It would probably be many more because even now, we are rapidly approaching the 100,000 death mark *without* completely letting people run loose like fools.
Since you on your high horse today, maybe you could tell us the precautions you are taking, that separate you from those "fools running loose"?
What did they actually mean by saying “We have had several patients do very well after receiving THEM"? Does THEM also included plasma.
They were not sure Max. This is what they said: "it was difficult to pinpoint which drugs had helped and which didn’t."
Display Morehttps://www.orlandosentinel.co…tczj62omjppire-story.html
Tale of 2 Florida hospital systems use of the "controversial anti-malarial drug HCQ":
1. "Orlando Health, said last week the hospital network had treated coronavirus patients with several investigative therapies, including hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and convalescent plasma.
“We have had several patients do very well after receiving them,” Lewis said, but she added that without randomized trials testing the drug against patients not receiving the drug, it was difficult to pinpoint which drugs had helped and which didn’t.
As of Wednesday, however, Lewis said Orlando Health was following an NIH recommendation in late April to only use it in the setting of clinical trials, and “we are not participating in any clinical trials at this time.''"
2."AdventHealth spokesman David Breen said the system’s hospitals were continuing to use the drug to treat COVID-19 patients, following FDA guidelines that said it could still be used in a hospital setting.
The FDA issued an advisory in late April saying the drug could cause “serious and potentially life-threatening heart rhythm problems” in COVID-19 patients. The FDA didn’t outright advise it shouldn’t be used, but it did stress that patients should be screened and monitored to reduce the risk.
AdventHealth’s clinical team has seen some positive results from patients, Breen said, “but it’s difficult to make a direct connection to the use of hydroxychloroquine.”"
-So both hospital systems seem to think HCQ might be effective, but not sure. Orlando Health discontinued it's use though due the NIH recommendation to use only in clinical trials, and Advent Health has continued it's use because the FDA did not prohibit it from being used.
I am curious what you think:
If you were Advent Health, after reading this article how would you feel about your continuing to use HCQ, while your competitor Orlando Health discontinued?
And also, if you had COVID and read the article, which hospital would you chose to be a patient of?
https://www.orlandosentinel.co…tczj62omjppire-story.html
Tale of 2 Florida hospital systems use of the "controversial anti-malarial drug HCQ":
1. "Orlando Health, said last week the hospital network had treated coronavirus patients with several investigative therapies, including hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and convalescent plasma.
“We have had several patients do very well after receiving them,” Lewis said, but she added that without randomized trials testing the drug against patients not receiving the drug, it was difficult to pinpoint which drugs had helped and which didn’t.
As of Wednesday, however, Lewis said Orlando Health was following an NIH recommendation in late April to only use it in the setting of clinical trials, and “we are not participating in any clinical trials at this time.''"
2."AdventHealth spokesman David Breen said the system’s hospitals were continuing to use the drug to treat COVID-19 patients, following FDA guidelines that said it could still be used in a hospital setting.
The FDA issued an advisory in late April saying the drug could cause “serious and potentially life-threatening heart rhythm problems” in COVID-19 patients. The FDA didn’t outright advise it shouldn’t be used, but it did stress that patients should be screened and monitored to reduce the risk.
AdventHealth’s clinical team has seen some positive results from patients, Breen said, “but it’s difficult to make a direct connection to the use of hydroxychloroquine.”"
-So both hospital systems seem to think HCQ might be effective, but not sure. Orlando Health discontinued it's use though due the NIH recommendation to use only in clinical trials, and Advent Health has continued it's use because the FDA did not prohibit it from being used.
Do you have any evidence that doctors are afraid to discuss their use of HCQ and many other approaches?
They must be so afraid, they are even afraid to tell any reporters. 
I took a look around, and saw nothing. Not surprising; type in HCQ and Trump comes up. It will all be in the book...I promise.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe…rd-immunity-wont-save-us/
Well balanced article about everything you ever wanted to know about herd immunity. Why it may work, and why it probably will not. They admit there are may unknowns. Nice interactive graphic to play with.
