OT 100% NOT the Official Off-Topic/Politics/Corona Thread
- Thread starter portlandhog
- Start date
How in the hell have millions of patients taken this drug for 50 years and not all gone blind or had heart attacks?
I'll say by the end of the year, is that reasonable? My expectation is that we will see a drop in infections in June/July/August in the south, lower midwest, atlantic seaboard due to increases in humidity which causes airborne droplets to precipitate out of the air faster thus decreasing the spread. The drop will be more gradual west of the Mississippi. I do worry about a second spike in the late fall/winter.
I don't think that is out of the realm of possibility. However, I would take the under.
Retinal toxicity occurs in almost 40% of patients who have been on HCQ for >20 years. ~4-10% overall rate of retinal toxicity.
In terms of cardiac effects, it's multifactorial. Most of the folks w/ severe disease have coexisting renal insufficiency, which increases the cardiac risk by several orders of magnitude. Another big risk is that HCQ is being combined w/ azithromycin in many cases. Both drugs prolong what's called the QT interval, which increases the chance of fatal arrythmias.
I think anything in 2020 is reasonable. If you start going into the next year, not so much.
IMO those projections were primarily for this round though.
If you think the $3,400 for the average family of 4 and many small business who are (if not imminently) on the brink of shutting down because the SBA and banking system is so overwhelmed and can't get access to ONE PENNY of the billion dollars at the moment, is going to mitigate the financial ruin of many Americans and small businesses, then it's clear you don't understand business and economics in the slightest bit. While the stimulus package is absolutely needed as a bridge, it is only a band-aid to what will cause a staph infection long term, imo.
What many do not understand is the difference between THEORY and REALITY. And, I'm not putting the economy ahead of lives. Just believe, there has to be a logical, sensible middle ground.
You were probably in grade school in the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Do you know how long it took employment to finally get those who were unemployed due to that crisis to get back to work? It took 10 years to reach full employment!
I don't think that anyone with half a brain is saying that social distancing, being accountable, and being socially responsible to your family and others was ABSOLUTELY NEEDED during this unknown period and has 100% helped in flattening the curve.
But, IMO, it can't be all or nothing. No matter what side of the fence we may sit on, many think it is black or white. The reality is its gray and somewhere in the middle. Just like the models forecasting 100-240K deaths even with social distancing, most logical people who can think for themselves could deduce that was TOTAL SCARE TACTIC.
We have to figure out how to again be accountable, responsible, and socially responsible, to begin to allow businesses and people to go back to work. I'm not advocating going back all at once like nothing happened or even immediately. But going back to work with protocols in place and adjustments by businesses, owners, and employees to be responsible and accountable. Those areas of the country that are not hotspots how do you responsibly open those areas up without the alternative which is to completely shut them down.
Last edited:
Any drug is going to have side effect. If I were a lupus patient who need to take this for the rest of my life, I would need to weigh the pros and cons.
If I have CODID-19 and my last resort is HCQ or remdesivir, I'm not concerned about the 20 year long-term effects.
Yeah. Agree. I'm a little worried that if we look at the country as a whole, it may be somewhat difficult to tell round one from potential round two. But we shall see.
So what's the answer to my question Doc? Is it because it's only dangerous to a few?
This is indeed the crux of the problem. In a vacuum, we would continue total distancing protocols until there are no new cases coast to coast. Obviously that isn't a viable option outside of a vacuum. But man, it's a slippery slope on how to resume commerce without reigniting the embers of a fire that is eventually gonna burn down. I'm glad that I am not going to be in charge of making those decisions, I will say that for sure. And there are going to be criticisms on both sides - we did it too soon or we didn't do it soon enough. I would think if you are going to reopen things in non-hotspot areas, there are going to have to be significant restrictions on travel. We have a great example of how a place that shouldn't be a hotspot can become one because of a single case or a couple of cases (Cleburne County, Arkansas). No reason a very rural county that's at least an hour from a major population center should have the 3rd most cases in our state.
So trust me, I am not going to be one of these healthcare people that completely ignores the business aspect of things. Our business is suffering tremendously b/c of restrictions that we imposed. Complete shutdown isn't sustainable indefinitely. But the analogy of the athlete that comes back from an injury in 4 months instead of 6, only to suffer reinjury that causes him to miss a whole year is appropriate here.
