1539 replies to this topic

[Hip]

https://c19study.com/

 

See Attached: hsummary.png

 

That link provides no info about its authors, which does not inspire confidence. 

 

And it does not quantify the benefits of HCQ, it just summarizes by saying "early treatment consistently shows positive effects", but does not quantify how many lives are saved.

 

By contrast, this Jan 2021 peer-reviewed paper states: "the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis".

Edited by Hip, 11 February 2021 - 01:13 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

That link provides no info about its authors, which does not inspire confidence. 

 

And it does not quantify the benefits of HCQ, it just summarizes by saying "early treatment consistently shows positive effects", but does not quantify how many lives are saved.

 

By contrast, this Jan 2021 peer-reviewed paper states: "the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis".

 

Huh?  All 203 studies, with authors & full pdf for each on that one page.  They even include all the (poorly designed) negative studies (where treatment was delayed).  Take some time and give them a look.

 

The hallmark of intelligent thought is the awareness that no matter how confident one may about one's beliefs, there is always a possibility one might be wrong.  

 

Are you quite sure no one should be using HCQ for COVID under any circumstances?  No doctor should be allowed to prescribe this, no mater how strongly he believes in the data?  No patient should have the right to try, no matter how much he/she might desire outpatient therapy outside of watchful waiting?  

 

Not better to light a candle (or allow someone else to) than curse the darkness?  

[Hip]

Huh?  All 203 studies, with authors & full pdf for each on that one page.  They even include all the (poorly designed) negative studies (where treatment was delayed).  Take some time and give them a look.

 

The hallmark of intelligent thought is the awareness that no matter how confident one may about one's beliefs, there is always a possibility one might be wrong.  

 

Are you quite sure no one should be using HCQ for COVID under any circumstances?  No doctor should be allowed to prescribe this, no mater how strongly he believes in the data?  No patient should have the right to try, no matter how much he/she might desire outpatient therapy outside of watchful waiting?  

 

Not better to light a candle (or allow someone else to) than curse the darkness?  

 

The studies are there, but the summary statement, which is in effect a meta-analysis of those studies, is made by an unknown author, and he does not provide any quantitative information.

 

It's possible that HCQ might have some benefits if used early; but if it does, why haven't there been good studies which demonstrate exactly what degree of benefit arises from early use? All your link says is that early use has "positive effects". That could mean anything. Until we get studies which quantify the effects of early use, we are still all in the dark.

 

People have the right to buy and take any drug they choose; but you will not find any socialized medicine systems like the NHS offering that drug until the evidence is in.

 

If I were hit with coronavirus, I would take vitamin D, nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN), Q10, blood thinners like bromelain and rutin (to help prevent dangerous blood clots), ivermectin and Echinacea. The evidence for the efficacy of these compounds is given in the links. The evidence is very thin, but at least these compounds are very well tolerated.

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

Seek, and ye shall find...  Ask and ye shall receive.  The quantitative report is the first link on the page: 

 

https://hcqmeta.com/hcq-meta.pdf

 

People do NOT have the right to buy & take any drug they choose.  In America, doctors must be free to prescribe; they are not; & even if they do, the pharmacist may decline to fill the scrip.  

 

21st Century medicine now has a gestapo.  Resistance is futile...  Defy them at your peril.  

 

You've got ivermectin in your COVID stack?  I read oral IVM isn't approved for any purpose in UK; not even scabies.  You are defying the will of your government scientists?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 11 February 2021 - 03:03 AM.

[Hip]

Seek, and ye shall find...  Ask and ye shall receive.  The quantitative report is the first link on the page: 

 

https://hcqmeta.com/hcq-meta.pdf

 

People do NOT have the right to buy & take any drug they choose.  In America, doctors must be free to prescribe; they are not; & even if they do, the pharmacist may decline to fill the scrip.  

 

21st Century medicine now has a gestapo.  Resistance is futile...  Defy them at your peril.  

 

You've got ivermectin in your COVID stack?  I read oral IVM isn't approved for any purpose in UK; not even scabies.  You are defying the will of your government scientists?  

