Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Honest Saints Fan]

1 minute ago, Elixir said:

It really is hugely encouraging, and just wait until the vast majority of vulnerable cohorts along with the wider population have had two doses.

Vincent Rajkumar is my hero.

 

BTW can I just say LOL at giving the population at large Dexamethasone. It would be like "the purge". Was very close to killing @Rugster when I was on it.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

48 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

We're talking about a media who have been falling over themselves to report everything that might be remotely bad in the most clickbaity way possible.

Take the Israel vaccine reports, for example. Couldn't get the 'bad' news about the vaccine not working 100% after a week out any quicker, yet have absolutely ignored any and all of the positive looking reports.

They thrive on the fear, and they know it.

The media control the narrative these days over any major event.....Covid, Brexit, Scottish independence, how badly the Tories are doing, anything. 

If you're a Telegraph reader, then you'll believe that the statistics are all part of Project Fear and that restrictions should be lifted tomorrow, if not sooner. If you're a follower of The Guardian, you'll be shocked by the unrelenting focus on deaths, deaths and more deaths. And did I mention deaths ?

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

[madwullie]

45 minutes ago, Elixir said:

Meanwhile, right on cue regarding earlier posts about more young people going into ICU.

And it's the same creatures every time. They just can't help themselves.

Honestly mate, you're going looking for this stuff. That exact comment you've chosen sparks exactly the chat we just had on here about proportions and percentages. People are actually allowed to discuss stuff, even potentially negative stuff, that goes against what you think, without necessarily being "ghouls" or desperate for the world to sit inside till 2022. Unless it's happy clapping you don't want to know. 

I mean that exact same person you pull up later talks positively about the vaccine when someone suggests that these figures might be due to the lockdown. 

Edit: the same creatures everytime = some Italian/Israeli doctor (medical student?) with 5k followers whose timeline doesn't even seem to be particularly negative 

Edited January 24, 2021 by madwullie

[Wee Bully]

Well putting a solicitor and a clownshoes dentist in charge has certainly proved a roaring success so far. 

They are certainly less embarrassing than you.

[vikingTON]

17 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

The only drug you mentioned was dexamethasone and I pointed out why it isn't used. Swing and a miss, champ.

 

No, you gave an argument for it being unethical to do so because the evidence isn't available yet to show benefits. In the context of a pandemic, the 'do no harm' principle should be recognised as utterly meaningless though. 

Quote

I'll also point out, do you not think the medical profession and clinical scientists have thought about drugs to treat Covid in the community and there might perhaps be good reasons why there's none being used, apart from the vaccine?

Of course they're thinking about the problem. The issue however is that they're starting from the assumption that you need clinical evidence from random trials to lead the way, before you start rolling out generally prescribed treatment. Which is absolutely the best practice when you have sufficient time and resources to tackle the problem in the meantime, but not when you're firefighting a pandemic. All the gold standard evidence and box ticking ethical concern exercises in the world are useless when you need to act now and are still saying 'nope, nothing we can do until you need hospital care'. Firing out medication that may help some patients based on its use in hospital cases is preferable under those circumstances to waiting for trial results and then intervening. And if the virus was knocking off half of the people it infected then we wouldn't even be debating it. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by vikingTON

[Left Back]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

No, you gave an argument for it being unethical to do so because the evidence isn't available yet to show benefits. In the context of a pandemic, the 'do no harm' principle should be recognised as utterly meaningless though. 

Of course they're thinking about the problem. The issue however is that they're starting from the assumption that you need clinical evidence from random trials to lead the way, before you start rolling out generally prescribed treatment. Which is absolutely the best practice when you have sufficient time and resources to tackle the problem in the meantime, but not when you're firefighting a pandemic. All the gold standard evidence and box ticking ethical concern exercises in the world are useless when you need to act now and are still saying 'nope, nothing we can do until you need hospital care'. Firing out medication that may help some patients based on its use in hospitals is preferable under those circumstances to waiting for trial results and then intervening. 

Sounds like you’d happily volunteer to take some unproven medication then?

Bet you/your family would also be first to sue if/when it went South.

[Cyclizine]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

No, you gave an argument for it being unethical to do so because the evidence isn't available yet to show benefits. In the context of a pandemic, the 'do no harm' principle should be recognised as utterly meaningless though

No, I pointed out dexamethasone has been shown not to be of benefit unless you're requiring supplemental oxygen when it reduces mortality. It doesn't reduce risk in the mild/moderately unwell.

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Firing out medication that may help some patients based on its use in hospitals is preferable under those circumstances to waiting for trial results and then intervening. 

Which specific medicines are you talking about?

[vikingTON]

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Sounds like you’d happily volunteer to take some unproven medication then?

Bet you/your family would also be first to sue if/when it went South.

