Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some who don't do hands-on patient care like sonographers may have been laid off. But many hospitals are desperate for bodies capable of providing direct patient care. Our state is not one of the ones worst hit right now. Still the governor is calling on nursing schools to graduate students early ... to put students into hospitals then give them credit ... for nursing homes to release nurses to the hospitals then use unlicensed caretakers in their place. Anyone retired ... please come on back ... community college students, welcomed. It's only going to get worse.
Covid comes with a substantial medical burden, which is why the excess death numbers while highly relevant are only a part of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863 View Post
To me, "evolution of recommendations" means small changes or fine tuning, not saying the exact opposite of what you said a few months ago.
Quote:
newtovenice:
Exactly.
Talking to people in other states -- they are TERRIFIED, won't leave their house terrified.
Because they are listening to the "experts." 8 months later ... still listening to the experts ... still terrified.
Just mind blowing. Truly. They are prisoners of their own minds.
Yep, I think that any time in the future when I might be shown to be wrong about a position I took previously, I'll simply respond "I wasn't wrong. It's just that my recommendations have now evolved 180 degrees."
Not believing in science is trendy. Hey, gravity is just a theory -- want to test it by jumping off a tall building ?
Remdesivir getting approved, Ivermectin not getting approved, the Danish mask study not getting published, Fauci walking back vit D and C. I have 0 confidence in what we are being told.
Even in this time of crisis, people are looking for an angle.
Yep, I think that any time in the future when I might be shown to be wrong about a position I took previously, I'll simply respond "I wasn't wrong. It's just that my recommendations have now evolved 180 degrees."
If a position has only two values, such as not using masks versus using masks, then a change is necessarily one of 180 degrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rom623
Remdesivir getting approved, Ivermectin not getting approved, the Danish mask study not getting published, Fauci walking back vit D and C. I have 0 confidence in what we are being told.
Even in this time of crisis, people are looking for an angle.
There is no perfect treatment for COVID-19. Remdesivir has been shown to be helpful for a subset of patients. The data are not yet conclusive for ivermectin. Studies are in progress.
There is no perfect treatment for COVID-19. Remdesivir has been shown to be helpful for a subset of patients.
Seems like the WHO is saying just dont take it. - Webmd Nov.20
But either way, look how quickly it was a approved vs Ivermectin, especially given its spotty clinical trial.
Quote:
The data are not yet conclusive for ivermectin. Studies are in progress.
- Far more conclusive than Remdesivir, except it is cheap and has a long history of usage.
Quote:
The Danish mask study has severe limitations in methodology.
Its the only large real world study, 5000ish completed. Test arm had surgical mask, so better than cloth. Roughly same number infected for the non mask group. Healthy-skeptic gave a real good break down of it.
"It appeared there was very low in-home transmission that caused the infection in either arm of the study, so most transmission was occurring in the community. Another interesting finding was no difference in infection with other respiratory viruses.
This was a well-designed study. If masks made a difference in the community, it would have been seen in this large a group."
But whats crazy, journals scared to publish it. If it had concluded masks were effective, instant publication. Which I have no problem with, good information either way, but that isnt what happened.
Quote:
No clear recommendations can be made for vitamin D and vitamin C except that it is best not to be deficient. If you are, take a supplement.
He recommended 1-2 grams of vitamin C, unless you supplement, that isnt going to happen.
The evidence for ivermectin is still being collected. It is not yet conclusive. It is not recommended for use outside of a clinical trial.
Quote:
Its the only large real world study, 5000ish completed. Test arm had surgical mask, so better than cloth. Roughly same number infected for the non mask group. Healthy-skeptic gave a real good break down of it.
"It appeared there was very low in-home transmission that caused the infection in either arm of the study, so most transmission was occurring in the community. Another interesting finding was no difference in infection with other respiratory viruses.
This was a well-designed study. If masks made a difference in the community, it would have been seen in this large a group."
But whats crazy, journals scared to publish it. If it had concluded masks were effective, instant publication. Which I have no problem with, good information either way, but that isnt what happened.
The study has problems, including a large number of drop outs and participants who did not follow the mask use they were randomly assigned to. It was trying to show a 50% reduction in infections in mask users. It did not show that 50%, but it did show a smaller effect. it did not address the effect of mask use on spread from mask users.
"Henning Bundgaard, MD, DMSc, a professor and consultant in cardiology at the University of Copenhagen and coauthor of the study, told Healio Primary Care that it is important to note that the researchers only assessed the effect of masks as personal protection — not 'source control.'”
"The identified potential positive effect of the mask for prevention — although small — might still be of interest considering COVID-19 is a very serious disease,' he added."
"Bundgaard said that previous observational studies have shown that masking is effective, but the studies are challenging to interpret due to the limitations of observational data. However, he added that laboratory research has shown that wearing masks appears to be effective."
The evidence for ivermectin is still being collected. It is not yet conclusive. It is not recommended for use outside of a clinical trial.
This is my entire point, compare the journey of the two. Either Ivermectin would have been approved a long time ago, or Remdesivir would still be waiting approval. However one was fast tracked because the right people got behind it.
Quote:
The study has problems, including a large number of drop outs and participants who did not follow the mask use they were randomly assigned to. It was trying to show a 50% reduction in infections in mask users. It did not show that 50%, but it did show a smaller effect. it did not address the effect of mask use on spread from mask users.
Healthy-skeptic addresses all those points, there is simply a difference of opinion about them.
Quote:
"The study’s lead author Henning Bundgaard unequivocally urged people to wear masks."
No problem with that, the real caution is letting the high risk know that masks are far from a guarantee, maybe even no help at all.
They didn't have enough information at the time (April). They said healthy people don't need to wear masks. It later became apparent by July that people didn't show symptoms for 7-10 days and could shed the virus. They are now starting to dial back on this advice as the results from their survey of transmission evolve.
I think that you need to be able to digest information below just the headlines and collate facts that are related to the issues. If you've been following the news this long, it's not enough to just read the headlines.
Remdesivir getting approved, Ivermectin not getting approved, the Danish mask study not getting published, Fauci walking back vit D and C. I have 0 confidence in what we are being told.
Even in this time of crisis, people are looking for an angle.
Healthy skepticism is...healthy. Doubting everything defeats the whole purpose of healthy skepticism, which is to weed out the bad from the good and the tentative. Doubting everything is a failure of skepticism, not a success.
This is my entire point, compare the journey of the two. Either Ivermectin would have been approved a long time ago, or Remdesivir would still be waiting approval. However one was fast tracked because the right people got behind it.
Healthy-skeptic addresses all those points, there is simply a difference of opinion about them.
No problem with that, the real caution is letting the high risk know that masks are far from a guarantee, maybe even no help at all.
Yep.
People are clueless. They think big pharma is all about helping people and not in it for the money.
If there were no money in it? There wouldn't be a big pharma.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