 

That first report claims early treatment with HCQ results in a 66% reduction in death and in hospitalization. So if the claim is right, it approximately it cuts the death rate in half. But I'd like to see a good large-scale trial to verify this. In medical science, early small-scale studies which show promising results are often later contradicted by larger and better performed studies which find that in fact the treatment does not work. This is very common.

 

 

In the UK, people are free to import non-controlled prescription pharmaceutical drugs from pharmacies abroad. This is the way I buy all my pharmaceutical drugs, rather than going to a doctor. I am always speculatively trying out pharmaceutical drugs, looking for drugs that might improve my health.

 

In the UK you cannot buy prescription drugs from UK-based pharmacies without a doctor's prescription; but you do not need any prescription to import drugs from prescription-free pharmacies abroad. And there are hundreds of these prescription-free pharmacies, some of which have been in business for decades and are very reliable.

 

The rest of Europe is not so lucky, as you are not allowed to import drugs in most other European countries, and their customs are often strict, so they will find and confiscate any drugs you buy (although well disguised packages do get through).

 

 

In the US, it is technically illegal to import drugs for personal use (with the exception of drugs which can only be obtained outside of the US; it is legal to import those). However, in practice the US customs turn a blind eye to drug imports, presumably for compassionate reasons. I know dozens of people in the US who regularly buy drugs from prescription-free pharmacies abroad, and they are never confiscated. 

 

So in practice, it is possible to obtain any non-controlled prescription drug in the US from overseas pharmacies.

 

 

I bought some ivermectin on AliExpress.com in China, where it is cheap.

Edited by Hip, 11 February 2021 - 04:52 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

"I'd like to see a good large-scale trial to verify this". 

 

So you think we should study this for another year or so before we make it available to the average guy?  It it acceptable to you if another 2 million die in overburdened hospitals?  What would you say to the families of those who died while we continued to ponder HCQ if we eventually decide the 100+ studies already done showing benefit prove accurate?  Too bad...  So sad.  Cold comfort!  

 

Importing gray market pharmaceuticals?  Fooling around with supplements?  Why not just go with what your government boffins are recommending?  Do they not know more about this than you do?  Why should we have to do extensive searching and fooling around with overseas bitcoin purchases?  Wouldn't it be easier just to pop down to the local pharmacy? 

 

Life is hard enough as it is...  Why make it harder?  I'd much rather do my pandemic treatments the easy way.  Call my doc...  Say I'm sick...  Get tested...  Get a prescription.  Is this such a dreadful protocol?  What of those who may be a bit dim, regarding research & acquisition of effective therapeutics?  Too bad...  So sad.  No medicine for you!  

 

It shouldn't have to be this way!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 11 February 2021 - 05:53 AM.

[Hip]

"I'd like to see a good large-scale trial to verify this".  So you think we should study this for another year or so before we make it available to the average guy?  It it acceptable to you if another 2 million die in overburdened hospitals?

 

There are hundreds if not thousands of drugs and supplements that are being tested out for efficacy against coronavirus, many showing early promising results, or anecdotal success stories. Are you suggesting that we get a funnel and ram hundreds of these compounds down the throat of every COVID patient, in the hope that some of them might work, and in the hope that they do not make the patient worse, or cause adverse effects by interacting with each other?

 

That would not be science, that would be a shambles.

 

 

And by the way , it would not take a year to do a HCQ study, it would take less than a month. The average time to death for coronavirus is around 18 days (the time from first catching the virus to the time of death). So you just have to perform a large placebo-controlled doubled-blinded study on a group of patients with coronavirus, and within 18 days or so you would know whether HCQ is effective at preventing death, and you would know precisely how effective it is.

[Daniel Cooper]

I am not taking sides politically, as I tend to see all reasonable political parties as contributing something useful to running a country, each in their own style. 

 

But it's always been the case that the right tend to be pro-business pragmatists, whereas the left tend to be pro-society ideologists. Ideologists by nature are more bookishly intellectual. 

 

I'd be more than happy to rebut this notion, but to do so would take us off into a purely political discussion.  If you'd like to continue why don't you start a thread in the politics forum?

[Hip]

I'd be more than happy to rebut this notion, but to do so would take us off into a purely political discussion.  If you'd like to continue why don't you start a thread in the politics forum?