If I were in a vulnerable category, having just tested positive for Covid, then I'd be more than happy to take the risk of a medical intervention now rather than just sitting wondering if I'll be on a ventilator in three weeks' time, when they can *start* treatment. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by vikingTON

[Elixir]

7 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Honestly mate, you're going looking for this stuff. That exact comment you've chosen sparks exactly the chat we just had on here about proportions and percentages. People are actually allowed to discuss stuff, even potentially negative stuff, that goes against what you think, without necessarily being "ghouls" or desperate for the world to sit inside till 2022. Unless it's happy clapping you don't want to know. 

I mean that exact same person you pull up later talks positively about the vaccine when someone suggests that these figures might be due to the lockdown. 

Edit: the same creatures everytime = some Italian/Israeli doctor (medical student?) with 5k followers whose timeline doesn't even seem to be particularly negative 

It was literally the top reply to the tweet, and it is regularly the same people with the same nonsense that contributes very little to the debate - a debate which has unsurprisingly had its fair share of gloom for the past year.

Less older people in hospital will result in... a higher percentage of younger patients in hospital. Unless there is hard evidence that absolute numbers of younger people in hospital is increasing, I think calling it out is more than merited.

As for happy clapping, I'd say I have been more than a bit negative regarding the pace of vaccination in Scotland.

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

If I were in a vulnerable category, having just tested positive for Covid then I'd be more than happy to take the risk of a medical intervention now than just sitting wondering if I'll be on a ventilator in three weeks' time, when they can *start* treatment. 

The Josef Mengele hospital.

 

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

If I were in a vulnerable category, having just tested positive for Covid then I'd be more than happy to take the risk of a medical intervention now than just sitting wondering if I'll be on a ventilator in three weeks' time, when they can *start* treatment. 

I think everyone would be happy to take a medical intervention.  That implies a known/clinically proven treatment.

I asked you about unproven medication.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Which specific medicines are you talking about?

The already approved ones you idiot!

6 hours ago, virginton said:

Why we have not been shoving the already approved anti-inflammatories at vulnerable groups as soon test positive has been mind-boggling throughout this second wave. A minority may develop other problems as a result but this is entirely acceptable compared to just waiting gormlessly until a chunk of them inevitably roll into hospitals across the country.

 

[superbigal]

8 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

No, I pointed out dexamethasone has been shown not to be of benefit unless you're requiring supplemental oxygen when it reduces mortality. It doesn't reduce risk in the mild/moderately unwell.

Which specific medicines are you talking about?

Full article is here from the horses mouth.  Just so the rest of us can have some peace 

https://www.icm-mhi.org/en/pressroom/news/colchicine-reduces-risk-covid-19-related-complications

Edited January 24, 2021 by superbigal

[Cyclizine]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

The already approved ones you idiot!

 

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

[superbigal]

https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/colchicine/

 

NHS info on the drug the Canadians are promoting

Edited January 24, 2021 by superbigal

[Thereisalight..]

6 hours ago, maicoman said:

This came up on my wife's Facebook page this morning.  It is a newsagents in Stranraer which displays on it's window the funeral intimations for the town and surrounding area.  In normal times, it just has maybe 3 or 4 at a time.... but I've managed to count 36!!! Crazy times! 

There was an outbreak at one of the care homes there. I read there was 90 people (between staff and residents) who'd tested positive and at least 10 had passed away. 

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

No, I pointed out dexamethasone has been shown not to be of benefit unless you're requiring supplemental oxygen when it reduces mortality. It doesn't reduce risk in the mild/moderately unwell.

No it hasn't. The existing data may not indicate a statistically significant reduction in risk for mild/moderate cases, but that has not yet been shown to be a fact. If the existing studies are replicated consistently over time then we can reach that conclusion; no plausible medical treatment right now however should be discarded.

[vikingTON]

9 minutes ago, Left Back said:

I think everyone would be happy to take a medical intervention.  That implies a known/clinically proven treatment.

I asked you about unproven medication.

'Unproven' medication is also a medical intervention champ. 

[Todd_is_God]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1388099/lockdown-end-date-uk-lockdown-rules-covid-news-2021-rules-when-will-lockdown-end

Tremendous scaremongering headline

[madwullie]

8 minutes ago, Elixir said:

It was literally the top reply to the tweet, and it is regularly the same people with the same nonsense that contributes very little to the debate - a debate which has unsurprisingly had its fair share of gloom for the past year.

Less older people in hospital will result in... a higher percentage of younger patients in hospital. Unless there is hard evidence that absolute numbers of younger people in hospital is increasing, I think calling it out is more than merited.

As for happy clapping, I'd say I have been more than a bit negative regarding the pace of vaccination in Scotland.

Well there's been ~38k people in hospital with covid for the past 10 days or so (slight rise then slight drop) and if the proportion of younger people has increased in that time, what does that tell us? If anything, they shouldn't be reporting in proportions becuase inevitably doubters will use that to cast shade on the point.

I get they've been extremely negative at times through this, but when it comes down to it ~100k more people have died than normally would and we've been stuck in our houses over that time, so it is quite a negative time. 

I'm all for being positive, but at the same time, dismissing all negative news/POVs as fear mongering is no better than bringing up negative shit all the time.