PufPuf93 » Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:32 pm wrote:Belligerent Savant
What do you think now should be done to address cv19?
What do you think should have been done if one could roll back time to the beginning say Fall 2019?
Puf -- I touched on this a few times in my prior replies, or if you prefer, my
hot air exhausts, depending on one's opinion. I may scroll back and re-paste it later, but the
gist of it:
[Disclaimer: I'm not a medical practitioner, needless to say; do your own due diligence - or not; speak to your doctor, or shaman, etc. The below is nothing more than the opinion of a 'random' username here in RI]1. businesses (any/all businesses) should have stayed open;
2. schools should have stayed open, with the option for remote learning, or otherwise arrangements could have been made to have 'at risk' teachers conduct class remotely -- though it's been shown that schools have largely NOT been vectors of any serious illness;
3. those that were at low risk -- essentially anyone below the age of ~75, and/or without serious ailments/co-morbidities -- should have been allowed to continue to go to work, go outside, interact, etc., while taking standard precautions during a heightened flu season;
4. there should have been NO mandates. Allow humans to decide how to take precaution based on their respective risk profiles.
5. This remains a highly survivable virus -- overwhelmingly survivable, in fact. Other illnesses and diseases cause markedly more loss of life each year. The measures taken by govts/"decision-makers" were, at best, grossly irresponsible. An argument can be made that, during the early weeks of the virus, they were doing what they believed to be the best course of action given the "unknowns" at the time. But given the fact that very little changed -- no lessening of restrictions among those states/nations that were particularly excessive -- months after it became clear it was nowhere near the "plague" it was initially (miscalculated) to be, it lends itself to the premise that this 'crisis' we experienced had more to do with factors outside a
virus. There are even more cynical takes than this, of course.
Those at risk: take additional precautions, avoid unnecessary contact with others outside your immediate family, increase your vitamin D/Zinc uptake, try to get as much fresh air and sun as reasonably possible on a given day, stay mobile rather than sedentary, even when indoors, etc. By this I don't mean to walk long distances, but to take steps each day. Exercise, etc.
Masks should
never be mandated, though I can appreciate their recommendation in certain circumstances: in a closed environment with no circulation, in close proximity to others for an extended period of time, for example. But not for those that show no symptoms (unless they
opt to do so, of course -- go ahead and wear one if it makes you
feel safer). A mask is only intended to minimize transmission of larger 'globules'/aerosols among those already ill, when they are in close proximity with each other.
Wearing masks outdoors is purely psychological/foolish. Sorry. A cloth mask in particular is the equivalent of attempting to prevent a mosquito from entering your yard by erecting a chain-link fence around your perimeter. Excessive intake of carbon dioxide, particularly during exercise, is harmful in the long-run. Masks -- at least those worn by the majority -- were never intended to be worn for extended periods. Masks can arguably
increase transmission given how they increase the likelihood of touching your face after touching an infected area outdoors, or potential exposure to whatever bacteria/pathogens may remain within the fibers of the mask. Washing them repeatedly also is not good as it causes more plastic microfibers to be inhaled over time, for those foolish enough to wear them extensively.
And what of all the PLASTIC being discarded due to all this surplus PPE? Wait to see the headlines in earnest within the next ~18 months about this.There have been numerous reports, over time, comparing jurisdictions with mask mandates vs those without. No
pronounced difference in 'case' count, broadly (I've already discussed and shared articles on the unreliability of the PCR tests as a stand-alone marker for having the virus, let alone the fact that "cases" should only be labeled as such when the individual shows symptoms. Media reporting of "case" spikes with zero context was nothing more than fearporn and conditioning tactics).
I believe it will be shown, in the coming ~year, that asymptomatic 'cases', or those that show no symptoms, have a far less chance of spreading the virus than those that show clear symptoms (there's already been reports that corroborate this, though to this point they've been largely ignored).
For those with extreme symptoms, there are treatments other than vaccination.
A study that was just released (surely not delayed in any way...) offers a number of methods for combating this virus, some of which are counter to narratives blared since early 2020:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext
Reduction of Self-Reinoculation
It is well-recognized that COVID-19 exists outside the human body in a bioaerosol of airborne particles and droplets. Because exhaled air in an infected person is considered to be “loaded” with inoculum, each exhalation and inhalation is effectively reinoculation.15
In patients who are hospitalized, negative pressure is applied to the room air largely to reduce spread outside of the room. We propose that fresh air could reduce reinoculation and potentially reduce the severity of illness and possibly reduce household spread during quarantine. This calls for open windows, fans for aeration, or spending long periods of time outdoors away from others with no face covering to disperse and not reinhale the viral bioaerosol.
Combination Antiviral Therapy
Zinc Lozenges and Zinc Sulfate
Zinc is a known inhibitor of coronavirus replication. Clinical trials of zinc lozenges in the common cold have demonstrated modest reductions in the duration and or severity of symptoms.18
By extension, this readily available nontoxic therapy could be deployed at the first signs of COVID-19.
Zinc lozenges can be administered 5 times a day for up to 5 days and extended if needed if symptoms persist. The amount of elemental zinc lozenges is <25% of that in a single 220-mg zinc sulfate daily tablet. This dose of zinc sulfate has been effectively used in combination with antimalarials in early treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19.
Antimalarials
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial/anti-inflammatory drug that impairs endosomal transfer of virions within human cells. HCQ is also a zinc ionophore that conveys zinc intracellularly to block the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which is the core enzyme of the virus replication.
The currently completed retrospective studies and randomized trials have generally shown these findings: 1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality.
In a retrospective inpatient study of 2541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, therapy associated with an adjusted reduction in mortality was HCQ alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.46, P <0.001) and HCQ with azithromycin (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, P <0.001).
HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm.25
,26
Although asymptomatic QT prolongation is a well-recognized and infrequent (<1%) complication of HCQ, it is possible that in the setting of acute illness symptomatic arrhythmias could develop. Data safety and monitoring boards have not declared safety concerns in any clinical trial published to date. Rare patients with a personal or family history of prolonged QT syndrome and those on additional QT prolonging, contraindicated drugs (eg, dofetilide, sotalol) should be treated with caution and a plan to monitor the QTc in the ambulatory setting. A typical HCQ regimen is 200 mg bid for 5 days and extended to 30 days for continued symptoms. A minimal sufficient dose of HCQ should be used, because in excessive doses the drug can interfere with early immune response to the virus.
Antiplatelet Agents and Antithrombotics
...
...
Summary
...We have proposed an algorithm based on age and comorbidities that allows for a large proportion to be monitored and treated at home during self-isolation with the aim of reducing the risks of hospitalization and death.
in the prior page, I shared anecdotes from nurses during the initial horrific weeks in and around NYC (~April 2020), and it appears many deaths could have been avoided, or otherwise dispersed over a wider period of time. The use of ventilators, and the pressure settings applied to the ventilators, among other (in retrospect) ill-advised treatment methods, led to thousands of mostly minority/old age persons to die within a short period. Many of these patients may have passed on regardless in the months ahead -- we'll never know. But the point is, these mistreatments were (arguably) primary contributors to the anomalous death tally
spike during those early weeks/months (not to mention filthy Cuomo's inexplicable directive ordering nursing homes to take in COVID positive patients). NYC led the 'death count' tallies during those initial months due in large part to these tactics. Other regions, globally, made similar mistakes during those early months.
Andrew Cuomo’s Report on Controversial Nursing Home Policy for COVID Patients Prompts More Controversy
A state report on Cuomo’s decision to order nursing homes to take in COVID positive patients in the early days of the pandemic fails to deal with the central question: did such admissions lead to more infection and death, and if so how significantly.
https://www.propublica.org/article/andr ... ontroversy.....
DrEvil » Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:02 pm wrote:I'm curious: how many people do you think the virus has killed in the US? Just a rough ballpark number (official tally is currently at 433,000).
Given what I just typed above (mistreatment of patients, etc.. -- mostly old and infirm), which
appear to have skewed figures upward, and especially the (faulty) manner in which death counts have been tallied (I shared many examples: car accidents and suicides listed as COVID deaths are just 2 of the more glaring examples. There are many others), it would not 'shock' me in any way if it turns out that the lockdowns and poorly treated older/ill patients during those earlier months were the primary factors in many of the death counts, and we otherwise would have experienced a higher-than-average flu season. How much higher than average? We'll never know the reality of what could have been, and/or what this may
actually have been.
Fearporn, propaganda, blatant conditioning/trauma tactics, excessive implementation of lockdown/mandate measures, misleading (on purpose and/or inadvertent) metrics, poor diagnosis/treatments -- especially during those initial weeks -- all skewed the figures dramatically upward, above and beyond whatever may have been caused by the virus alone.
(the death count numbers have been relatively flat since that initial spike in April-May, other than seasonal increases in the winter months, which remain largely on-par with prior years)
I raised a rhetorical question earlier: how would we have experienced this before the internet, before social media? My 'Wallstreet Bets' money tells me it would have been a far different circumstance than what transpired over the last 12 months.
The 'random' people included actual, real nurses.
I shared examples, in the prior page, of critical thinking and rumination by individuals that had first-hand experience or exposure to those with first-hand experience (most of us by now have "first-hand" experience to share). You may retort that these people are... what? "fake"? Actors, perhaps? Taking into account a critical assessment of all the disparate data points in sum over the last ~12 months tell me that their take/anecdotes are likely to be more on-point than whatever the F#ck
Google will return as hits on their first page.
I've also spoken to a few 'maverick' doctors/physicians/nurses over the past year, outside of the "virtual world of screens". While opinions will vary, as they always will -- even among the experts -- quite a few echoed the commentary in those feeds I shared.
