Coronavirus in China

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Hekate, Jan 23, 2020.

  1. Eminence

    Eminence Well-Known Member

    1,949
    522
    163
    Feb 25, 2015
    Donald is 100% a doctor shopper.
     
  2. sahlensguy

    sahlensguy Well-Known Member

    2,046
    634
    163
    Nov 10, 2010
    Why though? I didn't the he was even worried about the virus.
     
  3. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    4,003
    1,458
    193
    Mar 17, 2015
    I don’t believe Trump is taking that medicine. I think he said he was for two reasons. To get back at Dr. Bright, who was fired, and testified that he did not want time wasted promoting that very medicine. And, secondly, because Trump touted it in the first place, and one thing Trump cannot allow is the appearance that he may have been mistaken. About anything.

    Because his followers do pay attention to even those of his ideas that amount to abject nonsense, saying he was taking it was one of his more irresponsible proclamations.
     
    sirkickyass and stitches like this.
  4. sahlensguy

    sahlensguy Well-Known Member

    2,046
    634
    163
    Nov 10, 2010
    Trump is like the pop star who says **** and you're reaction is like "who CARES"...except that he's the president of the United States.
     
    Red likes this.
  5. RandyForRubio

    RandyForRubio Well-Known Member

    9,129
    1,602
    228
    Mar 9, 2015
    For about the 50th time, we have a difference of opinion on the impact of the economy on the lower income, and the severity of the virus. I understand you don't agree with that, but what you're trying to equate here isn't the same.
     
  6. sahlensguy

    sahlensguy Well-Known Member

    2,046
    634
    163
    Nov 10, 2010
    What are you basing the severity of the virus on?

    Also, the benefited lower income unemployed are doing just fine. What impacts to them are you concerned of?
     
  7. RandyForRubio

    RandyForRubio Well-Known Member

    9,129
    1,602
    228
    Mar 9, 2015
    I've quoted the stats to you before. I don't care to further waste my time and do it again.

    They're doing fine *now*. The economic impact will last for years from now, starting with job loss. Jobs don't just replace themselves, and there will be a lot of low income individuals that lose jobs. Unemployment can only support so much, for so long. Somebody has to pay for it eventually, and in general, whether direct or not, that comes down on low income individuals more. What we're doing now will have repercussions for years.
     
  8. RandyForRubio

    RandyForRubio Well-Known Member

    9,129
    1,602
    228
    Mar 9, 2015
    I should also mention that were about to see a food supply and distribution interruption that we haven't in decades, at least. And it shouldn't take very many guesses to figure out who that's going to impact the most.
     
  9. Eminence

    Eminence Well-Known Member

    1,949
    522
    163
    Feb 25, 2015
    Because that's what he's done for his entire life? He pays the money to have his people find other people who will tell him what he wants to hear.

    Personally I think he is probably actually taking it. The alternative is even stupider.
     
  10. Political Jazz Fan

    Political Jazz Fan Well-Known Member

    592
    79
    48
    Nov 21, 2019


     
  11. Wes Mantooth

    Wes Mantooth Well-Known Member

    22,640
    6,384
    373
    Jul 14, 2015
    lmfao you’re braindead.
     
    sirkickyass likes this.
  12. Avery

    Avery Well-Known Member

    3,438
    1,482
    228
    May 26, 2010


    November can't come soon enough.
     
    Wes Mantooth likes this.
  13. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    4,003
    1,458
    193
    Mar 17, 2015
    Well, if Trump consulted with his physician, and his physician approved hydroxychloroquine for Trump, than I imagine some in the medical community might question that doctor’s qualifications to dispense prescriptions. We know Trump takes cholesterol medicine, which is a heart health medicine. We know hydroxychlorquine has heart attacks as a potential side effect. And we know Trump is the president of the United States. I suppose Trump could have just said “give me the damn medicine”, but that might still call into question the ethical standards of the physician in question. That doctor could have said “I can’t do that, Mr. President”.

    For the public, it would seem to be fair to at least ask how is it a physician is giving Trump a drug that carries dangerous side effects. Are we expected to believe that physician concluded “those side effects most likely won’t apply to you, Mr. President”. Apparently, you think that must be the case. And all the medical professionals acting incredulous that Trump might be doing this are off base being incredulous.

    And, is the outrage really over Trump taking it? Or is the outrage over the fact that it encourages Trump supporters to think it must be safe to take? Trump said many front line workers are taking it. Yet, the NIH cannot find evidence that they are. Would it be fair to be outraged over Trump’s buttressing his claims for this drug by making a false claim about all those front line workers taking it?

    Here’s the outrage: rather than appear to have been mistaken, Trump will continue to tout a drug the medical community suggests should not be used to prevent or combat Covid-19 outside a hospital setting.
     
