN
Accurate tests take time to develop and make, no POTUS can change that. It seems that the Abbot test is pretty good, results in 5-15 minutes. Standard Flu tests vary from like 87%-95% accurate. They are very user dependent (a poor swab has lower accuracy. When I worked in the ER I tested people for the Flu if it was reasonable and trained the staff to collect the right way, we have very lower false negatives. Any neg test was sent for culture and rarely did the come back positive (most were Flu C if they did). I used to debate some ER docs who didn't test they felt just treat them if you thought it was Flu. I felt if I have attest use it an know "almost for sure".
