Politics Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19): The politics thread

[Snake_Baker]

Vent your spleens in here.

What are posters opinions of Trumps ambitions to reopen the US economy by May 1?

Reasonable or asking for disaster to happen? Or somewhere in between?

1) He'll do what the economists tell him, who will in turn do what the viral epidemiologists tell them.
2 & 3) Who knows?

 

[Run n Spread]

I think given the nature of the Australian threat the restrictions are way too harsh and not all will be wound back.
I think it is lamentable the dobbing and fining going on for activities in no way damaging the community.
For political parties to be lecturing us on reasonable behaviour is laughable given their * ups in not closing the borders when they had months of warning which has caused the blow out. There rant over

 

[Run n Spread]

Re Trump given their numbers May 1 won't happen.
Not reasonable as the politics and pressure won't allow it.
In some ways the US is opposite to here. While I admire the sentiment in easing lockdowns asap the situation means it is delusional by may 1.
In Australia numbers are improving and cautious optimism could be loosening by May. Instead we have a bunch of wannabe dictators saying 6 months and stage 4 whatever that means.
Common sense and rational decision making has given way to hysteria. Even the chief MO keeps changing his tune based on the politics.

 

[Evolved1]

I've come to accept that there are ideological differences that won't be overcome. I favour provision of a choice:

1) Those who prefer the 'herd immunity' option should have the choice to return to life as usual, with access to medical facilities in proportion to the percentage of our population who choose that option. ie if 20% of adults choose 'herd immunity' over other options, they have access to 20% of ventilators, ICU beds, etc regardless of how many cases require treatment.

2) Those who want the status quo or further control measures have the same access to medical facilities in proportion to the percentage of our population who choose that option. Those who choose not to not be involved in productive employment, regardless of reason, receive the equivalent of a dole payment. For those who choose that option, it should be a form of debt like HECS is now, to be paid back when they re-enter the workforce.

The financial implications of COVID-19 are far worse than the health threat in my opinion. I'll take my chances if the options are fair.

 

[Evolved1]

Vent your spleens in here.



1) He'll do what the economists tell him, who will in turn do what the viral epidemiologists tell them.
2 & 3) Who knows?

Trump doesn't know that antibiotics are ineffective against viruses. There's a decent chance he'll make a captain's call at some stage.

 

[owen87]

The US is a weird one, as much as people want to lump this all on Trump, their populations entire world view and attitude towards government was never going to allow them to be locked down or have their freedoms curtailed for the greater good.

What we’re seeing now is likely something that would have happened irrespective of who the President was, we’d just get less memes about it.

Trump can say whatever he likes about reopening the economy, but I just can’t see how it happens on May 1st given what’s going on there at the moment, no way do they have a lid on this in ~ 2-3 weeks.

But again, it’s driven by their population and their obsessive desire with freedoms and economy. He’s selling normality and many people there will believe him, and would actively want it to happen even.

 

[Number37]

The US is a weird one, as much as people want to lump this all on Trump, their populations entire world view and attitude towards government was never going to allow them to be locked down or have their freedoms curtailed for the greater good.

What we’re seeing now is likely something that would have happened irrespective of who the President was, we’d just get less memes about it.

Trump can say whatever he likes about reopening the economy, but I just can’t see how it happens on May 1st given what’s going on there at the moment, no way do they have a lid on this in ~ 2-3 weeks.

But again, it’s driven by their population and their obsessive desire with freedoms and economy. He’s selling normality and many people there will believe him, and would actively want it to happen even.

I am not convinced people over there are still buying his normality spiel.
They would be looking at what is happening in their country compared to countries like Oz/Germany/Others and perhaps thinking they could have done this different?

Trump can say whatever he likes about reopening the economy, but I just can’t see how it happens on May 1st given what’s going on there at the moment, no way do they have a lid on this in ~ 2-3 weeks.

Trump makes the majority of his money from hotels.
It will be most interesting to see what he does.

If he is losing mega dollars (Trump losing money because of CoVid) when does he consider his own interests above that of his country?

 

[Cmarsh]

Pretty clear that Fauci is now blaming Trump for preventable deaths. Ballsy statement -

Donald Trump's infectious diseases adviser says "there was a lot of pushback" to starting social-distancing measures earlier to curb the spread of COVID-19 in the US.
Anthony Fauci also said there were many factors that led to the US reaching half a million confirmed coronavirus cases and 20,000 deaths but "obviously" if mitigation measures started earlier "you could have saved lives".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...lia-live-updates-covid19-latest-news/12143690

 

[Snake_Baker]

The interesting phenomena for me is that his critics are attempting to undermine him by assigning him a failure of intellectual reasoning that he does not possess in the first place.

There isn't a politician on the planet who is not acting on the advice of scientific advisors with regard to this matter, yet somehow, Donald Trump has morphed in to a viral epidemiologist and must stand trial for being knowingly guilty of the correlated shortcomings.

 

[Run n Spread]

I've come to accept that there are ideological differences that won't be overcome. I favour provision of a choice:

1) Those who prefer the 'herd immunity' option should have the choice to return to life as usual, with access to medical facilities in proportion to the percentage of our population who choose that option. ie if 20% of adults choose 'herd immunity' over other options, they have access to 20% of ventilators, ICU beds, etc regardless of how many cases require treatment.

2) Those who want the status quo or further control measures have the same access to medical facilities in proportion to the percentage of our population who choose that option. Those who choose not to not be involved in productive employment, regardless of reason, receive the equivalent of a dole payment. For those who choose that option, it should be a form of debt like HECS is now, to be paid back when they re-enter the workforce.