 

Much as I like to discuss this in depth, I no longer have the brain power to do so. After getting ME/CFS after a viral infection, my brain fog and terrible memory prevents me from delving into topics that I once used to have a deep interest in, including physics, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, consciousness and spiritual research, neuroscience, cognitive science, technology, computing, the history of science, cultural history of societies and ideas, etc.

 

I now just use my limited brain power to read and focus on medical science, in the hope of curing my ME/CFS. Having ME/CFS is like being in lockdown for evermore. You rarely leave the house, are unable work, rarely have the energy to meet friends, etc. Some patients with mild ME/CFS are able to work part time, but if like me you have moderate ME/CFS, then most of your life resembles a permanent lockdown. Even worse is severe ME/CFS, which confines you to bed almost 24 hours a day.

 

Whereas prior to ME/CFS I used to read several books a week, I have not read a single new book since 2005, when I caught a coxsackievirus B4 viral infection which triggered ME/CFS. If I start reading on my favorite subject, which used to be popular science books on quantum theory, my brain becomes totally exhausted after half a page. 

 

I'd have to update myself on psychological research in order to engage in a such a debate on the psychology of various political factions, as the last time I looked into this was pre-2005.

 

But I do remember an interesting piece of functional MRI research from years ago examining the brains of people with leftwing or rightwing affiliations: the rightwingers were found to use their amygdala far more than the leftwingers as they processed information. If you are familiar with the functioning of the amygdala, this will explain a lot about the different cognitive styles of left and right people.

Edited by Hip, 11 February 2021 - 04:19 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

There are hundreds if not thousands of drugs and supplements that are being tested out for efficacy against coronavirus, many showing early promising results, or anecdotal success stories. Are you suggesting that we get a funnel and ram hundreds of these compounds down the throat of every COVID patient, in the hope that some of them might work, and in the hope that they do not make the patient worse, or cause adverse effects by interacting with each other?

 

That would not be science, that would be a shambles.

 

 

And by the way , it would not take a year to do a HCQ study, it would take less than a month. The average time to death for coronavirus is around 18 days (the time from first catching the virus to the time of death). So you just have to perform a large placebo-controlled doubled-blinded study on a group of patients with coronavirus, and within 18 days or so you would know whether HCQ is effective at preventing death, and you would know precisely how effective it is.

 

I'v'e already showed you over 200 studies already done on HCQ, many of them peer reviewed & published RCTs, showing substantial benefit when properly administered (early/outpatient).  Sorry if I assumed you'd want at least a couple hundred more (which would take another year) before you'd allow a doc to prescribe and patients to try.  

 

If you're waiting for Gates/Wellcome to fund another multi-million WHO trial on HCQ, I'm afraid this will not happen in our lifetimes.  

 

How much longer do we wait before we introduce our first outpatient therapeutic to the masses, so we can get some relief to our overloaded hospitals?  

[Hip]

Here is a UK study on over 30 thousand patients taking hydroxychloroquine all the time, as part of their standard medication. So they are taking this drug even before they caught coronavirus. You cannot get an earlier intervention than that. 

 

The authors conclude:

we found no evidence that pre-exposure use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with either a beneficial or harmful effect on COVID-19 mortality.

[bladedmind]

Stalin and the CPSU ruled in the name of scientific socialism.  At one point half the world thought it settled, scientific truth.  Absurd in retrospect, but plausible given the movement's success.  People like Solzhenitsyn spread disinformation, and in order to prevent harm to society, they were sent to the labor camps. 

 

My point is that those who advocate censorship always imagine that they will be the censors rather than the censored.   History is not so indulgent. 

 

I have studied and taught political ideology.  In the U.S., each side tends to think that the other is is a) stupid, b)  evil, or c) both.  They also tend to have an exaggerated, stereotyped view of the other side, based on the obnoxious fringes of each.  Omitting nuanced detail, there is little difference between left and right in education, knowledge, income.  People have different temperaments, live in different contexts, have different legitimate interests.   It's clever to have a worked out political ideology.  It's profound to ask how to design political institutions when well-informed people of good will disagree on what to do. 

 

Vigorously speak your beliefs, but listen with intellectual modesty. 

[Hip]

Stalin and the CPSU ruled in the name of scientific socialism.  At one point half the world thought it settled, scientific truth.  Absurd in retrospect, but plausible given the movement's success.  People like Solzhenitsyn spread disinformation, and in order to prevent harm to society, they were sent to the labor camps. 

 

My point is that those who advocate censorship always imagine that they will be the censors rather than the censored.   History is not so indulgent. 

 

I have studied and taught political ideology.  In the U.S., each side tends to think that the other is is a) stupid, b)  evil, or c) both.  They also tend to have an exaggerated, stereotyped view of the other side, based on the obnoxious fringes of each.  Omitting nuanced detail, there is little difference between left and right in education, knowledge, income.  People have different temperaments, live in different contexts, have different legitimate interests.   It's clever to have a worked out political ideology.  It's profound to ask how to design political institutions when well-informed people of good will disagree on what to do. 

 

Vigorously speak your beliefs, but listen with intellectual modesty. 

 

If you examine cultural history, every society has its own totems and taboos. Some values or activities are tagged as desirable and to be promoted (totems); whereas others are tagged as undesirable and to be suppressed or censored (taboos). 

 

Sex for example is a subject that these days we can talk about openly, and nowadays sex is actually a totem rather than a taboo. But in Victorian times, the entire subject of sex was totally suppressed, it was a major taboo, and the word sex and anything related to it could not even be mentioned during polite conversation. A totally different world compared to today. 

 

Modern liberals think that they are anti-censorship, but in fact they have introduced censorships of their own, which we call political correctness. If you have racist, sexist or homophobic opinions (which I don't, by the way), you are often de-platformed, banned from social media, etc. Whereas in Victorian times, these racist, sexist and homophobic opinions were in fact totems, and anyone who was pro-homosexuality would have been vilified in the Victorian era.

 

So let us not kid ourselves that we can create a society which is free of censorship. All societies have censorship, in order to police their values. Thus the discussion should not be about whether or not to censor, because we already do censor. Rather the discussion should thus be about what we censor, and what we promote.

Edited by Hip, 11 February 2021 - 05:45 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Here is a UK study on over 30 thousand patients taking hydroxychloroquine all the time, as part of their standard medication. So they are taking this drug even before they caught coronavirus. You cannot get an earlier intervention than that. 

 

The authors conclude:

 

A retrospective observational which included "all adults aged 18 years and older"?  You'd get more accurate results in a proper study of high risk patients aged 60 and over.  

 

Dr Zelenko has his study on high risk patient published, & found patients in greatest danger of morbidity, HCQ showed remarkable benefit.  

 

https://www.prnewswi...-301094237.html

 

Newly Published Outpatient Study Finds that Early Use of Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Is Associated with Less Hospitalizations and Death

 

"early intervention and treatment of risk stratified COVID-19 patients in the outpatient setting resulted in five times less hospitalizations and deaths. The medications used in the treatment approach were zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin."

 

---------------------

 

We can cherry pick individual studies all day, but at the end of the day, a meta-analysis like the one compiled in my earlier post probably gives the best indication of benefit. 

 

Do you not like meta-analysis?   Does 5 times less hospitalization appeal to you?  Might this not help relieve the hospital overcrowding problem you are concerned with?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 11 February 2021 - 05:44 PM.

[Hip]

We can cherry pick individual studies all day, but at the end of the day, a meta-analysis like the one compiled in my earlier post probably gives the best indication of benefit. 

 

Indeed, but I would like to see a professionally performed meta-analysis on early intervention hydroxychloroquine, because it takes considerable expertise to go through dozens of studies, weed out those which are fundamentally flawed, identify those with high and low statistical power, and then combine all this into a single conclusion.

[Dorian Grey]

Seek and ye shall find...  Ask and ye shall receive!  

 

https://hcqmeta.com/

 

This page contains meta-analysis of all types of trials.  Early stage, late stage, pre-exposure, & post exposure. 

 

It includes all the trials to date and is updated continuously.  

 

Do you really want to wipe this slate clean and start all over again from scratch?  WHY!

[Hip]

https://hcqmeta.com/

 

This page contains meta-analysis of all types of trials.  Early stage, late stage, pre-exposure, & post exposure. 

 

I mentioned earlier that your link contains no author information, and is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore we have no idea regarding the qualifications of the author to perform a  meta-analysis. 

