Coronovirus IV

[jamil]

Talking about messaging not opening up. Replied to a comment regarding Antifa. Are they advocating shutdowns?

So you think the messaging of antifa is winning? Maybe in Portland. Maybe on CNN. I think the sane people kinda know the score.

 

[jamil]

Do you believe the majority of those who refuse to wear masks simply have a principled disagreement with those who advocate for masks?

I think the majority of the people who refuse to wear masks don’t want to be told they have to. I suppose that’s principled, though one not all that much shared by the other side.

The people who advocate for masks seem to be motivated by a couple of things. One is principled, the other not so much. They believe that wearing masks is for the good of everyone. That’s based on principle, though not one much shared by the other side. The other motivation seems like a mixture of fear and partisanship. Not really anything principled about that.

It does not seem to me that the way either side is going about managing the divide has much to do with principle. Just a lot of name-calling. Plus Karen is out in full force thinking that the non-mask wearers are literally Terrorists.

 

[foszoe]

I think the messaging of the left, socialism, is winning yes.

So you think the messaging of antifa is winning? Maybe in Portland. Maybe on CNN. I think the sane people kinda know the score.

 

[BugI02]

I think the messaging of the left, socialism, is winning yes.

That's because the messaging of conservatism doesn't contain the word 'free' in relation to goodies, but rather with respect to range of individual action. Even if you grant the tired left tropes of the utilization of near slave labor and/or tax breaks for the rich, you actually have to do/build something to benefit. You can't just lay on the couch and wait for the goodies to roll in

The messaging of the left, at it's heart, is transactional without higher purpose beyond feels (as in solving every perceived problem in the world with [STRIKE]free[/STRIKE] other people's money)

 

[foszoe]

A message I find disturbing after the Trump tax cuts. "Now that my charitable giving isn't deductible, I am not going to give". This is from people that aren't donating to art museums or climate causes but rather food banks, clothes, common man type charities etc. I find it disturbing because it shifts more reliance on government charity. My fear is the more reliance on government, the less reliance on self. Maybe it's not a trade-off but it would take some convincing to get me to believe it.

That's because the messaging of conservatism doesn't contain the word 'free' in relation to goodies, but rather with respect to range of individual action. Even if you grant the tired left tropes of the utilization of near slave labor and/or tax breaks for the rich, you actually have to do/build something to benefit. You can't just lay on the couch and wait for the goodies to roll in

The messaging of the left, at it's heart, is transactional without higher purpose beyond feels (as in solving every perceived problem in the world with [STRIKE]free[/STRIKE] other people's money)

 

[jedi]

Do you think your mobile device is shut down just because you have the on/off switch set to off?

Only way to shut power a smart phone is to PHYSCIALLY remove the battery. Otherwise it is ALWAYS on even if you power it down.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, this. Chip wanted an example. I went with one that had already been posted. Didn't mean to imply that it was representative of all conservatives, only that there was a (likely) example to be found.

ETA: There also plenty of self-described conservatives right here on INGO that have indicated that their rights were being infringed upon by having to wear masks in certain stores.

I wasn't asking for an example, per se. I was speaking more in terms of the context of "conservatives" espousing that view point - i.e. as a mainstream or widely held belief.

Obviously, one can find a one-off example of pretty much anything. It is the epitome of the axiom that the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[chipbennett]

"Knowing" Chip though, I figured he had already considered that example and dismissed the idea he was a conservative.

Well, that would be the no true Scotsman logical fallacy. Of course, there are idiots who espouse conservative beliefs. It doesn't mean that one idiotic viewpoint held by a conservative represents a "conservative" view point. To make that claim would be ex hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

 

[Doug]

A message I find disturbing after the Trump tax cuts. "Now that my charitable giving isn't deductible, I am not going to give". This is from people that aren't donating to art museums or climate causes but rather food banks, clothes, common man type charities etc. I find it disturbing because it shifts more reliance on government charity. My fear is the more reliance on government, the less reliance on self. Maybe it's not a trade-off but it would take some convincing to get me to believe it.

