ADVERTISEMENT

hydroxychloroquine Approved

There is some degree of value to the concept of not just treating patients with a medication based on anecdotal evidence. If a Dr says, "I treated 67 patients with Hydroxyclor, and they all recovered", the impact of the drug is still debatable. Would they all have recovered without the treatment? Maybe. Were they all tested and proven to be positive for Covid? Maybe. Are there possible side effects and risks involved with giving them the drug? Definitely (an Anaphylactic reaction is always possible).

However, risks and rewards have to be weighed. In this case, we are talking about a medication that has been around for a long time and has a history of being mostly safe. Seems like the potential rewards are significant, while the potential risks are low.

With that said, we might end up treating over a million citizens with it, and studies may end up finding that it didn't help at all. I'm OK with that.

The only concern I have at all about this is that hype associated with it could drive it’s usage to the detriment of something that *might* have greater efficacy.

That’s pretty low risk, but if there’s something more effective, it would truly be awful if Hydroxchloroquine in any way marginalized the testing or usage of such a treatment.
 
The only concern I have at all about this is that hype associated with it could drive it’s usage to the detriment of something that *might* have greater efficacy.

That’s pretty low risk, but if there’s something more effective, it would truly be awful if Hydroxchloroquine in any way marginalized the testing or usage of such a treatment.

If it helps, most of the time something like this is simply a bandaid while work for direct treatments are not hindered. From the stand point of big pharma, there is far more money and incentive to get something new and labeled specifically for one target and be the only game in town.
 
If it helps, most of the time something like this is simply a bandaid while work for direct treatments are not hindered. From the stand point of big pharma, there is far more money and incentive to get something new and labeled specifically for one target and be the only game in town.

Oh I know about the big pharma motivations. :)

The real concern I’m thinking of is over the next few weeks as we try to get treatments that reduce systemic stresses on hospitals to levels which allow restrictions to be lifted, which hopefully gets everyone back to work before we guarantee a multi year depression.
 
Been, question for you: Once this COVID outbreak subsides, given Fauci's extreme pessimism towards what looks like a viable solution, would you support Trump replacing him with another medical expert? Trump gets criticized every time he fires an Obama holdover, but given his contrarian attitude, would you fault Trump for dumping Fauci?

Fauci is well past retirement age, so I'd be mostly "whatever" if Trump fired him. I applaud Trump for listening to Fauci (and other medical advisers) and backing off of his "Back in business by Easter" plan. Fauci is doing his job, and doing it well, as far as I can tell. My one hope, when Trump became POTUS, was that he would listen to advisers, who had a lot of experience with things that DJT had no prior experience. It hasn't always worked out that way, but in this case, he seems to have listened to Fauci. Hopefully, Trump has respect for the man and won't treat him poorly simply for not being a yes man.
 
Fauci is well past retirement age, so I'd be mostly "whatever" if Trump fired him. I applaud Trump for listening to Fauci (and other medical advisers) and backing off of his "Back in business by Easter" plan. Fauci is doing his job, and doing it well, as far as I can tell. My one hope, when Trump became POTUS, was that he would listen to advisers, who had a lot of experience with things that DJT had no prior experience. It hasn't always worked out that way, but in this case, he seems to have listened to Fauci. Hopefully, Trump has respect for the man and won't treat him poorly simply for not being a yes man.
But here again, that’s not a correct characterization. “I hope to have it open by Easter”. That’s what he said. That’s not a plan. That’s an idea. And not an idea that warranted the freak out that it did. Why can we not correctly characterize things?
 
But here again, that’s not a correct characterization. “I hope to have it open by Easter”. That’s what he said. That’s not a plan. That’s an idea. And not an idea that warranted the freak out that it did. Why can we not correctly characterize things?

You are splitting hairs. He clearly wanted people to attend church services and to get the economy more back to normal by Easter. Fauci said this morning that he was certain this was a bad idea and that he and his peers convinced Trump to extend things until April 30th and Trump listened to them and did so.

IMO, the POTUS should have been saying something more along the lines of "It would be great if we could loosen things up by Easter, but we need to study if this is realistic before making any kind of decision. I am going to listen to the medical advisers and abide by their recommendations".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oh Ess You
You are splitting hairs. He clearly wanted people to attend church services and to get the economy more back to normal by Easter. Fauci said this morning that he was certain this was a bad idea and that he and his peers convinced Trump to extend things until April 30th and Trump listened to them and did so.

