Stats, they matter. Make no mistake America could completely screw the pooch going forward, but the criticism the administration is drawing is grossly out of proportion.i want to cherish this.
Stats, they matter. Make no mistake America could completely screw the pooch going forward, but the criticism the administration is drawing is grossly out of proportion.i want to cherish this.
because available testing caps the number of confirmed testing and skews the people who get tested to more severe cases, I would say that a better gauge would be Total Deaths Over Expected. Deaths tend to follow very predictable patterns, year over year, and something like COVID causes a huge spike.I see you are talking about deaths of the total population.
You cannot use that as any kind of gauge.
The total population has not been infected in either country. Nor will it.
You can only go by the rate of total number deaths out of total number infected.
Namaste
so does arithmetic.Stats, they matter. Make no mistake America could completely screw the pooch going forward, but the criticism the administration is drawing is grossly out of proportion.
Come on to the real coronavirus thread, son. We are wearing $300 czech world war iii masks and performing our own peer review while eating bat soup with abandon...Even here in this thread, people are retorting about peer review from institutional sources while not even addressing the advocacy actions, which we can see more clearly why they could potentially be a mis-step. These are rhetorical choices people are making, largely based on media cultivation. The conversation is not about efficacy. It's about a lack of messaging discipline on how treatment and prevention protocols are being developed.
We should all be primarily concerned about the methodology by which we are getting to this point...You should be concerned that "plaquenil good/bad" = I'm for/against Trump is being promoted.
You mean normal expected deaths, minus total deaths Covid deaths?because available testing caps the number of confirmed testing and skews the people who get tested to more severe cases, I would say that a better gauge would be Total Deaths Over Expected. Deaths tend to follow very predictable patterns, year over year, and something like COVID causes a huge spike.
I'm trying to wreck your neat little single thread quarantines. We need more threads.Come on to the real coronavirus thread, son. We are wearing $300 czech world war iii masks and performing our own peer review while eating bat soup with abandon...
This is true. #LiberateTMMAC !!!!!111I'm trying to wreck your neat little single thread quarantines. We need more threads.
did you read the actual study being done or just read interpretation of the study?Tell me, in your own words, what that means to you.
i'm quoting a dude that has a PhD in Pathology, where you getting your information from? some journalist who wrote about a study?I didnt realize we had so many doctors on the forum.
No one directed a post at you but if the shoe fits....i'm quoting a dude that has a PhD in Pathology, where you getting your information from? some journalist who wrote about a study?
It has not done better than China and Canada by any measure. Where are you pulling that nonsense from?Well, he's done better than China, Italy, Spain, the U.K. and Canada.
they call me Dr. LoveI didnt realize we had so many doctors on the forum.
you're implying that other people's sources are not as validNo one directed a post at you but if the shoe fits....
you're implying that other people's sources are not as valid
i'm quoting a dude that has a PhD in Pathology, where you getting your information from? some journalist who wrote about a study?
you're acting all cool but nobody else in the thread made any kind of Doctor remark, except me and Splinty who's a real doc
Everyone seems to have a medical opinion, hence the comment.you're acting all cool but nobody else in the thread made any kind of Doctor remark, except me and Splinty who's a real doc
so who were you talking about then???
yea but what makes it any different for them to cite something some doctor said vs you citing something from your source?Everyone seems to have a medical opinion, hence the comment.
Plus, one doc in an off topic thread on an mma forum is an above average number of doctors for an mma forum.
Only a simpleton (possibly an autistic simpleton) would think assessing coronavirus response effectiveness comes down to a simple equation of per capita deaths. I could go into that, but I fear that you won't understand. Here's something even you might be able to get your around around though.The U.S. has 5 times as many people as France. 21 430 x 5 = 107 150
I don't know how many times I have to tell you, it's an ITALIAN mask.Come on to the real coronavirus thread, son. We are wearing $300 czech
I'm going to put my uneducated balls on the coronavirus-infested table and predict that hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc will eventually be found to have some positive impacts. It won't be a magic bullet, but it will help.Weak evidence for and against. It's no problem knocking that the VA trial was retrospective. Docs were using it, and they looked back to see if there were trends it worked. The didn't. But they did find harm. That's a concern and shouldn't be dismissed.
The original studies out of China never had data attached. French study is viral shedding in a classroom sized patient cohort. No one was complaining about zinc or anything else as these studies were overstated. Nor did the French use Zinc in their claims of efficacy.
Only a couple of studies are even patient focused. Most are bench top or non patient focused outcomes.
There are larger more comprehensive trials underway but of course that takes time. Cautious optimism remains the name of the game on this one. There is reason to believe it works in a certain cohort of patients and there's lots of reason to believe its not a panacea.
But again, just as the president and others is WAY overstating this med, the media has tossed it out just as fast with incomplete studies.
probably like a lot of other anti-virals...if the patient is otherwise healthy, and you start treatment early enough to slow down the replication of the virus, it's probably a lot more effective than pumping it in to a bunch of people with chest pressure or already intubated.I'm going to put my uneducated balls on the coronavirus-infested table and predict that hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc will eventually be found to have some positive impacts. It won't be a magic bullet, but it will help.
There's absolutely no doubt that while Trump is an absolute retard for hyping the drug up, the media is being collectively retarded in basically rooting for this drug cocktail to fail.
I'm asking you what in your own words the peer review process means to you. I'm not trying to be facetious or leading. I genuinely want to know what meaning that gives to you in this case. I'm a Communication scholar, so I'm interested in how people make sense of information. Sorry if my comment sounded trolly.did you read the actual study being done or just read interpretation of the study?
seems like there's a lot of holes,
when it says shit like, "...according to 100s of studies..." you have to question it. better to look up the actual study and make your own judgment
1) Even if we assume China's numbers are accurate, which they almost certainly aren't, look at how they accomplished the feat. If you think that's better management then we'll have to agree to disagree.It has not done better than China and Canada by any measure. Where are you pulling that nonsense from?