That is the standard ideology of the Left. They give less than conservatives because they give for their benefit, not others. A combination of tax deduction and social approval encourages them to give. Take either one away and giving drops.

Conservatives tend to give to assist others. They are more generous because they give with an eye to what they can spare rather than how they can maximize their own benefit of tax deduction and social approval. They give for others, not for themselves.

Conservatives support food banks and Heifer International; Liberals support higher taxes so the less sophisticated who cannot find loopholes will support parks and museums.

It's all a matter of looking at others or looking at yourself.

 

[chipbennett]

That's because there is no way to control the variables enough to produce a usable study. However, there are studies on use in controlled environments and how it affects disease transmission. It can't perfectly imitate environments with people moving around freely and all in different exposures that are impossible to measure.

Dr. John Campbell discusses a study that just came out. He wasn't originally convinced of the effectiveness of masks, but has come to buy into their benefit. First 15 minutes are significant, the rest if fluff.

Micro version:
Experiment used Covid-19 infected hamsters and non-infected hamsters and a fan to push air from the infected to non-infected.
Case #1- Placed filter (equivalent to surgical mask) around infected hamsters. 15% transmission and lighter viral load.
Case #2- Placed filter (equivalent to surgical mask) around non-infected hamsters. 33% transmission and lighter viral load.
Case #3- No filter. 66% transmission and heavier viral load.
Comment- Would have been interesting for completeness to see what filters on both groups achieved.

There are links to additional info at the YouTube page.

So, this study tells us that the filter medium has some efficacy in containing transmission of the virus. But, we already knew that.

It tells us absolutely nothing about the efficacy of wearing masks in containing transmission of the virus.

 

[chipbennett]

NIH Remdesivir study released at 6pm est 5/23/2020

Read it for yourself. Mind the language and look at the numbers and error rate. Other than 4 day shorter hospital stays(11 vs 15) it had no other effect statistically speaking.
Fatality rates,complication rates,and improvement in condition tier where almost identical to placebo and are within margins of error.

Sadly it confirms other studies that it really does do almost nothing against covid-19.

The is the official NIH study that the media reported on 2 weeks ago as helping because of the 4 day shorter hospital stays. By any other measure it may as well be the placebo.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764


"On April 27, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board reviewed results. Although this review was originally planned as an interim analysis, because of the rapid pace of enrollment, the review occurred after completion of enrollment while follow-up was still ongoing. At the time of the data and safety monitoring board report, which was based on data cutoff date of April 22, 2020, a total of 482 recoveries (exceeding the estimated number of recoveries needed for the trial) and 81 deaths had been entered in the database.(after day 29)"

The primary outcome of the study was time to recovery (i.e. length of hospital stay), and the results were substantial. Secondary outcome (the original primary outcome) was successful as well.

The only thing remdesivir ever had going for it was a bunch of politicians on the board and owning stock and taking donations. Actually that is quite a bit, too bad it is a nothing burger.

That is a 100% bull**** take. Seeing people politicize Redmdesivir pisses me off just as much as seeing people politicize hydroxychloroquine.

From the discussion section of the NIH study report:

Preliminary results of this trial suggest that a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with Covid-19. This benefit was seen in the number of days to recovery (median, 11 days, as compared with 15; rate ratio for recovery, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55]) and in recovery according to the ordinal scale score at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91). Even though the trial was ongoing, the data and safety monitoring board made the recommendation to unblind the results to the trial team members from the NIAID, who subsequently decided to make the results public. Given the strength of the results about remdesivir, these findings were deemed to be of immediate importance for the care of patients still participating in the trial as well as for those outside the trial who might benefit from treatment with remdesivir.


The benefit was most apparent in patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (requiring oxygen), a finding most likely due to the larger sample size in this category (since the interaction test of treatment by baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant). Confidence intervals for baseline ordinal scores of 4 (not receiving oxygen), 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen), and 7 (receiving ECMO or mechanical ventilation) are wide. We note that the median recovery time for patients in category 7 could not be estimated, which suggests that the follow-up time may have been too short to evaluate this subgroup. Additional analyses of outcomes such as the time to a one- or two-point improvement on the ordinal scale score will be conducted after the full cohort has completed 28 days of follow-up and may provide additional insight into the treatment of this critical subgroup. Our findings highlight the need to identify Covid-19 cases and start antiviral treatment before the pulmonary disease progresses to require mechanical ventilation.


The findings in our trial should be compared with those observed in a randomized trial from China in which 237 patients were enrolled (158 assigned to remdesivir and 79 to placebo).13 The time to clinical improvement, defined as the time to a two-point improvement in the score on the ordinal scale, was 21.0 days (95% CI, 13.0 to 28.0) in the remdesivir group and 23.0 days (95% CI, 15.0 to 28.0) in the control group, with a hazard ratio (for clinical improvement) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.75). The six-category ordinal scale used in that trial yielded a common odds ratio for improvement in the ordinal score scale of 1.25 (95% CI, 0.76 to 2.04) at day 14. That trial failed to complete full enrollment (owing to the end of the outbreak), had lower power than the present trial (owing to the smaller sample size and a 2:1 randomization), and was unable to demonstrate any statistically significant clinical benefits of remdesivir.


The primary outcome of the current trial was changed with protocol version 3 on April 2, 2020, from a comparison of the eight-category ordinal scale scores on day 15 to a comparison of time to recovery up to day 29. Little was known about the natural clinical course of Covid-19 when the trial was designed in February 2020. Emerging data suggested that Covid-19 had a more protracted course than was previously known, which aroused concern that a difference in outcome after day 15 would have been missed by a single assessment at day 15. The amendment was proposed on March 22, 2020, by trial statisticians who were unaware of treatment assignment and had no knowledge of outcome data; when this change was proposed 72 patients had been enrolled. Although changes in the primary outcome are not common for diseases that are well understood, it is recognized that in some trials, such as those involving poorly understood diseases, circumstances may require a change in the way an outcome is assessed or may necessitate a different outcome.14 The original primary outcome became the key secondary end point. In the end, findings for both primary and key secondary end points were significantly different between the remdesivir and placebo groups.


Numerous challenges were encountered during this trial. The trial was implemented during a time of restricted travel, and hospitals restricted the entrance of nonessential personnel. Training, site initiation visits, and monitoring visits often were performed remotely. Research staff were often assigned other clinical duties, and staff illnesses strained research resources. Many sites did not have adequate supplies of personal protective equipment and trial-related supplies, such as swabs. However, research teams were motivated to find creative solutions to overcome these challenges.


The Food and Drug Administration has made remdesivir available under an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adults and children with severe Covid-19 disease. Our preliminary report is intended to help inform clinicians considering the use of remdesivir. We are awaiting final visits, data entry, monitoring, and data lock for the last of the 1063 patients enrolled, after which an update of the results will be provided. To ensure the accuracy of the reported findings, we evaluated the primary outcome, key secondary outcomes, and mortality results on current data from May 18, 2020. The results were similar to those reported in the Results section of this article. The full statistical analysis of the entire trial population must occur, in order to fully understand the efficacy of remdesivir in this trial.


These preliminary findings support the use of remdesivir for patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19 and require supplemental oxygen therapy. However, given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient. Future strategies should evaluate antiviral agents in combination with other therapeutic approaches or combinations of antiviral agents to continue to improve patient outcomes in Covid-19.

 

[chipbennett]

Speaking of being pissed off by politicizing treatments, The Lancet is at it again/still:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

Yet another designed-to-fail "study" - that I put in scare quotes, because the only purpose it serves is to generate scare quotes - exactly as this one is already doing.

(It seems apparent to me that hydroxychloroquine is an early-use treatment that has never been proposed as being effective as a late-use treatment. This study only evaluated the latter.)

