Jump to content

Finally, Light at the End of the Pandemic


Recommended Posts

Interesting read. Just a few months into this Pandemic the Trump administration launched "Operation Warp Speed" which combines the staff resources of multiple federal agencies with a substantial budget to absorb the financial risk of developing, testing, and mass-producing potential cures.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/finally-light-at-the-end-of-the-pandemic/

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Outta here with your persecution complex.

I'm generally not a big conspiracy guy but I think election season is driving a lot of what is and isn't being done and discussed. I think after election day the whole tone of things will change.

Is conservative thought allowed? Is it ok to have conservative ideas?  Or does having conservative ideas inherently mean one is not worthy?

33 minutes ago, sas5814 said:

I'm generally not a big conspiracy guy but I think election season is driving a lot of what is and isn't being done and discussed. I think after election day the whole tone of things will change.

Yes, I agree.  Suddenly our news feeds will be full of positive news (like THIS, but from every major outlet).

Unless, of course, the impossible happens again and Trump is reelected.

Edited by Boatswain2PA
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Gotta know your source......

 

from. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/national-review

The National Review, a magazine which some have called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias. One of the National Review’s core convictions is that centralized government should solely exist to protect citizens’ lives, liberty and property. Describing itself as libertarian, it believes all other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The National Review was given an AllSides Bias Rating™ of far right, a rating with which a majority of community members agree.

 

 

My personal opinion is this is merely a marketing trick by tRump

He knows he failed the response and the only thing he can do is try to say it is over.....

from CNN https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/10/10/trump-comments-since-testing-positive-covid-coronavirus-orig-me.cnn.  

 

From ABC news

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/live-updates/coronavirus/?id=73623859&cid=clicksource_4380645_7_three_posts_card_hed

 

 

But this takes the cake

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/opinions/white-house-herd-immunity-reckless-idea-sachs/index.html

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont like the news, shoot the messenger.  

Fortunately the National Review is open about their bias.  They dont try to hide the blatant bias behind shades of impartiality like CNN, ABC, or most other news sources.

However, just like the other highly biased news sources (even those who hide, or are oblivious to, their own bias), it doesnt mean what they report is inaccurate.

Anyone care to actually discuss what is reported, or refute any of it?  Or will we just continue to lower ourselves to denigrating anyone who has a conservative thought?

Edited by Boatswain2PA
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Dont like the news, shoot the messenger.  

Fortunately the National Review is open about their bias.  They dont try to hide the blatant bias behind shades of impartiality like CNN, ABC, or most other news sources.

However, just like the other highly biased news sources (even those who hide, or are oblivious to, their own bias), it doesnt mean what they report is inaccurate.

Anyone care to actually discuss what is reported, or refute any of it?  Or will we just continue to lower ourselves to denigrating anyone who has a conservative thought?

Any way to provide the gist of the article or a summary? I was absolutely shocked to find that I have used up all of my free national review articles.  I blame you.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MediMike said:

Any way to provide the gist of the article or a summary? I was absolutely shocked to find that I have used up all of my free national review articles.  I blame you.

Open in incognito view, if that doesnt work then can open with different program (chrome, IE, firefox).

 

Been blamed for a lot worse my friend! lol

Edited by Boatswain2PA
Link to post
Share on other sites

The most strait forward reporting I have seen in the last couple of years has been from (you're gonna hate this) AlJazeera. When I read their articles it is mostly like old school news reporting. Here is what happened...not much fluff or spin. 

In any case that was a bit of a rabbit hole. I have pretty much stopped reading anything about COVID because it is impossible to sort truth from the manure. I figure someone will call me when it is over.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

So all the other national and international news agencies are biased, but because a right wing fringe says they are bias it makes it true?   Sorry don’t follow your logic.   
Are you are impugning the professionalism of such agencies as CNN and ABC?  Just trying to understand your point. 
 

last I checked there is record number of infections and deaths.  We have list more Americans the WwI. Korea vietanam and DS combined. To covid.  Fauci is sounding the alarm to not even have house gatherings for holidays.  Many many states have relaid reopening.   But because a far right bias organization said it’s over we are supposed to believe it?   Again just trying to understand where you are coming from?

