CORONAVIRUS/COVID-19 NEW MEGA THREAD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sooo take it for what its worth. Fox News. They just had this guy on who said a test was done and there is a drug that treats malaria that has a 100% success rate for curing the Covid 19.

Interesting bc malaria is caused by a parasite. Don’t think it’s a virus or bacteria - might be wrong

Malaria is a parasite. The drug is chloroquine.
Here’s a video describing how it works, jump to 1:50 if you want to go straight to it. It looks promising but do we have enough production capability in America? No one is shipping us drugs from overseas that treat this. Hopefully Trump’s war powers can get this going fast and maybe Congress can throw a lot of money at it. If we can do that in a few months then we can go back to normal. People that get the disease can either get better if mild symptoms or go to the doctor and get the medication then in a year everyone gets a vaccine. Even if successful, this would probably take a few months to ramp up but there is hope.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F1cnWup9M

The military has a huge stockpile.

Yeah I thought we've been stockpiling this for military use since Vietnam.

It does have some nasty side effects

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sooo take it for what its worth. Fox News. They just had this guy on who said a test was done and there is a drug that treats malaria that has a 100% success rate for curing the Covid 19.

It's true, libbie.

There is no peer-reviewed clinical data showing that chloroquine works against COVID-19. https://www.businessinsider.com/malaria-pill-chloroquine-tested-as-coronavirus-treatment-2020-3

we don’t have time for peer review. there is a randomizes study of 36 patients from France. chloroquine Helped tremendously. chloroquine + antibiotic azytromicine cured every single patient but there were only 6 in that condition.

So in a disease where 98% of patients recover without treatment, 6 out of a group of 6 recovered?

Someone please do a TED talk about Fisher exact tests.

\

nobody in the control group recovered during the same period.

I'll post it again. And, fyi, those of us noting that it is a promising avenue to look into (no one said it is a "cure") are at least informing ourselves before we post.



Chloroquine isn’t approved to treat patients suffering from novel coronavirus infections, but some early studies have shown promise.

In France, for instance, a professor conducted a small study of the malaria drug in 24 patients with novel coronavirus infections. Only 25% of those who received the medicine tested positive for the virus after 6 days, according to en24. Meanwhile, of those who didn't receive it, 90% tested positive after that timeframe. The French government now plans to run larger studies.

In a study published last month in Nature, authors wrote that “chloroquine is a cheap and a safe drug that has been used for more than 70 years and, therefore, it is potentially clinically applicable against the 2019-nCoV.”

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/bayer-preps-u-...-to-help-covid-19-fight-report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently senator burr told a private audience about the severity weeks before the fed response:
https://www.bpr.org/post/sen-burr-tape-making-controversial-remarks#stream/0

This confirms the theory that obesity has an underlying condition also makes people very susceptible to significant virus issues

Yes, metabolic syndrome. Look up Gary Taubes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't much better for young people in US.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/younger-adults-comprise-big-portion-of-coronavirus-hospitalizations-in-us/ar-BB11nGEB?li=BBnb7Kz

Not sure why. Maybe our obesity rate is catching up to us.

We have more young people in the US. Some younger people get seriously ill from the virus. More young people than old people =more younger people ill in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of % of hospital population. I've read that there really aren't more young people getting extremely sick in the US in terms of % of that population.

I think this story is getting pushed as a counterpoint to the "young people don't get sick from the virus" narrative, which is fine with me. It just seems a lot of people are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't much better for young people in US.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/younger-adults-comprise-big-portion-of-coronavirus-hospitalizations-in-us/ar-BB11nGEB?li=BBnb7Kz

Not sure why. Maybe our obesity rate is catching up to us.

We have more young people in the US. Some younger people get seriously ill from the virus. More young people than old people =more younger people ill in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of % of hospital population. I've read that there really aren't more young people getting extremely sick in the US in terms of % of that population.

I think this story is getting pushed as a counterpoint to the "young people don't get sick from the virus" narrative, which is fine with me. It just seems a lot of people are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.