 

[Ingomike]

So just why is the media and democrat so demanding that Trump wear a mask? Chris Stigall provides some answers.

But for critics of President Trump, it’s about surrender. Nothing would bring global media more pleasure than to see the guy who displayed military hardware on the Fourth of July and massive crowds at MAGA rallies now sheepishly cowering alone behind a mask. They don’t care about his safety or health. Nor do they care about those around him.


That’s their trophy. The larger-than-life, hard-charging, America first brawler reduced to wearing a mask because a foreign virus outmatched him. It would run in campaign ads through November. Old footage of a confident Trump optimistically telling the country we’ll defeat the virus slapped together with current footage of him behind a mask, conceding its unsafe for even him to be outside.
It’s a twofer, taking out a guy they loathe and at the same time bringing that America-first jingoism to a grinding halt.

Finally, they’ll prove America isn’t special and neither is her leader. Trump’s wearing a mask in public during this pandemic just like any other country’s leader. The virus truly makes us one global community now. We’re not exceptional. We’re all on our knees, compliant and scared.


Thankfully, we have a president who knows the business of show better than the partisan hacks that cover him. He knows optics. He knows why they want him in a mask, and he’s never going to give it to them. It makes them insane with rage.

https://townhall.com/columnists/chrisstigall/2020/05/22/masks-arent-meant-for-presidents-n2569277

 

[Ingomike]

I think this pretty much sums up the mask situation...

Many know we’re on to them and how silly this is. So they’ve turned the rules of mask-wearing around on those who question by making you sound like an irresponsible citizen if you don’t comply. “You must wear a mask so I don’t get sick! What if you’re carrying something? I don’t want to catch it! Be considerate!”


Just like that, if you weren’t scared into wearing a mask you’ll be shamed into wearing one. But it can’t be both. Which is it? We’re all potentially sick, or we’re all protecting ourselves from getting sick? See the game? Heads they win, tales you lose.


Masks are the new way to communicate, “I’m compliant; my head is right; I obey; I’m a good person; I care.” If you’re not wearing one, you’re deserving of nothing less than sneers and gasps of disgust. Masks have become what wearing a ribbon for an illness or a rubber bracelet for your faith used to be. It’s a display created to fit in with the crowd - a psychological gimmick...

 

[Phase2]

So, this study tells us that the filter medium has some efficacy in containing transmission of the virus. But, we already knew that.

It tells us absolutely nothing about the efficacy of wearing masks in containing transmission of the virus.

The experiment used the actual virus and actual mask material for the experiment. You can't use it to say how what the exact numbers are in terms of reduction of disease transmission for humans, only that it does reduce transmission.

It is as close as you can come to doing live tests on humans without wandering into Josef Mengele territory.

 

[tsm]

I think this pretty much sums up the mask situation...

Yep, if you don’t want to wear a mask when shopping then don’t. Cough a few times going about your business and blow your nose occasionally as well. You’ll have no problem with social distancing as others will give you plenty of room!

 

[Ingomike]

The experiment used the actual virus and actual mask material for the experiment. You can't use it to say how what the exact numbers are in terms of reduction of disease transmission for humans, only that it does reduce transmission in hamsters.

It is as close as you can come to doing live tests on humans without wandering into Josef Mengele territory.

FIFY..

 

[nonobaddog]

Is there anybody here that doesn't believe wearing a real mask reduces transmission of airborne viruses including the chinese virus to some degree by trapping the virus particles in the filter material?

 

[Phase2]

Ingomike. He believes that they only prevent transmission in hamsters. You can judge how seriously to take him.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Is there anybody here that doesn't believe wearing a mask reduces transmission of airborne viruses including the chinese virus to some degree by trapping the virus particles in the filter material?

I believe it does if a proper filter mask. standard cloth? maybe not. BUT, having a cloth mask on would limit you touching your face so there's probably benefit there.

can't wait for home made rope seat belts to come out. they can even look like normal seat belts. probably help "some", and be better than nothing