 

I prefer BBC and CNN.  I actually dislike my local news (npr) as they are to far left leaning 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrator

Ok, given that we *just* closed a political thread on Covid-19 due to people not playing nice with each other, starting another thread where people can display their own perspectives (everyone has one...) is probably not a great idea.

The mods and I are discussing a moratorium on political threads until after the election, among other ideas to keep maximal freedom of discussion with minimal asshattery tolerated.

But in the mean time, I remind everyone that attacking a source based on its presumed bias is an ad hominem attack.  Just because it's classed as a logical fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong, (most slippery slope arguments do, in fact, eventually come true even if they don't necessarily come true) but it does mean it's not sufficient.

If you want to debate ideas, fine. But I challenge you to find someone on "the other side" (whatever that may be) to make your point for you. It takes the air out of tribalism, which has, of course, killed more people in the 20th and 21st centuries than any infectious disease has.

But please--professional, respectful, disagreement if we must have these topics here.

ETA: and I, too, find that the BBC and other international news organizations provide much needed perspective that the American press, of whatever stripe, just doesn't seem to be capable of producing any longer

Edited by rev ronin
on news sources...
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

This wasnt a political thread until people started attacking the source as being political.

 

If someone wants to actually READ the article it lays out some good news about treatments.  I figgured that would be good news.

Is good news not allowed until Nov 3rd?

It doesn't read as a highly politicized article, but it is a bit sensationalist in nature. Regeneron hasn't even really completed clinical trials yet, but this article presumes it to potentially be some sort of end to the nightmare. I guess I am just uber skeptical. We've had how many "super promising" treatments get through 1 or 2 RCTs and basically look stale or actually cause harm? The cost of therapy is in the tens of thousands also, and I'm under the impression that getting sufficient amounts of the medicine available isn't actually much of a reality. I'll hope for the best, but expect another RCT that data dredges up a questionable benefit. We simply need a vaccine. It is starting to seem clear that this virus is just an enormous insult on the entire body, and 1 miracle cure isn't likely to cut it. Convalescent plasma or neutralizing antibodies can't stop the immune systems own destruction once the ball gets rolling... 

In a hope to remain apolitical, Operation Warp Speed really does seem promising. EMRAP had a couple of great interviews with a couple of the researchers, and I do think their approaches to doing and accepting clinical trial results falls well within the standard practice.

 

Edited by WeBuyAndSellJunk
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

If someone wants to actually READ the article it lays out some good news about treatments.  I figgured that would be good news.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a medical forum. I do not read articles by journalists for medical news about treatments. I subscribe to the NEJM and Medscape and a host of other services to push information to me daily. Reliable sources that do not require that I continuously attempt to parse through propaganda to find the nuggets of truth. That is why no one here should be clicking on your link, period, despite your bizarre pleas for people to do so.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Interesting read. Just a few months into this Pandemic the Trump administration launched "Operation Warp Speed" which combines the staff resources of multiple federal agencies with a substantial budget to absorb the financial risk of developing, testing, and mass-producing potential cures.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/finally-light-at-the-end-of-the-pandemic/

 

Chris Christie just out of the unit after being in ICU for 7 days.  He almost died.  He got all the crap that they threw at Trump.  Good for him, I'm glad he's not dead for his wife and family.  His tune though has changed.  Why does it take Republicans having a near death experience to finally listen to what science and scientists are telling them?????  How many average people are going to continue to die because asshats like him have to nearly die to get it through their thick skulls.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/chris-christie-says-he-was-icu-7-days-battling-covid-n1243589

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Interesting read. Just a few months into this Pandemic the Trump administration launched "Operation Warp Speed" which combines the staff resources of multiple federal agencies with a substantial budget to absorb the financial risk of developing, testing, and mass-producing potential cures.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/finally-light-at-the-end-of-the-pandemic/

 

They used the word "significant" incorrectly in regards to treatment effect. That bothers me significantly.

When you read the data on Regeneron the only thing it's been shown to do is reduce viral load, there was no effect on symptoms in their non-hospitalized patients. Patient centered outcomes are lacking.

It also incorrectly interpreted the remdesivir days saying that there was a mortality benefit, unfortunately the CI crossed 1 in the study.

The article was a little too ra-ra for me, but did touch on some good points. I'll admit I didn't feel the need to bleach my eyes as I often do after reading an NR piece. 🙂 As mentioned by another poster, demonstrates the dangers of non-medical literature reporting on medical literature.