IMO, the POTUS should have been saying something more along the lines of "It would be great if we could loosen things up by Easter, but we need to study if this is realistic before making any kind of decision. I am going to listen to the medical advisers and abide by their recommendations".
If that’s your expectation then you will always be disappointed by Trump. That’s not how he speaks. I see no difference in what you wrote and what he meant.
 
You are splitting hairs. He clearly wanted people to attend church services and to get the economy more back to normal by Easter. Fauci said this morning that he was certain this was a bad idea and that he and his peers convinced Trump to extend things until April 30th and Trump listened to them and did so.

IMO, the POTUS should have been saying something more along the lines of "It would be great if we could loosen things up by Easter, but we need to study if this is realistic before making any kind of decision. I am going to listen to the medical advisers and abide by their recommendations".
Now who's splitting hairs?
 
If that’s your expectation then you will always be disappointed by Trump. That’s not how he speaks. I see no difference in what you wrote and what he meant.

You know what he meant? You read minds?

It is all about saying exactly what he means. If he can't do that, then either don't say anything, or be more careful with your words and throw in some qualifiers. That is what I expect from my POTUS. So, yeah, I will likely always be disappointed by Trump. He's not very presidential. But, we both already knew that. It doesn't bother you. It bothers me. Neither of us is more right or superior to the other. We are just different.
 
You are splitting hairs. He clearly wanted people to attend church services and to get the economy more back to normal by Easter. Fauci said this morning that he was certain this was a bad idea and that he and his peers convinced Trump to extend things until April 30th and Trump listened to them and did so.

IMO, the POTUS should have been saying something more along the lines of "It would be great if we could loosen things up by Easter, but we need to study if this is realistic before making any kind of decision. I am going to listen to the medical advisers and abide by their recommendations".
No I’m not. He said it or he didn’t. He had plans or he didn’t. Yes he wanted to. That’s why he said “I hope to have it open by Easter.” That’s not in any way justifiable of the hysteria that the media went into over “Orange Man’s gonna kill us all”.
 
And to think of all the criticism Trump received in the media for promoting this drug while Faust stood at the same podium and downplayed this as a solution.

the media was driving a wedge between fauci and trump
I didn't see any "extreme pessimism", I saw a guy trained in science whose job it is to remain skeptical until the science leads him to other conclusions. The fact that the press played WAY up his professional skepticism to feed their daily dose of TDS to their masses is not Fauci's fault, it's the fault of those with TDS that reward horseshit headlines with clicks and nodding heads.

And furthermore, firing a doctor with decades of skins on the wall is not the same as firing some political appointee whose loyalty to a political cause is vitally important.

it’s all very simple

this fauci played the scientist that he is
i would expect nothing less than the comments he made from a doctor

trump was very happy to see good anecdotal results and let the world know

and the fake news stayed true to form drawing a line between the two
 
You know what he meant? You read minds?

It is all about saying exactly what he means. If he can't do that, then either don't say anything, or be more careful with your words and throw in some qualifiers. That is what I expect from my POTUS. So, yeah, I will likely always be disappointed by Trump. He's not very presidential. But, we both already knew that. It doesn't bother you. It bothers me. Neither of us is more right or superior to the other. We are just different.
I can infer based on my interpersonal intelligence and observations of Trump in the past.
 
I believe I've clearly demonstrated I'm the least skilled here with English, the dominant West Germanic language. Trump and squeak have made it elementary enough for me to clearly understand.

Well, DJT only has about a 100 word vocabulary, so that makes sense. Squeak, however, can be quite loquacious when he wants to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oh Ess You
Thought I said that already.

Edit to add: Not really any different than your inability to criticize a single thing that he does.

for starters trump hired scott pruitt

juxtaposed to that mistake

my country means something to me ben

it’s been a long time since the united states has been blessed with a patriot in the oval office

 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
for starters trump hired scott pruitt

juxtaposed to that mistake

my country means something to me ben

it’s been a long time since the united states has been blessed with a patriot in the oval office


Since this guy, right?

bill-clinton-dying.jpg


Seriously though. Scott Pruitt is the only negative you can come up with? I've given Trump props for plenty of things, and defended him on a few over the years. And, I freely admit that I do not think he is POTUS material. Yet you accuse me of being the one who is deranged.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT