Nicker on 21/4/2020 at 20:08
Quote:
there are this little things call BILLS, and failure to pay them means I am fucking homeless ...... that there is far scarier and deadlier than germs that have killed 176,400 people out of 7.8 BILLION.......
That's a problem with how the USA is structured as a society. It's not an excuse for threatening the lives of others.
And it's not an excuse for posting vacuous memes or trolling this forum. If you want to thump your chest about the Constitution, START YOUR OWN THREAD. This thread is about a GLOBAL situation and FYI the USA is not the globe.
jkcerda on 21/4/2020 at 20:11
I am good, you guys take care.
SubJeff on 21/4/2020 at 22:07
Wait, is jkcerda serious?
Renzatic on 21/4/2020 at 22:34
No one knows...
Renault on 22/4/2020 at 02:49
It's OK. Usually when people say something like "That's it, I'm out" or "It's been fun" they usually come back anyway.
demagogue on 22/4/2020 at 08:03
As a lawyer, my idea of shitting on the constitution is making big claims about what it says and means without having seriously read or understood it, much less the decades of Supreme Court case law that actually give meanings to the text. In fact you can suspend certain liberties for periods of time if necessary to protect public health, and to protect life in particular. I don't think there's much debate that the restrictions are necessary.
We do have the principle of LRA, "least restrictive alternative", in civil rights jurisprudence, which means if there are multiple ways to meet the objective, the gov't must use the option least restrictive on the given right. If these people really want to go after these restrictions in the right way, they'd come up with a less restrictive alternative that's sufficient to protect people's lives according to experts, or some legit process, and not just some random official's opinion. If they can't do that, then it's kind of an admission that the current restrictions are necessary and the LRA.
Starker on 22/4/2020 at 13:05
The word is hydroxychloroquine:
[video=youtube;KDcMPi_3nkk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDcMPi_3nkk[/video]
Quote:
(
https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2)
A malaria drug widely touted by President Donald Trump for treating the new coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. There were more deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, researchers reported.
The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment. But with 368 patients, it's the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for COVID-19, which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday.
The study was posted on an online site for researchers and has not been reviewed by other scientists. Grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Virginia paid for the work.
Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 male veterans hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infection at Veterans Health Administration medical centers who died or were discharged by April 11.
About 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. About 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival.
Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either.
Researchers did not track side effects, but noted a hint that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death.
Earlier this month, scientists in Brazil stopped part of a study testing chloroquine, an older drug similar to hydroxychloroquine, after heart rhythm problems developed in one-quarter of people given the higher of two doses being tested.
On Tuesday, NIH issued new treatment guidelines from a panel of experts, saying there was not enough evidence to recommend for or against chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. But it also advised against using hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin because of the potential side effects.
Many doctors have been leery of the drug.
At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, “I think we're all rather underwhelmed” at what's been seen among the few patients there who've tried it, said Dr. Nasia Safdar, medical director of infection control and prevention.
Patients asked about it soon after Trump started promoting its use, “but now I think that people have realized we don't know if it works or not” and needs more study, said Safdar, who had no role in the VA analysis.
The NIH and others have more rigorous tests underway.
Gingerbread Man on 22/4/2020 at 14:57
THIS IS NOT THE ONION
“Greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight leads to a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. A one-standard deviation increase in relative viewership of Hannity relative to Carlson is associated with approximately 30 percent more COVID-19 cases on March 14, and 21 percent more COVID-19 deaths on March 28."
(
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2020-44/)
bjack on 22/4/2020 at 18:06
It is my understanding that hydroxy chloroquine is being given to “mostly” terminal patients. It is a last ditch effort. If it is proven to be ineffective, which is quiet possible, then stop using it. If it is only 5% effective for patients that will die anyway, then use it.
Keep in mind that one cannot prove a negative. How many that have died that did not get hydroxy chloroquine would have lived? How many of those that lived that got hydroxy chloroquine would have anyway?
Sulphur on 22/4/2020 at 18:12
Quote Posted by bjack
Keep in mind that one cannot prove a negative.
I'm not saying I disagree with everything else you're saying, but this is patently (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility) untrue if you have even a fleeting understanding of science and mathematics.