You have no evidence that doctors or scientists - the people who treat patients, decide what drugs should be tested or accredited, are buying into the same political bias that you and others do
Maybe I was not clear, but I meant to say that doctors were afraid to publicly admit they were administering HCQ, because of the hoopla created by the media. No, I do not think any doctor would let their political beliefs interfere with their choice of drugs. And clearly many doctors of all persuasions have been using it. Plenty of articles, and that world wide poll of doctors, showed that. They are just very quiet about it.
That is not to say some have not refrained from using it out of fear of being exposed by some politician, or media personality. I say that, because the very liberal Senator Schumer sent a veiled threat to the Veterans Administration about using HCQ on veterans. Those are government doctors, and trust me, that message was heard loud ad clear by them.
Now: what in my, or those doctors who are highly cautious about HCQ pointing out there is as yet no good evidence, is politically biassed?
Absolutely not. You have made many good, valuable observations on the topic. Though I would agree with Bob, that like LENR, you seem not to believe in it (HCQ) but that does not bother me.
However, having said all that -- as I explained before -- I do not think nursing homes have "fueled" the pandemic in the U.S. Except in Seattle, WA in the early days. Elsewhere, the outbreaks in nursing homes and hospitals were apparently contained in these facilities, without causing many infections other than the facility patients, doctors and workers.
I linked to another nursing home article a few days ago, that said containment within the homes was a major problem early on in the learning curve, and that is how it "fueled" the pandemic. Once the problem was fully identified, all states started taking steps to protect the patients from each other, and prevent spread to the outside. So it is not a problem anymore...with the exception of Georgia maybe.
Every day we learn more, and just fixing this one weak link with the nursing homes alone should go a long ways towards getting the numbers down. Then, as Wyttenbach has said may times...even before the media caught on, if those older people not in a care facility, and the young with underlying health issues, take care to avoid infection, a large part of the problem is taken care of.
The drug was “a game changer” in the fight against the coronavirus, [Ingraham] declared. She booked recovered patients to describe their “miracle turnaround” — “like Lazarus, up from the grave”. Anyone who questioned the drug’s efficacy, she said, was “in total denial.”
“I love everybody, love the medical profession,” [Ingraham] said on April 3, after listing off public health experts who questioned the cure. “But they want a double-blind controlled study on whether the sky is blue.”
So, is there something wrong with this? She is a talk show host, had some guests who recovered, and is a little (too?) excited over what looked at the time to be a game changer, Not something I would fault anyone on.
I watched Ingraham last night to hear Dr. Stephen Smith's update about HCQ. Not much new, other than he said most of the recent studies were weak, because the drugs are still being administered to those patients most ill. Not sure that is what he said exactly, but whatever...it was bland. Laura seems to be toning it down on HCQ, although still interested in promoting it when she can.
Display MoreShane, that is blatently biased / political.
There is absoluytely NO EVIDENCE that anyone is discriminating against HCQ.
By far the largest number of trials - old and new - are for HCQ. The evidence from high quality trials is mixed to say the least. Nevertheless HCQ is being used in many places. And no-one I can see is ridiculing it other than politicians - you should ignore what all politicians say. The doctors do (I think US establishment got pushed a bit pro-HCQ by Trumps edicts but not a lot).
Now - what would you want done for HCQ that is not being done? The RCT evidence just is not there yet to recommend it - as you well know.
THH
Surely you jest? Here are just a few articles you can chew on:
https://www.mediamatters.org/c…loroquine-and-chloroquine
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/…chloroquine-wars-n2567405
But I do not need someone to tell me what I see, and read every day. This thing has become politicized, and because it is, that is a form of suppression. Yes, HCQ is not proven yet, and even the small portion of the massive media industry conservatives own (Fox News) has been careful to say that. Same goes for Trump. But because the left made it radioactive, doctors are afraid to openly use it, or report their success. Oh yes, if some doctor wants to report it did not work, they are encouraged to say that publicly and are treated as heros. Something positive to report...well, they have to slip that in quietly when no one is looking to avoid the backlash.
