Covid-19

[XU_Lou]

Or the FDA shouldn’t have wasted them since we know they may have saved lives…

CDC, Fauci and Democrats definitely have blood on their hands. No doubt HCQ would've saved lives - especially in the beginning - but they politicized, demonized and opposed it simply b/c Trump mentioned it.

[xu82]

Or the FDA shouldn’t have wasted them since we know they may have saved lives…

But….you can’t MAKE people get the shots.

There are no real winners here.

[Strange Brew]

But….you can’t MAKE people get the shots.

There are no real winners here.

And you can’t MAKE them take an “expiremental” drug however giving people the option would’ve saved lives. I’m sure the loved ones of the deceased would feel like winners.

[xu82]

And you can’t MAKE them take an “expiremental” drug however giving people the option would’ve saved lives. I’m sure the loved ones of the deceased would feel like winners.

Were people denied those shots? Serious question.

Otherwise, what is your point?

[Strange Brew]

Were people denied those shots? Serious question.

Otherwise, what is your point?

Yes, the FDA revoked its use for COVID in June of last year. What’s your point?

[xu82]

Yes, the FDA revoked its use for COVID in June of last year. What’s your point?

Please don’t make me go back and try to figure this out. Which shots? Of what? Why? I’m pointing at me and thinking I missed something, not being accusatory. When I said “serious question”, I meant it as a serious question.

Are we talking HCQ?

.

[Lloyd Braun]

Lots of misinformation here, maybe I can try to put a few flames out-

-From my understanding the vast majority of the 63 million doses were donated, so it was not a waste of taxpayer money to pitch them.
-I don’t think they were all wasted as some were allocated for other use (autoimmune conditions etc). They could have expired by now either way…
-HCQ was still used for covid after June 2020, and at a high rate in many areas by various physicians. The FDA revoked EUA but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t used. It just means they didn’t support the use. I saw many people still prescribed this for covid treatment regimens. Medications are written off label every single day. Were people denied HCQ for covid? In Ohio they were for a couple days before the board of pharmacy determined against restricting use to the label. Since then it has been available for use of covid at the discretion of the prescriber, just like pretty much every other non-scheduled medication.

Nothing has had full FDA approval for the treatment or prevention of covid outside of remdesivir. That doesn’t mean that remdesivir is the only medication prescribed for covid.

The regimens for treatment now are fairly effective when implemented in a timely fashion. Monoclonal antibodies on the outpatient side, remdesivir/decadron/supportive treatments on the inpatient side. Over time as immunity continues to increase it will become more difficult to spot cases that should be treated. People that are vaccinated are more hesitant to be tested early, feeling invincible from the vaccine which I totally get. I’ve seen some breakthrough cases in those fully vaccinated but not many, and those cases are about as common as getting covid a 2nd time in the relatively small sample size I have (less than 10 in each population).

[GIMMFD]

Here's a research paper that just came out today actually speaking of what you guys are arguing about: Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized at Acute Care Services
Real-World Experience in the New York Metropolitan Area During the Early Pandemic Before Initiation of Clinical Trials

The mortality was 8.7% higher in the treatment group (15.6% [61/392] versus 6.9% [17/247] of patients in the supportive care group, P < 0.001) (Table ​(Table2).2). In patients who received HCQ only, L/R only, and both agents, the 28-day mortality rate was 16.4% (54/329), 8.3% (3/36), and 14.8% (4/27), respectively. Hospital length of stay was 7 days (IQR, 4–11 days) among all the patients admitted to acute care services and was significantly longer for patients in the treatment group (4 days [IQR, 3–7 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6–13 days] in the supportive care group, P < 0.001). Treatment was not protective against progression to severe disease (18.4% vs 3.6% with supportive care, P < 0.001). Delayed time to defervescence, prolonged duration of oxygen requirements, and prolonged hospital and ICU lengths of stay were also more frequent in the treatment group

Obviously some limitations like every study, but the results are interesting.

[XU_Lou]

Here's a research paper that just came out today actually speaking of what you guys are arguing about: Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized at Acute Care Services
Real-World Experience in the New York Metropolitan Area During the Early Pandemic Before Initiation of Clinical Trials

The mortality was 8.7% higher in the treatment group (15.6% [61/392] versus 6.9% [17/247] of patients in the supportive care group, P < 0.001) (Table ​(Table2).2). In patients who received HCQ only, L/R only, and both agents, the 28-day mortality rate was 16.4% (54/329), 8.3% (3/36), and 14.8% (4/27), respectively. Hospital length of stay was 7 days (IQR, 4–11 days) among all the patients admitted to acute care services and was significantly longer for patients in the treatment group (4 days [IQR, 3–7 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6–13 days] in the supportive care group, P < 0.001). Treatment was not protective against progression to severe disease (18.4% vs 3.6% with supportive care, P < 0.001). Delayed time to defervescence, prolonged duration of oxygen requirements, and prolonged hospital and ICU lengths of stay were also more frequent in the treatment group

Obviously some limitations like every study, but the results are interesting.

The key to the success of using HCQ is starting it's use during the early onset of the infection. My understanding is that many of the studies that concluded that HCQ didn't work were mostly given to people late in the game when the drug proved to be ineffective. Given early is when the drug saw success.

[XU_Lou]

NEW - recently published in JAMA:

Study shows mask-wearing children at risk for ‘unacceptable’ CO2 levels, cautions against the practice:

"We measured means (SDs) between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes. The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume. The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child's carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm. (Emphasis added.)"

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2781743

The obvious question is why would there be any difference for adults if the implication of this study is that masks increase carbon dioxide levels across the board?