 

If the author is a qualified scientist, he or she would have no problem in publishing in a journal. In fact it would be highly unethical not to. So the fact that they set up a website suggests they are not qualified.

[Dorian Grey]

https://c19study.com/faq.html

 

Who is @CovidAnalysis?

 We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. For examples of why we can't be more specific search for "raoult death threats" or "simone gold fired". We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now).

Why should we trust @CovidAnalysis?

 There is no need to. We provide organization and analysis, but all sources are public and you can easily verify everything. For the meta-analyses, all data required to reproduce the analysis is contained in the appendix, with direct links to the original source papers. For the country-based analysis, all data is public and the analysis is simple to replicate. We also note that many equally qualified experts report contradictory conclusions. If you don't like our analysis, you can use our database to locate information you may have missed for your own research.

---------------------

 

Enough with the navel gazing.  Over 2 million have died and we still have NO outpatient therapeutic!  If you can't comprehend the science, perhaps best not to criticize those who do, and are working hard at solving this.  

 

My bottom line...  I see enough evidence, in my humble opinion doctors should at least have the right to prescribe, and patients the right to try well established & promising therapeutics.  I'll never understand the fanatic resistance to simply allowing the doctor patient relationship to continue as it had throughout the 20th Century.  

 

I have little respect for those who continue to advocate for the new medical gestapo.  It's not needed, wanted or helpful.  Lead, follow, or get out of the way.  

 

[Hip]

https://c19study.com/faq.html

 

Who is @CovidAnalysis?

 We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. For examples of why we can't be more specific search for "raoult death threats" or "simone gold fired". We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now).

Why should we trust @CovidAnalysis?

 There is no need to. We provide organization and analysis, but all sources are public and you can easily verify everything. For the meta-analyses, all data required to reproduce the analysis is contained in the appendix, with direct links to the original source papers. For the country-based analysis, all data is public and the analysis is simple to replicate. We also note that many equally qualified experts report contradictory conclusions. If you don't like our analysis, you can use our database to locate information you may have missed for your own research.

---------------------

 

Enough with the navel gazing.  Over 2 million have died and we still have NO outpatient therapeutic!  If you can't comprehend the science, perhaps best not to criticize those who do, and are working hard at solving this.  

 

My bottom line...  I see enough evidence, in my humble opinion doctors should at least have the right to prescribe, and patients the right to try well established & promising therapeutics.  I'll never understand the fanatic resistance to simply allowing the doctor patient relationship to continue as it had throughout the 20th Century.  

 

I have little respect for those who continue to advocate for the new medical gestapo.  It's not needed, wanted or helpful.  Lead, follow, or get out of the way.  

 

Sorry, people who are afraid to attach their names to their scientific work do not inspire any confidence. And people whose work has not gone through peer review in a quality journal does not inspire confidence.

 

Finally, people who promote conspiracy theories like the "raoult death threats" they talk about are probably not even totally sane. As I have mentioned, people who promote conspiracy theories often suffer from schizotypy, which makes it harder for them to correctly interpret reality.

 

 

 

You are free to believe these people if you like. You may have lower standards of evidence; that's your right. 

 

But the scientific community will not believe this, and that's the bottom line in terms of whether HCQ gets taken up as a standard coronavirus treatment. Publish your findings in a reputable journal, and the scientific community will listen.

Edited by Hip, 11 February 2021 - 07:53 PM.

[Hip]

Over 2 million have died and we still have NO outpatient therapeutic!

 

I have heard similar statements from people promoting melatonin as a coronavirus treatment, not to mention IV vitamin C, hydrogen peroxide, etc, etc. Everyone with a favorite potential treatment argues fiercely that their treatment should be adopted.

Edited by Hip, 11 February 2021 - 07:45 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

God, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

 

https://www.dailymai...ded-result.html

 

How two states with opposite COVID strategies BOTH 'bent the curve': Cases, deaths and hospitalizations plummet by 30% in a month in lockdown-loving California AND open-all-hours Florida

 

Since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, no two states have been more different in their approaches than California and Florida.

 

In early March, California Gov Gavin Newsom limited gatherings, closed bars and indoor dining at restaurants, implemented mask mandates and implored residents to stay at home.

 

Comparatively, Florida Gov Ron DeSantis has enacted few measures, lifting an ordinance that prevented people from operating businesses and restaurants as well as lifting COVID-19 related fines and penalties in September.  Looser restrictions mean schools have not been shut down statewide and mask mandates have never been imposed.

 

Despite these different approaches, both states ended up with roughly the same outcome.

 

Historically, when adjusting for population, Florida has had 8,306 cases and 117 deaths per 100,000 residents and California has had about 8,499 cases per 100,000 residents and 130 deaths per 100,000.

 

Currently, each states is recording between 200 and 400 cases per million people and between 10 and 20 deaths per million, showing a very similar curve over the last two months.

 

Hospitalization rates are also very similar with California reporting 24 hospitalizations per 100,000 while Florida has recorded about 22 per 100,000.

 

-------------------------

 

 Resistance is futile!  High time we gave up on trying to control this virus and start treating it.  

[Hip]

God, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

 

God, please endow people with scientific minds, so they can see the answers to scientific questions with ease and clarity!

 

 

If Florida has done just as well as California in spite of not having lockdowns, that suggests other factors are at play.

 

In the case of California versus Florida, we are are talking about different climates. Florida has a tropical/subtropical climate, whereas California has a Mediterranean climate.

 

Climate affects coronavirus transmission and spread. Have a look at the coronavirus cases graph in this article, and notice how there are more COVID cases in temperate climates versus tropical/subtropical climates.

 

Graph also posted below:

 

 

 

Florida also has alligators and crocodiles. Maybe that wards off coronavirus ....

Edited by Hip, 16 February 2021 - 02:45 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

I lived in Sarasota Florida for 5 years before moving to San Diego & keep weather for both cities on my home page. 

 

Summer temps & humidity are quite different, but Florida's Winter climate isn't all that different from coastal California (San Diego / Los Angeles anyway).  

 

Our Winter surge here in San Diego was impressive, and even worse in LA.  This despite school closures, mask mandates (with good compliance), and even outdoor dining banned.  

 

You'd expect to see at least a small difference in the Winter surge stats, but they are remarkably similar.  If you consider Florida's geriatric population compared to Southern CA, the lack of difference in hospitalization & death becomes even more impressive.  

 

Perhaps it is the gators! 

Edited by Dorian Grey, 16 February 2021 - 03:21 AM.

[Hebbeh]

There's a good chance DeSantis fudged Florida's covid data so that there is no way to know what the numbers actually are.  This has been in the news off and on since last summer when the state whistle blower was fired and then threatened and then arrested on trumped up charges to intimidate and shut her up.  A simple Google will turn up a  ton of news articles.  Such as:

 

Fired Florida Covid Dashboard Architect Claims She Was Asked To Manually Change Numbers (forbes.com)

 

Rebekah Jones, the architect of Florida’s dashboard that tracks Covid-19 infections and deaths, claims she was fired from her role in May for refusing to manipulate the data to comply with demands from the state’s health department leadership as they pressed forward with reopening the state.

 

Jones told NPR that she was asked to “manually change numbers” a week before the reopening plan kicked off into phase one, as the numbers she presented to the Florida DOH leadership was “the opposite of what they had anticipated.”

 

While Jones was having a back-and-forth with officials regarding the proposed changes to the data, she claims that the re-opening plan was being printed and stapled right in front of her, implying that “the science behind the… plan didn’t matter,” she added.

 

Jones said that she complied with the initial requests to change the numbers, as she felt that it wasn’t her place to dictate policy, but later she refused when asked to lower the percentage of positive cases in some counties, to bring them under the re-opening threshold.

Even after removing counties with fewer than 75,000 people, the data did not meet the state officials’ benchmarks, following which they hired a third-party vendor which, “magically… came up with a result that perfectly matched the prewritten plan,” Jones alleges.

Weeks after being fired, Jones created a dashboard of her own, which she claims presents the data in a more complete way and provides context.

Previously a spokesperson for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis had said that Jones had  “exhibited a repeated course of insubordination during her time with the Department, including her unilateral decisions to modify the Department’s COVID-19 dashboard without input or approval from the epidemiological team or her supervisors,” the state is yet to respond to the fresh allegations.

Rest at link or Google for additional news

 

 

If you have to cheat to win did you actually win?

[Florin]

Climate affects coronavirus transmission and spread. Have a look at the coronavirus cases graph in this article, and notice how there are more COVID cases in temperate climates versus tropical/subtropical climates.

 
Well, not really.

 

https://ourworldinda...&pickerSort=asc
 

[Dorian Grey]

"but later she refused when asked to lower the percentage of positive cases in some counties, to bring them under the re-opening threshold."

 

Tweaking the percentage of positive cases in some counties is naughty to be sure, but is it believed hospitalization & fatality numbers were fiddled?  These stats would seem to be more difficult to alter.  

 

I assume "percentage of positive cases" refers to a comparison of positives to total tests done?  Percent positive is one of our triggers in California.  

 

Don't know if they were supposed to actually be dumping positives in the trash, or simply inflating the total test numbers to keep the percent positive rate under trigger thresholds, which would be a less felonious slight of hand as it wouldn't involve altering total positives.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 16 February 2021 - 04:30 AM.

[Hebbeh]

You can play what if all you want but once they decided to "fiddle with the data", then all data is corrupt and untrustworthy.  They can print any data they want when they control the data.  At that point, they lost all credibility.

[Hip]

 
Well, not really.

 

 

If we look at the deaths per million on this more detailed country-by-country table, it appears that in general the temperate climates like Europe and the US have a lot more deaths than hot tropical or desert climates like African countries, the Middle East, Australia, India, the Caribbean, etc.

Edited by Hip, 16 February 2021 - 04:37 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

I have heard similar statements from people promoting melatonin as a coronavirus treatment, not to mention IV vitamin C, hydrogen peroxide, etc, etc. Everyone with a favorite potential treatment argues fiercely that their treatment should be adopted.

 

Big Health is notorious for "selling hope" when in fact there is none.  When my 84 year old step dad came down with esophageal cancer, with metastasis to liver, lungs & brain, he was offered either aggressive chemo with several surgeries for a very small chance of surviving 3-5 years, or palliative chemo, with a good chance of 1 year survival.  He tried the aggressive chemo, & it nearly killed him.  Never really recovered, & was dead 6 weeks later.  

 

If you look at the psychology in the heat of a pandemic, is the "Best Medicine" really telling patients "there is nothing...  Go home & take Tylenol & call 911 if you start turning blue & we'll put you on a vent".  Would it be all that cruel (comparing to my step dad's experience) to say "well there are a few unproven things we might try".  

 

Is plunging patients into despair really so vitally important, when we routinely inflate optimism in so many other catastrophic illnesses?  I say, what's wrong with throwing them a frickin bone.  I was actually a bit depressed last Winter; not because I might die, but I really don't want to live with chronic illness.  Worked in healthcare for 35 years, & the pulmonary & cardiac patients are terrifying to see.  We called them "pink puffers" & "blue suckers" because their struggle to survive was so obvious.  

 

When we started seeing signs of hope, with HCQ, zinc & vitamin-D back in the early days, I felt like the weight of the world had been lifted off my shoulders.  I about did handsprings across the lawn when IVM showed up benefiting at all stages.  I still remember the day my IVM shipment came from Taiwan.  I slept the sleep of the saved.  

 

Is it really so important to you the masses be kept in despair?  

[Dorian Grey]

You can play what if all you want but once they decided to "fiddle with the data", then all data is corrupt and untrustworthy.  They can print any data they want when they control the data.  At that point, they lost all credibility.

 

I'll agree, any manipulation brings suspicion to the entire reported data, but if total cases, hospitalization & deaths were all complete fabrications, the whistleblower's revelations would have blown up in their faces.  I'll grant your case may well be true, but it's far more likely there was simply a bit of fiddling with the percent positive testing data that would have prevented them exiting lockdown when they wanted to.  

 

In any event, we didn't really see corpses piling up in the streets this Winter, any more than in CA due to whatever fiddling that occurred or is occurring.  Florida has been wide open since the initial nationwide lockdown passed last Spring, and all appears to be going well for them now.  Meanwhile, here in San Diego, I still haven't seen the inside of my pub since last Fall.