Let me tell you how this began from my perspective as a conservative. There were reports of HCQ being effective. After the reports continued, and I started reading Dr. Richards continual promotion of it, I started taking interest. I got hopeful. It is that simple. Same could be said of any conservative. They did not have hope because of their political beliefs. They had hope because they heard good things about a new drug.
We surely did not expect that merely going about our business having hope would set off a political battle, but it sure did. Maybe I should not even call it a battle, as it is only one side fighting. We are now referred to as "HCQ truthers", and this just another right wing conspiracy...just for having hope something works! That our "promoting" a promising new drug, was somehow reckless, and could cost lives.
And you tell me I am biased? Maybe you should start pointing the finger elsewhere.
Good idea if they are sincere in bringing the truth, and nothing but the truth to the subject. It is hard to tell where the science ends, and the politics begins. Makes your head spin trying to sort out fact from spin. HCQ being one of the prime examples. Who would have thought 3 months ago that possibly one of the best candidates for taming the virus would be suppressed and ridiculed, simply because the big bad orangeman was hopeful it "could be a game changer"?
I have found no better place than right here on LF to find reliable information, and in depth, serious discussion on all aspects of the COVID. If this new site gives us a little competition, than all the better.
Oh, and I see it just fine. Nothing on there yet though.
https://ussanews.com/News1/202…e-treatment-for-covid-19/
New positive study on HCQ + zinc from the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. The article mentions another positive from Spain on May 9, and also another from late April we already talked about.
This Yahoo article gives some details: https://news.yahoo.com/zinc-hy…ents-study-075932458.html
"Records of about 900 COVID-19 patients were reviewed in the analysis, with roughly half given zinc sulfate along with hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin.
The other half only received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
Those receiving the triple-drug combination had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of recovering enough to be discharged, and were 44 percent less likely to die, compared to the double-drug combination."
Why blame them?
Hopefully so that they, and other Governors don't make the same mistakes. We always try to better ourselves by learning from others. That includes copying what they did right, and avoiding what they did wrong. Here we have some Governors who did wrong, and at least one (Florida) who did it right. That is a valuable lesson.
When I, some 6 or 8? week ago, posted - here in LENR forum - that the old people need be locked in, everybody here in the Forum from USA did a loud outcry !! Nobody agreed. Nobody did believe.
I believed you all along. What you said made sense, as the earliest data showed the old, and sick were the main targets of the virus.
https://www.nationalreview.com…the-coronavirus-outbreak/
Another story documenting how poor state policies turned nursing homes into literal death traps, that helped fuel the pandemic in the US.
"Coronavirus outbreaks in nursing homes have been particularly deadly in California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.
You could make a strong argument that the country’s deadly coronavirus problem is largely a nursing home problem, dangerous everywhere but far more prevalent in a half-dozen or so of the country’s more heavily and densely populated states. What’s more, many of these states enacted coronavirus response policies that likely put nursing and assisted-living home residents at higher risk for infection."
-California "urged" nursing homes to accept the infected, and incentivized them by giving $1000 for every patient they accepted.
-Illinois reported >40% of their deaths were in nursing homes.
-Michigan saw a spike in deaths after 24 positive patients transferred to area nursing homes
- 69% of Pennsylvania deaths are in nursing homes, with the most recent data putting that now at 80%
-in March New Jersey ordered nursing homes to accept positive patients. >50% of their deaths from nursing homes
-in March, Gov Cuomo "ordered nursing homes to take in virus positive patients"
In sharp contrast, Florida protected their nursing homes early, and as a result saved many lives: "No Sunshine State patient can be discharged from a hospital into a nursing home without a negative test result. Florida hospitals had already refused to send coronavirus-positive patients back; the new rule means even those who show no symptoms must be tested and confirmed negative."
It shows that people were closing businesses and sheltering at home before the governor issued a stay-at-home mandate, and they are still doing that even though the governor lifted it
What that tells me is that people act in their own self interest. No need then, for government to impose their will in a "one size fits all" approach. Give the citizens the info they need, and let them decide how to act.
