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.
Btw, did you notice that none of the people in the meeting were wearing masks?
However, Trump was in the meeting, so does anyone think that MAYBE he dissuaded people from wearing them?
I do find it suspicious that first Pence and now these doctors seem to be ignoring the directive/suggestion that we should all be wearing masks unless we are outside or in our own homes.
Unlike Trump, Fauci was not receiving (and lying about) daily intelligence briefings on the reality of the threat.
This absolutely correct.
Dr. Fauci is widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on infectious diseases. As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served American public health in various capacities for over 50 years, and has been an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.
He has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiencies, both as a scientist and as the head of the NIAID at the NIH.
What's True
During a Feb. 29, 2020, interview, Dr. Fauci said that at that time and under the circumstances pertaining to that date, Americans didn't need to change their behavior patterns.
What's False
However, Fauci did not say there was "nothing to worry about," and although he stated that Americans did not yet need to change their behaviors, he noted that what was then classified as the COVID-19 outbreak could require that to change.
Ummm.. China has already done trials on Remdesivir that has shown not to work. Now its the next "flavor failure of the month here in the U.S" Ughh. These "experts" I tell ya May as well get ready to shelter in place for another 2 years at this rate
You are simply quote mining in order to take what Fauci stated out of context.
We need to have the transcript to that entire briefing and this comment has already been addressed.
However, Fauci did not say there was "nothing to worry about," and although he stated that Americans did not yet need to change their behaviors, he noted that what was then classified as the COVID-19 outbreak could require that to change.
Please stop spreading lies and quote mining.
He did said that but I guess it was taken out of context or going by that other classic excuse, he was drunk.
thank you - valuable post. The range is very wide, a moving target - nothing but an estimate.
Moving target?
Do you understand why it's virtually impossible to nail down the number of asymptomatic COVID-19 positive cases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
Could be 1.4 people per carrier get infected. Probably NOT more than 5.7 though, right?
You tell us since you think you understand more than the medical scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
So, putting aside the literal interpretation of "2 negative-tested and asymptomatic people interact, how does anyone get infected?"
A person who is positive for COVID-19 but who is asymptomatic are much more prone to spreading this virus. In fact they alone can infect 5-6 people on average.
Look up how much shedding of this virus these folks do.
The rest of your argument simply makes zero sense.
One of the first carefully done studies of the antiviral drug remdesivir shows it did not help people recover faster from coronavirus infections. But the study, conducted in China, may have been too small to show clearly whether the drug helps.
The findings of the Chinese study conflict with other hints of the drug’s efficacy coming from other trials – two of them also on Wednesday. One study was from the company that makes the drug and a third study from the National Institutes of Health is expected later on Wednesday.
Experts say it’s going to take a lot more testing and a little longer before it’s clear whether remdesivir can help patients recover from Covid-19 infections.
The study conducted in China was stopped early because there weren’t enough patients, but it indicated that the drug did not work as hoped, the team reported in the Lancet medical journal on Wednesday. Some details of this study were posted last week on the World Health Organization’s website, then removed.
Gilead said earlier on Wednesday that its own study of the drug showed it may work and that patients who took the drug for five days or 10 days saw similar results. Gilead’s study results have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. The study done in China was more carefully designed than Gilead’s study to show whether the drug was helping patients.
The Lancet study was a randomized, placebo controlled study – meaning that patients were randomly given the drug or a dummy treatment and the patients and doctors did not know who was getting what.
The team at China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University in China tested the drug using 237 coronavirus patients in Wuhan.
“Unfortunately, our trial found that while safe and adequately tolerated, remdesivir did not provide significant benefits over placebo,” Bin Cao, the researcher who led the study, said in a statement.
“Future studies need to determine whether earlier treatment with remdesivir, higher doses, or combination with other antivirals or SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, might be more effective in those with severe illness,” he added.
The study may not tell anything meaningful. Larger studies enrolling more people, and conducted with careful controls will be needed to tell whether various treatments work.
“The study was well designed—a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter randomized trial—and well conducted, with high protocol adherence and no loss-to-follow up,” John Norrie of the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the study, wrote in a commentary.
“We eagerly await the ongoing trials.”
The new remdesivir data from Tony Fauci from N >1,000 placebo-controlled trial (unpublished, Oval Office citation) does not show statistically significant reduction in mortality (8% vs 11%, in the right direction) but a clear-cut benefit in time to recovery 11 vs 15 days, P<0.001
Fauci was almost giddy (for Fauci) in discussing this. Even if it is not the silver bullet it will help to point the legions of researchers around the world to an effective approach - like the HIV experience Fauci compared it to.
Last edited by Hrw-500; 04-29-2020 at 02:16 PM..
Reason: Fixing link
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.
May as well get ready to shelter in place for another 2 years at this rate
It's 100% not gonna be a vaccine by this year. You just linked me to something in India.