Edit: Took me so long to type this out I was worried the thread would be locked by the time I posted 😂

Edited by MediMike
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MediMike said:

When you read the data on Regeneron the only thing it's been shown to do is reduce viral load, there was no effect on symptoms in their non-hospitalized patients. Patient centered outcomes are lacking.

Sounds like you know the literature better than I do, but doesn't this make sense at this stage of the game?  We can do blood tests to see if the viral load has changed, but we have to give it to x number of patients to see if there is a morbidity effect.  And that x number is going to be pretty big since so many people appear to have the disease but be (at least relatively) symptom free.

But I think the bigger point, from a public health perspective is, if this lowers viral load then it makes sense that it would also decrease infectivity.  Can we send people back to work/school/nursing homes after being on this drug for 24 hours without the risk of infecting others?  If so, that would be a HUGE benefit.
 

34 minutes ago, MediMike said:

The article was a little too ra-ra for me, but did touch on some good points.

Yes, EVERY author has their bias.  At least NR advertises and stands behind their bias'.
 

34 minutes ago, MediMike said:

As mentioned by another poster, demonstrates the dangers of non-medical literature reporting on medical literature.

Agreed.  Unfortunately it seems few people remember those dangers when reading things in the media.

35 minutes ago, MediMike said:

Took me so long to type this out I was worried the thread would be locked by the time I posted

It won't be long before the haters continue to pile on.  But it's accepted here, so it is what it is.

3 hours ago, Cideous said:

Why does it take Republicans having a near death experience to finally listen to what science and scientists are telling them?????

Can you imagine those evil conservatives at NR even had the GALL to say this: "Prevention remains a key: wearing masks, washing hands frequently, observing social distancing."  in the article..
 

Oh, wait....

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Sounds like you know the literature better than I do, but doesn't this make sense at this stage of the game?  We can do blood tests to see if the viral load has changed, but we have to give it to x number of patients to see if there is a morbidity effect.  And that x number is going to be pretty big since so many people appear to have the disease but be (at least relatively) symptom free.

But I think the bigger point, from a public health perspective is, if this lowers viral load then it makes sense that it would also decrease infectivity.  Can we send people back to work/school/nursing homes after being on this drug for 24 hours without the risk of infecting others?  If so, that would be a HUGE benefit.
 

Yes, EVERY author has their bias.  At least NR advertises and stands behind their bias'.
 

Agreed.  Unfortunately it seems few people remember those dangers when reading things in the media.

It won't be long before the haters continue to pile on.  But it's accepted here, so it is what it is.

Can you imagine those evil conservatives at NR even had the GALL to say this: "Prevention remains a key: wearing masks, washing hands frequently, observing social distancing."  in the article..
 

Oh, wait....

That's a great question, and while it would make sense that a lower viral load leads to decreased infectivity I honestly don't have the answers to that.  Am in the midst of an argument regarding therapeutic hypothermia with an attending at the moment or I'd dive into the literature on that one.  Damn new kids...

I actually wasn't picking up all that much "bias" from NR on this one, they did seem very pro-Regeneron which makes me wonder if there is an industry tie or if they are simple optimists, which would be really creepy to see in this day and age!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

This wasnt a political thread until people started attacking the source as being political.

It is a political thread when it is opened with, and based upon, a piece of journalism from a publication with a stated bias. It doesn't begin as apolitical - and only become political -  when it is pointed out that this is what you have done. Always the same old game with you.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

I think the only treatments I have a high degree of faith in at this point are dex and convalescent serum.

I think there is a subgroup of folks out there who just don't get covid. I think we need to find them, study them, and base treatments on that. Is it diet? supplements? BMI? genetics?

I am knocking on wood here, but I think I may be one of them. I have had at least three, probably more,  significant and extended exposures without adequate PPE (both at work and outside of work) to folks who were later confirmed to be positive within hours of me seeing them and I have had 4 negative tests so far(again, knocking on wood).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EMEDPA said:

I have had at least three, probably more,  significant and extended exposures without adequate PPE (both at work and outside of work) to folks who were later confirmed to be positive within hours of me seeing them

We are swimming in covid.  I probably have 6 patients a shift now who are positive.  Vast vast majority are minimally I'll and go home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More