Just throwing this out there for thought, but does anyone think that this virus has been with us longer than the last several months? My kids had these symptoms back in November/December....basically a severe flu that lingered for weeks on end. Schools here in VA had lots of sickness/outages. We all just assumed bad colds lingering, the flu lingering, and/or something in the air (bad allergies?). Even I got sick (cough, achy, etc.), for several weeks on end, which was very unusual. My kids were tested (negative for the flu) at the time, but coronavirus wasn't a "known" at the time, so no real diagnosis. Sent home with steroids/antibiotics to combat the cough and fight onset of what was thought to be pneumonia. I'm not trying to downplay any of the issues or severity of what's happening right now. Just curious.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't much better for young people in US.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/younger-adults-comprise-big-portion-of-coronavirus-hospitalizations-in-us/ar-BB11nGEB?li=BBnb7Kz

Not sure why. Maybe our obesity rate is catching up to us.

We have more young people in the US. Some younger people get seriously ill from the virus. More young people than old people =more younger people ill in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of % of hospital population. I've read that there really aren't more young people getting extremely sick in the US in terms of % of that population.

I think this story is getting pushed as a counterpoint to the "young people don't get sick from the virus" narrative, which is fine with me. It just seems a lot of people are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.

Just throwing this out there for thought, but does anyone think that this virus has been with us longer than the last several months? My kids had these symptoms back in November/December....basically a severe flu that lingered for weeks on end. Schools here in VA had lots of sickness/outages. We all just assumed bad colds lingering, the flu lingering, and/or something in the air (bad allergies?). Even I got sick (cough, achy, etc.), for several weeks on end, which was very unusual. My kids were tested (negative for the flu) at the time, but coronavirus wasn't a "known" at the time, so no real diagnosis. Sent home with steroids/antibiotics to combat the cough and fight onset of what was thought to be pneumonia. I'm not trying to downplay any of the issues or severity of what's happening right now. Just curious.....

If it was circulating much earlier, then wouldn’t that mean it is very widespread already, and so shouldn’t we see the healthcare system already overwhelmed? If the exponential growth models are correct, then it would seem impossible for so many people to have had it in December and yet die there to be so few people in hospital with it now.

[Anonymous]

Lookinhg at the jhu coronavirus map: Why does the US have so few "recovered"? Only 106 out of 11,238 cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lookinhg at the jhu coronavirus map: Why does the US have so few "recovered"? Only 106 out of 11,238 cases.

Because we only started diagnosing a couple of weeks ago, and then only in small numbers. It takes several weeks, at best, to be classified as "recovered (i.e., virus free).

[Anonymous]

I wonder what the age cutoff for ICU admission and ventilator support will be when it’s rampant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't much better for young people in US.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/younger-adults-comprise-big-portion-of-coronavirus-hospitalizations-in-us/ar-BB11nGEB?li=BBnb7Kz

Not sure why. Maybe our obesity rate is catching up to us.

We have more young people in the US. Some younger people get seriously ill from the virus. More young people than old people =more younger people ill in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of % of hospital population. I've read that there really aren't more young people getting extremely sick in the US in terms of % of that population.

I think this story is getting pushed as a counterpoint to the "young people don't get sick from the virus" narrative, which is fine with me. It just seems a lot of people are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.

Just throwing this out there for thought, but does anyone think that this virus has been with us longer than the last several months? My kids had these symptoms back in November/December....basically a severe flu that lingered for weeks on end. Schools here in VA had lots of sickness/outages. We all just assumed bad colds lingering, the flu lingering, and/or something in the air (bad allergies?). Even I got sick (cough, achy, etc.), for several weeks on end, which was very unusual. My kids were tested (negative for the flu) at the time, but coronavirus wasn't a "known" at the time, so no real diagnosis. Sent home with steroids/antibiotics to combat the cough and fight onset of what was thought to be pneumonia. I'm not trying to downplay any of the issues or severity of what's happening right now. Just curious.....

If it was circulating much earlier, then wouldn’t that mean it is very widespread already, and so shouldn’t we see the healthcare system already overwhelmed? If the exponential growth models are correct, then it would seem impossible for so many people to have had it in December and yet die there to be so few people in hospital with it now.

Could it be the virus isn't as bad as thought/feared? I've heard speculation on many occasions that folks say the actual/reported numbers are very low (lack of tests, "healthier" folks not seeking treatment, etc.) when compared to the presumed numbers.....does that potentially support the theory that maybe this isn't as bad as being purported? Again, not trying to minimize the threat - just asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sooo take it for what its worth. Fox News. They just had this guy on who said a test was done and there is a drug that treats malaria that has a 100% success rate for curing the Covid 19.

It's true, libbie.

There is no peer-reviewed clinical data showing that chloroquine works against COVID-19. https://www.businessinsider.com/malaria-pill-chloroquine-tested-as-coronavirus-treatment-2020-3

we don’t have time for peer review. there is a randomizes study of 36 patients from France. chloroquine Helped tremendously. chloroquine + antibiotic azytromicine cured every single patient but there were only 6 in that condition.

So in a disease where 98% of patients recover without treatment, 6 out of a group of 6 recovered?

Someone please do a TED talk about Fisher exact tests.

\

nobody in the control group recovered during the same period.

I'll post it again. And, fyi, those of us noting that it is a promising avenue to look into (no one said it is a "cure") are at least informing ourselves before we post.



Chloroquine isn’t approved to treat patients suffering from novel coronavirus infections, but some early studies have shown promise.

In France, for instance, a professor conducted a small study of the malaria drug in 24 patients with novel coronavirus infections. Only 25% of those who received the medicine tested positive for the virus after 6 days, according to en24. Meanwhile, of those who didn't receive it, 90% tested positive after that timeframe. The French government now plans to run larger studies.

In a study published last month in Nature, authors wrote that “chloroquine is a cheap and a safe drug that has been used for more than 70 years and, therefore, it is potentially clinically applicable against the 2019-nCoV.”

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/bayer-preps-u-...-to-help-covid-19-fight-report

Just drink tonic water!

[Anonymous]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/99-25-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says/ar-BB11mr4X

Apparently in Italy 99% of those who died from the virus suffered from other illnesses. Only three deaths so far are attributed to people with no known underlying health issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't much better for young people in US.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/younger-adults-comprise-big-portion-of-coronavirus-hospitalizations-in-us/ar-BB11nGEB?li=BBnb7Kz

Not sure why. Maybe our obesity rate is catching up to us.

We have more young people in the US. Some younger people get seriously ill from the virus. More young people than old people =more younger people ill in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of % of hospital population. I've read that there really aren't more young people getting extremely sick in the US in terms of % of that population.

I think this story is getting pushed as a counterpoint to the "young people don't get sick from the virus" narrative, which is fine with me. It just seems a lot of people are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.

Just throwing this out there for thought, but does anyone think that this virus has been with us longer than the last several months? My kids had these symptoms back in November/December....basically a severe flu that lingered for weeks on end. Schools here in VA had lots of sickness/outages. We all just assumed bad colds lingering, the flu lingering, and/or something in the air (bad allergies?). Even I got sick (cough, achy, etc.), for several weeks on end, which was very unusual. My kids were tested (negative for the flu) at the time, but coronavirus wasn't a "known" at the time, so no real diagnosis. Sent home with steroids/antibiotics to combat the cough and fight onset of what was thought to be pneumonia. I'm not trying to downplay any of the issues or severity of what's happening right now. Just curious.....

If it was circulating much earlier, then wouldn’t that mean it is very widespread already, and so shouldn’t we see the healthcare system already overwhelmed? If the exponential growth models are correct, then it would seem impossible for so many people to have had it in December and yet die there to be so few people in hospital with it now.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-may-have-been-in-italy-for-weeks-before-it-was-detected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/99-25-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says/ar-BB11mr4X

Apparently in Italy 99% of those who died from the virus suffered from other illnesses. Only three deaths so far are attributed to people with no known underlying health issues.

From the article

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

a screenshot of a cell phone: Threat to the Elderly
© Bloomberg Threat to the Elderly
The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/99-25-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says/ar-BB11mr4X

Apparently in Italy 99% of those who died from the virus suffered from other illnesses. Only three deaths so far are attributed to people with no known underlying health issues.

From the article

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

a screenshot of a cell phone: Threat to the Elderly
© Bloomberg Threat to the Elderly
The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

Great so only those in the US with high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease will perish. Hope you don't know anyone with any of those issues.