I think we are at a point today where each person has to take on the level of risk they feel comfortable with.
Just so happens I agree with your assessment. Thanks for the honest reply.
Display MoreI doubt that. It would not limit infection rates outside the facilities.
In Japan, hospitals and nursing homes have been hotspots for infections. Some of the largest single breakouts of 20 to 50 people have been in them. But they have not spread to the general public, as far as I know from the news accounts. The doctors and public health authorities always find out the disease is spreading, and they quarantine everyone involved. The doctors, staff and patients are all tested and moved to a different facilities. There are no anonymous infections, and it does not get out, the way infections from bars and live music joints do. No unauthorized people go in. Everyone is accounted for and can be tested and quarantined. All nursing homes have been closed to the public since the epidemic began.
The disease did spread from the Lifecare Center in Seattle, WA. That was because the authorities, the Fire Dept. EMTs and others made many mistakes, and did not wear protective clothing. That should not have happened. It would not happen today in a Fire Dept. with proper protective equipment. I am sure all of the Japanese EMT people have protective clothing, and a woman who works as an EMT in Northern Italy I have been following wrote in her blog that she has everything she needs. I don't about U.S. EMTs.
Anyway, my point is that if we had magically protected all of the nursing homes, there still would have been 60,000 dead in the U.S., which is about 59,000 more than there ever should have been. A competent government would have seen what happened in China and Korea, and it would have implemented those techniques, and limited deaths to a thousand or so. The US government and the EU governments did nothing, learned nothing, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people for no reason. They continue to slaughter 2,000 people a day in the U.S. They could fix the problem with 300,000 people and something like a small fraction of the Google network on lease. In a month they could bring the numbers down to fewer than 100 per day. They should have started during the lockdown. We could all open up safely if they had. The techniques are proven to work. But they do nothing. They will not lift a finger. Tens of thousands more people will die because the leaders are ignorant fools.
I have never seen such ignorant people! The president is so ignorant he thinks we can treat infectious disease with disinfectants. His lawyer Giulani does not understand how infectious disease and case tracing works. This has been done since the 18th century in New York, but he has no idea what it is or how it works. See:
Jed, my sincere apologies. My post you are replying to, had a link to some NYPost article, instead of the one I intended from another site about Nursing Homes: https://www.city-journal.org/c…r-spreaders-nursing-homes I just corrected it. I was wondering what you were talking about, and now I see it was my fault.
I think what the calculation comes down to is what the people around you have experienced in terms of people they personally know getting the virus.
Yet you were critical of those not wearing face masks, strictly maintaining proper social distance, and those getting into other peoples space?
Of course there is an opening back up process happening. It’s certainly happening in my State. I’m back in my office. No one is wearing masks. Most people don’t stay 6 ft apart, and someone commented that they ate out at a restaurant last night and it was crowded with no one wearing masks. While there aren’t major public gatherings people are getting into each other’s spaces again. FYI - I wasn’t in a State with a major outbreak.
Just curious; but are you wearing a mask, staying 6' apart, and not getting into "other peoples space"? I notice you are back at work.
So, only 54,000 people outside of nursing homes have died. In 6 weeks. That's comforting! A Vietnam war every 6 weeks. The daily death rate -- outside of nursing homes! -- is far higher than WWII (1,290 versus 445), and deaths everywhere but New York are increasing. But hey, what are we worried about?
So, 20,000 people outside of nursing homes in New York have died. The numbers are coming down, but hundreds a day -- outside of nursing homes -- are still dying. Is this supposed to be good news, or bad news?
I take no comfort in talking about any deaths resulting from the COVID. I am a compassionate conservative. The government has identified nursing homes, and assisted care facilities as "ground zero" for COVID. Not only do the residents individually suffer, and die from the virus, but they also act as spreaders to others outside. Fix just this one weak point in our prevention defense, and it would go a long ways towards limiting infection rates, and thereby the number of deaths.
But while it seems a simple thing to accomplish, it is not so easy in practice as this new article explains so well:
