Covid-19 News

They are essential herbal components of Anti Bat, look up their anti viral activity along with Nigella, Angelica and Curcumin. Google them all, along with Llquorice root, although I' m still not sure about Echinacea. And quercitin and coconut oil vitamins C A and D3 especially, a healthy diet, clean fresh air plenty of exercise too. Hard drugs? As we all know, hydroxychloroquine, zinc sulphate, azithromycin, clarithromycin or doxycycline, ivermectin, favipiravir (Avigan) or remdesivir and low molecular weight heparin if these intravenous remedies can be found. As I said before this is a shotgun approach to fighting a lethal enemy, if a single silver bullet doesn't work, then as they sang on Easy Rider, fire all your guns at once and explode into space!

Sounds more like a shotgun approach to your liver!

Speaking of emotional speeches, I found this one quite stirring, from an Italian MP a few days ago:

Quote from Mark U

Speaking of emotional speeches, I found this one quite stirring, from an Italian MP a few days ago:

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

She went light on him. What can you do? Wake someone else up. Start slowly, kindly, let them come to it themselves because human beings are argumentative and have a mental wall of resistance. How can the nice people on TV, how can the billionaires really want to stick us w/ drugs we don't need, tag us, and kill us? Noo...couldn't be. It is in your face - if you were building blockchain to control the human ID why would a Vaccine advocacy group (Gavi) be the FOUNDING PLAYER IN THE GAME. Why not restaurants, banks, sporting events, public transit?

https://id2020.org/

Wake someone else up. All you have to do is open your mouth. The group bystander effect is powerful - meaning most people do nothing, and will stand by while their civilization is under threat.

Quote from Bob#2

invented it to purge the planet of what they consider undesirables!

if true, then why did they try to stop it in China but instead just let it spread?

Quote from Bob#2

Almost ALL leaders are now reopening in some fashion... so I guess Jed thinks that all leaders are stupid and morons. Almost ALL countries are reopening, even though the stats show otherwise, so all those leaders must be morons and stupid.

China was once held high in esteem... but now we know they covered up and lied and almost certainly still do. So Korea has the only smart leaders in the world! (Oh perhaps New Zealand, that island country of less than 4 million)

No, I am not a "let er rip" person. I doubt that hardly anyone here is. Again, that is intentional misrepresentation, so given to personally tarnish and actually a fool's argument.

I was using colorful language - but with a serious point.

We know this virus spreads very easily. Full lockdown reduces R to less than 1. Not much else does. So life, and commerce, cannot return to anything like normal until we have one of

• excellent therapy
• mass vaccination
• complete eradication (and then track and trace the embers)

It is fact that:

• The Asian countries hit hard by SARS were well prepared, both in terms of systems and political will, to deal with the virus.
• New Zealand had advantages - in that the virus came to it late, and wise leadership able to implement very complete lockdown very early. it has eliminated the virus and will be able to keep it out
• China has the advantage of a very great ability to control its population's lives, the technology to do this, and the wise strategy to do it.

So they all had natural advantages, and a strategy that worked. Are they they only smart leaders in the world? They certainly look like that at the moment, because countries like the US and UK are locking down countries in a half-hearted way and without the political will to get the number of cases down low enough where every possible case can be tested and tracked quickly. That is the only way to beat this. I guess though it is still too early to be sure. If death numbers in the UK drop exponentially over the next 4 months I will be the first to say well done for that. But note that in a tighter lockdown they would have fallen much quicker, and the destructive lockdown lasted therefore less long.

Most leaders have bottled it, because lockdown is so terrible, and the virus is so terrible without lockdown. So they hope they can gradually loosen lockdown and get back to normal. It just is not possible without something to keep R down other than lockdown, and that is track and trace.

How can track and trace work unless you have got and keep case numbers down really really low?

We know enough now about how many people have been exposed to know that herd immunity would take a very long time to get with deaths at a democratically tolerable level.

We know the maths of epidemics, without her immunity, if R > 1, you quickly reach NY levels of death and more.

That is why I say "let it rip" is the only alternative to extreme lockdown or vaccination.

There is the case of Sweden, where:

(1) low rate outside Stockholm allows very good track and trace., low population density reduces transmission

(2) In Stockholm v good health and social services, and a very responsible population, have managed to keep deaths down through shielding.

In the US I'd agree that some parts of it are very low population density, and also infection rate. R values naturally lower. And track and trace would be enough. I'm a bit pessimistic they have the political will to do that.

Otherwise (everywhere not low population density, and without good enough track and trace to reduce R) loosening lockdown will just lead to R values going up to 2 or more unless it is a mild loosening. Track and trace will not help much because the numbers are too large for this to be effective. How is the situation now any different from when lockdown was imposed?

I don't see shielding as possible in the US in the same way, with some of the population living in v bad conditions and some of the population afraid to come to the attention of authorities. Unfortunately having a green card or no makes no difference to catching and spreading the virus. Maybe with extreme political will this could change? I don't see it even being talked about. And current US test ability is no where near what would be needed to cope with existing community infections.

THH

Quote from Shane D.

Emotional and convincing speech for the use of HCQ + Z from Texas "activist doctor" Lozano. For our non-English members she says:

-has had "phenomenal success" treating her patients aged 30-55

-her fellow doctors are afraid to use it

-the pharmacists have been ordered not to fill HCQ prescriptions without a diagnosis, so she is telling other doctors to lie and list something other than COVID

-she is working with Texas politicians to make it more freely available

You can start at 5:45, or if you can handle her championing Trump listen from the start:

https://healthyconnects.com/20…rona-virus-10th-may-2020/

Display More

I'm sorry Shane. You are deluded if you give this type of evidence weight.

I wish this doctor was right. But her rabble-rousing here gives no evidence that she is right. Let me ask you - what fraction of patients 30-55 who have COVID symptoms will recover naturally, and quickly? And without tests, how do you even know they have COVID? It is easy to see such recovery as because of some treatment you have given them...

And she is politicising things, by the way, not the other doctors who are cautious about HCQ just as they are about the many many other plausible drug candidates...

Here is why, by now, the optimistic hypothesis that asymptomatic infection rates are very high is not tenable.

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.05.10.20097543v1

The proportion of asymptomatic cases ranged from 6% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effect) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 16% (95% CI: 12% - 20%) overall; higher in non-aged care 19% (15% - 24%), and lower in long-term aged care 8% (4% - 14%). Two studies provided direct evidence of forward transmission of the infection by asymptomatic cases but suggested lower rates than symptomatic cases. Conclusion: Our estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases are lower than many highly publicized studies, but still substantial.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm sorry Shane. You are deluded if you give this type of evidence weight.

I wish this doctor was right. But her rabble-rousing here gives no evidence that she is right. Let me ask you - what fraction of patients 30-55 who have COVID symptoms will recover naturally, and quickly? And without tests, how do you even know they have COVID? It is easy to see such recovery as because of some treatment you have given them...

And she is politicising things, by the way, not the other doctors who are cautious about HCQ just as they are about the many many other plausible drug candidates...

Fear is an infection. You have it (or you are paid). When people are afraid and use their lower brain, they still think they are being logical but it is in a reactive way. They over-exaggerate things and turn small points into big controversies.

At no point did Shane say this was the only evidence we should look at. He is not deluded to hear the experience of a clinician and what she has to say. Its data. It is all data. And even tests are built on flimsy assumptions, so what you call "objective" is not "objective" -- at what endpoint of a RT-PCR is a person really positive or negative (27, 30?) That is a challenge to you, how scientific is the scientific test we are using?

And if you heard her statements - the other doctors are not cautious about HCQ for good reasons but for fear of the licensing board. She is not politicizing things, the political class is politicizing things for people who want to make money. Anyone who knows how the darkest force works - it is inversion of truth. Where people think one thing, but they are getting the other.

Fear is an infection. You have it (or you are paid). When people are afraid and use their lower brain, they still think they are being logical but it is in a reactive way. They over-exaggerate things and turn small points into big controversies.

At no point did Shane say this was the only evidence we should look at. He is not deluded to hear the experience of a clinician and what she has to say.

These sentences summarise your thinking on this matter:

The first one, that people with different views from yours are emotionally reactive, or paid, I reject strongly. Very strongly. Of course everyone bothering to post here has emotions: fear applies to fears of lockdown, your incomprehensible to me fears of global conspiracies, or fears of COVID. My arguments here have been much less oriented towards fear than others making the same points: go read them without bias.

The second one we must agree to disagree. Your thinking it rational to give weight to clinical anecdotes delivered with an obvious political slant, in a political meeting, and with none of the details needed to evaluate them perhaps shows the level of evidence you base your views on?

Quote from Navid

And if you heard her statements - the other doctors are not cautious about HCQ for good reasons but for fear of the licensing board. She is not politicizing things, the political class is politicizing things for people who want to make money. Anyone who knows how the darkest force works - it is inversion of truth. Where people think one thing, but they are getting the other.

That is exactly my problem with your analysis.

You take the hearsay statements in an obviously political speech as fact.

Weird.

They will just move on to the next thing to get Trump.

I will resist the obvious reply so as not to further politicise the thread

Quote from Wyttenbach

I informed my contact in South Africa that Sutherlandia/Sceletium works fine to treat corona and they should stop to ship it out of the country and use it locally for the poor ones.

Quote

The knowledge is from private therapies of strongly infected people...

And we all know how important private therapies (whatever that is) are in scientific research.

No, seriously, BS like this can kill people-- some will actually believe it.

Quote from Shane D.

-has had "phenomenal success" treating her patients aged 30-55

-her fellow doctors are afraid to use it

-the pharmacists have been ordered not to fill HCQ prescriptions without a diagnosis, so she is telling other doctors to lie and list something other than COVID

-she is working with Texas politicians to make it more freely available

You can start at 5:45, or if you can handle her championing Trump listen from the start:

Unless I see the words "large, controlled, blinded, matched trial, performed by reputable researchers" I am not wasting my time on a video! Were those words there, please?

BTW, I don't know the medical board rules in TX but in CA, the physician does not need to provide a diagnosis to prescribe. But lying on a professional issue can cause an investigation and loss of license. Bad idea.