IMO the answer to your question has many facets. The biggest contributor here is that most of the patients that are being started on HCQ to treat COVID19 are SICK. Many organ systems are affected besides just the lungs. They are being kept dry to minimize fluid shifts to the lung. This causes decreased drug clearance on top of the other effects of the virus on the kidneys. They have liver dysfunction. They cannot be expected to metabolize HCG like the lupus patient that's is on a stable dose for years. Secondly, they are on other new drugs - sedation drugs, pressors, blood clot prophylaxis, etc. etc. New combos of drugs can potentiate toxicity. The rate of increase in HCQ use b/c of this virus is astronomical. The use of HCQ would usually be expected to increase very gradually over the course of a year for its approved uses. If a drug has a 4% risk of this or a 10% risk of that, it becomes a LOT more noticeable when the use of the drug spikes 100%, 200% seemingly overnight. Lastly, as I have harped on before, there is little to no GOOD evidence that this drug provides that much benefit in COVID19. If it was the wonder drug a lot of people hoped it would be, then some side effects are easier to overlook. But when a big chunk of the medical community is skeptical of how effective it is, then there's going to be a lot more pointing at side effects as a reason to curtail its use.
Projections are wrong because of social distancing. But I get it that logic is an abstract concept for some
Not sure if this has been posted. It's a much more comprehensive tracking of COVID19 in Arkansas than what is on the health dept. site. Has names, ages, and locations of most of the people who have died.
https://www.nwaonline.com/arvirus/
Also, FWIW, two straight days with a decrease in the number of new cases. Will take any good news at this point!!
https://www.nwaonline.com/arvirus/
Also, FWIW, two straight days with a decrease in the number of new cases. Will take any good news at this point!!
CNN BREAKING NEWS: Trump causes Swedes to go blind.
For the umpteenth time. Maybe it will take hold this time. The projections that are now wrong were made WITH having social distancing in place.
In layman's terms. They made a bunch of projections assuming that social distancing would be in place. Those projections have now been lowered. Numerous times and by great numbers. So the conclusion is those earlier projections were fear mongering at it's finest.
Holy crap only two people under the age of 59 have died from this and there are people still wanting to shut the state down? Talk about overreacting.
You genuinely think the modelers were knowingly boosting the numbers or do you think it was less data making the numbers higher?
I think they were shooting high on their numbers. Yes. Hell they've gone so far as to say it in press conferences. How many times do you have to hear one of them say things like Fauci said in mid March "“The way you get ahead of it is that, as I try to explain to people, that I want people to assume that ... we are overreacting because if it looks like you're overreacting, you're probably doing the right thing," before you start to realize that is exactly what they did? They went full blown worst case scenario x 2 on this stuff in order to get people to pay attention.
We will never know what would have happened if no social distancing or shutdown was put in place so these arguments will always be one sided and theoretical.
We have the best scientists in the world, I’m sorry but I’m gunna go with their recommendations every single time. If you don’t wanna listen or believe them that this was the best course of action I guess you’ll just be forever wondering what would’ve happened
Yes. This is consistent with is being seen across the country. ~17% of deaths are in those <60. I mean I have many healthy people that are important to me that are 60+. I just don't think the stance of "let's return to business as usual" because 4/5 of those that die are old anyway is a good approach. Maybe I'm wrong.
Biden. He is part of the old political guard (similar to HRC). He is also old, senile, and is suffering from a form of Dementia.
Also voted for all the trade deals that sent everything to China. Trump has been tough on China. Best thing he has done in office. I think people are underestimating the Anti-China sentiment that will come from this virus.
Last edited:
I would love to know if we could’ve pulled this off with by “social distancing” without shutting things down. Essentially doing the same thing all essential workers are doing. With at risk population doing something more stringent.
Obviously larger events would have to be shut down. But 90% of life would continue.
What was the dosage for their condition? How high does the dosage need to be to be effective for covid? How do you know some of those patients didn’t experience those side effects? What’s the success rate? It’s obviously not sitting at 100%. Is the cure worse than the disease in a lot of cases? That is why there is ongoing research. There is no conspiracy against Trump here. If it works well enough, it will be put into use.
There was a false narrative being pushed for a while that this affected younger people much worse. I still laugh at the 18-65 age group that was once again used in the link you posted.
So no matter how many times they have been wrong and giving you bad info you will blindly follow? After a few misses i start to ask if they know what they are talking about.
So far, what they've recommended for us to do has worked
Similar threads
