Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bad news on the COVID-19 front

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The University of North Carolina was the first national example of an ambitious reopening morphing into a hasty retreat, and it hasn't been the last. Already, nearby North Carolina State University has decided it will move from a hybrid model to a remote one on August 24 in the wake of outbreaks at sorority houses, with three clusters reported, about a dozen positive tests, and 500 students under quarantine, the local alternative newspaper Indy Week reported.
    Another hybrid reopening plan has been rolled back at Notre Dame. And the editorial board of that school's student newspaper already wrote its own attention-grabbing headline: "Don't make us write obituaries."

    https://news.yahoo.com/university-no...120000563.html
    Last edited by 99explorer; 08-23-2020, 06:34 PM.

    Comment


    • Some good news... Infection rates have been under 50,000 for the past week, the trend has been steadily down for almost a month. Deaths just dipped bellow 1,000 for the first time in a month (average over 7 days)

      There's still a ton of politics and posturing but slowly the public is getting accustomed to masks.

      Anecdotally I'm starting to see more people posting on facebook from far distances, maybe they drove. More cars on the road. Masks are in no way a cure all, but they do nock a percentage or two off infection rates and that can have outsized effects.

      Comment


      • Denmark has opened wide all their school

        Comment


        • President Trump got the FDA to approve emergency use of Plasma transfusions. Estimated 35% reduction in deaths. More date forthcoming as trials go on.

          Comment


          • The decision to issue an emergency use authorization, which President Trump’s press secretary heralded ahead of time as a “major therapeutic breakthrough,” likely falls far short of that description — and could generate intense controversy inside the administration and the broader scientific community.

            https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/23/...-19-treatment/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 99explorer View Post
              The decision to issue an emergency use authorization, which President Trump’s press secretary heralded ahead of time as a “major therapeutic breakthrough,” likely falls far short of that description — and could generate intense controversy inside the administration and the broader scientific community.

              https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/23/...-19-treatment/
              Orange man bad. Generate intense controversy. Orange man bad.

              Comment


              • The quest for a magic bullet goes on and on.
                We'll try Clorox.
                We'll try anything.
                But it has to come before election day.

                Comment


                • How about all the false positives the NFL is getting? If the NFL can't trust its tests who can?

                  Comment


                  • I think clinical trials are inhumane. It prevents sick individual from getting potentially life saving drugs because scientists are waiting for more data. Give the drug that has shown good results in animals and possibly save a person. If it does not, at least we tried. If I remember there never was an 'approved' drug for SARS. What about all those people who waited ?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by labrador12 View Post
                      How about all the false positives the NFL is getting? If the NFL can't trust its tests who can?
                      False results are not uncommon in medical tests. For example, standard EEG tests for epilepsy produce false negatives 55% of the time (false positives only 2%). That is significant since, unlike COVID19, epilepsy has a high probability of death. 7 to 17% of epileptics who are treated for the condition will die anyway. How many untreated epileptics, like my fourteen year-old son, who produced a false negative EEG, will die from seizures? We don't really know because unless the deceased had more than two seizures more than 24 hours apart, he is not recognized as an epileptic and death can, and often is, attributed to something else. So, should doctors be waiting for more seizures and/or an EEG positive for epileptiform activity before commencing treatment? No. First, side effects of modern meds are not as dangerous as they once were. Second, epilepsy is a life threatening condition, especially if left untreated. Third, other factors for recurring seizures must be weighed (in my son's case, 1st and 2nd degree solid family history of epilepsy [and other features indicative of a mitochondrial disorder], autism, immediate history of near fatal seizure, age, gender, first two seizures the same night [which itself increased the probability of recurring seizures 25%]).

                      Though medical testing is often fraught with factors for false results, we need to accept that sometimes the test is all we have. Nevertheless, when being tested we should also be informed of the probability for false results (in my son's case I was NOT).

                      Comparing epilepsy to COVID19 testing is apples and oranges. A person suspected of developing epilepsy is not communicable. He/she cannot pass the condition to someone else. An error in testing only places the potential epileptic patient at risk, not the entire community. For the sake of others, many others, it is safest to treat a positive COVID test result as a confirmation of infection ... until further testing proves otherwise. That is the best we can do with a highly infectious and often deadly contagion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ontario Honker Hunter View Post

                        False results are not uncommon in medical tests. For example, standard EEG tests for epilepsy produce false negatives 55% of the time (false positives only 2%). That is significant since, unlike COVID19, epilepsy has a high probability of death. 7 to 17% of epileptics who are treated for the condition will die anyway. How many untreated epileptics, like my fourteen year-old son, who produced a false negative EEG, will die from seizures? We don't really know because unless the deceased had more than two seizures more than 24 hours apart, he is not recognized as an epileptic and death can, and often is, attributed to something else. So, should doctors be waiting for more seizures and/or an EEG positive for epileptiform activity before commencing treatment? No. First, side effects of modern meds are not as dangerous as they once were. Second, epilepsy is a life threatening condition, especially if left untreated. Third, other factors for recurring seizures must be weighed (in my son's case, 1st and 2nd degree solid family history of epilepsy [and other features indicative of a mitochondrial disorder], autism, immediate history of near fatal seizure, age, gender, first two seizures the same night [which itself increased the probability of recurring seizures 25%]).

                        Though medical testing is often fraught with factors for false results, we need to accept that sometimes the test is all we have. Nevertheless, when being tested we should also be informed of the probability for false results (in my son's case I was NOT).

                        Comparing epilepsy to COVID19 testing is apples and oranges. A person suspected of developing epilepsy is not communicable. He/she cannot pass the condition to someone else. An error in testing only places the potential epileptic patient at risk, not the entire community. For the sake of others, many others, it is safest to treat a positive COVID test result as a confirmation of infection ... until further testing proves otherwise. That is the best we can do with a highly infectious and often deadly contagion.
                        Now he's talking about the safety of modern medicine side effects! Hydroxychloroquine anyone????

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jhjimbo View Post
                          I think clinical trials are inhumane. It prevents sick individual from getting potentially life saving drugs because scientists are waiting for more data. Give the drug that has shown good results in animals and possibly save a person. If it does not, at least we tried. If I remember there never was an 'approved' drug for SARS. What about all those people who waited ?
                          You are presuming that any untested "potentially life saving drug" will not also have potentially life threatening side effects. That can be a fatal assumption. Obviously people are not the same as dogs or pigs. Only a reckless fool would agree to being medicated with something only tested on animals. Anyway, this disease is relatively speaking not terribly deadly. The risk of death does not warrant wanton recklessness.

                          Comment


                          • They use very few dogs and pigs in testing. I qualified by saying only IF the animal trials showed promise, that means no side affects. They use mostly various monkeys, rats and mice. If anyone on their death bed would not try something they are crazy.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by labrador12 View Post

                              Now he's talking about the safety of modern medicine side effects! Hydroxychloroquine anyone????
                              Asparin has few side effects. You're welcome to use that as a COVID prophylactic too. Probably just as effective. Actually, the potential side effects of hydroxyetc are NOT negligible. That has been at the core of the controversy. Something you choose to overlook.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jhjimbo View Post
                                They use very few dogs and pigs in testing. I qualified by saying only IF the animal trials showed promise, that means no side affects. They use mostly various monkeys, rats and mice. If anyone on their death bed would not try something they are crazy.
                                Obviously if someone is on their death bed a vaccine isn't going to help. Likely the side effects would ensure death. Especially risky if the side effects are not known. A non-human animal is not human. Different organisms react differently to the same chemical intervention. You want to trust your life to the results of testing on rats, go right ahead. But real doctors are obligated to think twice about allowing it for general population. And hospitals are not likely to allow untested treatments due to liability risks. This is ALL about balancing risk against potential benefit. There is no balancing if the risks are unknown.
                                Last edited by Ontario Honker Hunter; 08-24-2020, 01:53 PM.

                                Comment

                                Welcome!

                                Collapse

                                Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                                If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                                And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                                Right Rail 1

                                Collapse

                                Top Active Users

                                Collapse

                                There are no top active users.

                                Right Rail 2

                                Collapse

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • Reply to Pistol shooting form.
                                  by DakotaMan
                                  I never tried that one 99, You learn something every day....
                                  Today, 01:20 AM
                                • Reply to Hunting pants?
                                  by PigHunter
                                  I wear cotton all winter. In Central Alabama we rarely get snow and have relatively mild temps. I won't hunt if it's below 20 degF. A camo poncho is what...
                                  Today, 01:17 AM
                                • Hunting pants?
                                  by fitch270
                                  This one came to mind as I replied to PigHunter's thread up top about "What's on your belt?". I started drifting but decided it might be worth...
                                  Yesterday, 10:22 PM
                                • Reply to Hunting pants?
                                  by DakotaMan
                                  I usually wear a loose fitting pair of fairly heavy camo pants and a camo shirt for the season from short sleeve cotton to heavy wool. If it gets colder,...
                                  Today, 01:13 AM
                                • Reply to What's on your belt?
                                  by DakotaMan
                                  I always have the knife, sometimes the old Ruger Single Six. ...
                                  Today, 01:05 AM

                                Right Rail 3

                                Collapse

                                Footer Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X