  14. infection

    infection Well-Known Member Staff Member 2019 Award Winner 2018 Award Winner

    14,357
    11,392
    463
    May 27, 2010
    The ways in which cholesterol and hydroxychloroquine affect the heart are very different and not related. Elevated cholesterol is correlated with an increased risk for atherosclerosis, which further down stream can contribute to cardiac ischemia (problems of getting blood to the actual tissue of the heart). Hydroxychloroquine can cause delayed repolarization of the heart (fundamentally an electrical conduction issue) that can lead to a higher risk of arrhythmias that can be fatal. The idea that this is a deadly medication has been very overblown. But the issue here is taking it prophylactically. I had argued previously that I very much doubt that there are many people (relatively) who were taking this prophylactically. Prescribing it for that purpose has always been fairly discouraged (initially because of an access issue, in the same way common people wearing masks was discouraged because it would deplete the supply from people who actually needed it). But despite what television shows, the news, and our cultural views on science and medicine have taught us, medicine really isn't so black and white. There's a lot of grey area. Saying that you can find someone out there who would prescribe this prophylactically isn't a stretch. Those kinds of things happen all the time, and there are many times that a patient may suggest something that the physician otherwise wouldn't have done, but due to a number of variables arrive at a conclusion that they wouldn't have independent of patient preference. This happens often and for people of a much lower status than being president of a powerful nation. Hell, it happens regularly with people who have absolutely no institutional power, no job, and even no insurance. Though I've argued the amount of people getting this prophylactically has been small, I'm certain it's even much smaller now, and yes, he was prescribed [presumably] this because he's the president.

    But I think this is a good example of what I've been harping on so many times, that the time and situation completely dictates what is and is not appropriate, and what acceptable burden of proof is. My arguments regarding hydroxychloroquine has always been to defer these decisions to treating physicians and minimize the public pressure and politicization of its application. Taking this in higher risk situations changes the risk/benefit analysis, and the fact that it's of time-limited duration makes the negative effects of it less concerning. In reality, the jury is still out on this, regardless of what people are saying [but don't conflate me saying the jury's out with me saying I have an opinion on this or think that it works -- I've stated that, if anything, it probably doesn't have benefit -- but in reality the jury is still out]. But its use prophylactically is a different question all together. To use it prophylactically requires a larger burden of proof. Especially at this point in time, where (in absence of having some specific exposure), your risk of being exposed to this now really isn't that much different from a week from now, or two weeks from now, or a month from now. So taking it in a time-limited fashion makes less sense. I mean, I suppose you could take it indefinitely, but that would require an even larger burden of proof that doesn't exist.

    Tl;dr if anyone who, like the rest of the population, had never heard of hydroxychloroquine until Trump mentioned it, but now believe a number of perceived certainties regarding this from their intense study of news articles, believes that this is as deadly and dangerous as everyone has assumed, then they can sit back with the upmost assurance to watch his inevitable fatal demise.
     
    Gameface and Red like this.
  15. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    18,980
    4,142
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    I’m just amazed that the Trump administration is so eager to distract itself from the pandemic with stuff from 2015-2016 when they were whining just a week ago that impeachment distracted them from focusing on the pandemic.
     
  16. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    4,003
    1,458
    193
    Mar 17, 2015
    Thanks for this. I appreciate the education. Timely, too, as I experienced a couple of coincidences today on the subject of this medicine, which also gave pause at the time.
     
  17. RandyForRubio

    RandyForRubio Well-Known Member

    9,129
    1,602
    228
    Mar 9, 2015
    The CDC is now saying that the virus is not spread easily on contaminated surfaces. Great news.
     
    fishonjazz likes this.
  18. sirkickyass

    sirkickyass Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

    6,096
    962
    233
    May 25, 2010

    Here's a copy of the physician's actual letter

    upload_2020-5-20_17-21-23.png

    Here's what it doesn't say:

    1. I prescribed Trump hydroxychlorquinine

    2. Trump is taking the drug

    My conclusion: Trump just shot his mouth off and isn't taking the drug.
     
  19. infection

    infection Well-Known Member Staff Member 2019 Award Winner 2018 Award Winner

    14,357
    11,392
    463
    May 27, 2010
    That’s not what I read. He’s detailing a rationale for treatment, stating that they concluded that the potential benefits outweigh the risks. This is physician-documentation speak for what your decision is.

    ETA: I suppose an alternative could be that he got it from some other prescribed source but that they had the discussion, without this particular physician technically prescribing it, such as would happen with a physician consultation where the consulting physician agrees with a treatment plan already in place.
     
  20. Political Jazz Fan

    Political Jazz Fan Well-Known Member

    592
    79
    48
    Nov 21, 2019
     
    Joe Bagadonuts likes this.

Share This Page