The financial implications of COVID-19 are far worse than the health threat in my opinion. I'll take my chances if the options are fair.

Forget ideological differences and choice this country is ****ed. People's response is based on their own circumstance and they will protect their patch.
Business hides behind to rip people off and everyone else carries on fighting over toilet paper.
This is showing a weird underside to Australia, the world and people in general. Once you fall by the wayside for whatever reason you don't get another look in.

 

[Goosecat]

 

[Crankitup]

Trump doesn't know that antibiotics are ineffective against viruses.

I think it's possible you may have misinterpreted him. Everyone knows that. 10 y.o. kids know that. He was talking about antibiotic resistant bacteria.

 

[CD Xbow]

The interesting phenomena for me is that his critics are attempting to undermine him by assigning him a failure of intellectual reasoning that he does not possess in the first place.

There isn't a politician on the planet who is not acting on the advice of scientific advisors with regard to this matter, yet somehow, Donald Trump has morphed in to a viral epidemiologist and must stand trial for being knowingly guilty of the correlated shortcomings.

Mr Trumps favourite drugs has failed in a recent trial - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/21/health/hydroxychloroquine-veterans-study/index.html I think this is the largest control study yet.

"In the study of 368 patients, 97 patients who took hydroxychloroquine had a 27.8% death rate. The 158 patients who did not take the drug had an 11.4% death rate."

"In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19,"

Why does the moron tout unproven treatments?

Why has Fox pushed it? - I think I know the answer to this one, because Trump said it was a game changer so the cheer leaders go along.

It is dangerous and really inappropriate. I doubt Mr Trump could apply a band aid correctly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Mr Trumps favourite drugs has failed in a recent trial - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/21/health/hydroxychloroquine-veterans-study/index.html I think this is the largest control study yet.

This isn't Ritalin.

"In the study of 368 patients, 97 patients who took hydroxychloroquine had a 27.8% death rate. The 158 patients who did not take the drug had an 11.4% death rate."

"In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19,"

Why does the moron tout unproven treatments?

Why has Fox pushed it? - I think I know the answer to this one, because Trump said it was a game changer so the cheer leaders go along.

It is dangerous and really inappropriate. I doubt Mr Trump could apply a band aid correctly.

"CNN Health" is not exactly a research paper, and you should know better than to quote journalists about this stuff. They are consistently bad sources for this material.

Where is the associated viral load data? How far advanced was infection when each patient was administered the drug? What were the immunology profiles? What were the co-morbidity profiles?

I wouldn't believe anything based upon the claims in that article.

 

[Mofra]

Can we mention positives here?
Unlike the US, the major parties in Australia have largely set aside petty point scoring to work together.

 

[CD Xbow]

This isn't Ritalin.



"CNN Health" is not exactly a research paper, and you should know better than to quote journalists about this stuff. They are consistently bad sources for this material.

Where is the associated viral load data? How far advanced was infection when each patient was administered the drug? What were the immunology profiles? What were the co-morbidity profiles?

Ha Ha. Ritalin.

Here's the abstract, I was making it easier for folks to understand, the CNN article is a reasonable summary.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite limited and conflicting data on the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized the emergency use of this drug when clinical trials are unavailable or infeasible. Hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin, is being widely used in Covid-19 therapy based on anecdotal and limited observational evidence. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in all United States Veterans Health Administration medical centers until April 11, 2020. Patients were categorized based on their exposure to hydroxychloroquine alone (HC) or with azithromycin (HC+AZ) as treatments in addition to standard supportive management for Covid-19. The two primary outcomes were death and the need for mechanical ventilation. We determined the association between treatment and the primary outcomes using competing risk hazard regression adjusting for clinical characteristics via propensity scores. Discharge and death were taken into account as competing risks and subdistribution hazard ratios are presented. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were evaluated (HC, n=97; HC+AZ, n=113; no HC, n=158). Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. Rates of ventilation in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 13.3%, 6.9%, 14.1%, respectively. Compared to the no HC group, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.10 to 6.17; P=0.03) but not in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.32; P=0.72). The risk of ventilation was similar in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.79; P=0.48) and in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.12; P=0.09), compared to the no HC group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.

The actual paper is here should anyone wish to read it - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1 - not peer reviewed yet.

Remember, the experimental evidence for usefulness of hydroxychloroquine in Covid19 was always weak. it's also a drug with a lot of really dangerous side effects - cardiac arrhythmia's, retinopathy and quite a few people go crazy on it (acute brain syndrome). We were taking in PNG and my friend went completely and utterly violent & loco.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ha Ha. Ritalin.

Here's the abstract, I was making it easier for folks to understand, the CNN article is a reasonable summary.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite limited and conflicting data on the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized the emergency use of this drug when clinical trials are unavailable or infeasible. Hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin, is being widely used in Covid-19 therapy based on anecdotal and limited observational evidence. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in all United States Veterans Health Administration medical centers until April 11, 2020. Patients were categorized based on their exposure to hydroxychloroquine alone (HC) or with azithromycin (HC+AZ) as treatments in addition to standard supportive management for Covid-19. The two primary outcomes were death and the need for mechanical ventilation. We determined the association between treatment and the primary outcomes using competing risk hazard regression adjusting for clinical characteristics via propensity scores. Discharge and death were taken into account as competing risks and subdistribution hazard ratios are presented. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were evaluated (HC, n=97; HC+AZ, n=113; no HC, n=158). Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. Rates of ventilation in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 13.3%, 6.9%, 14.1%, respectively. Compared to the no HC group, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.10 to 6.17; P=0.03) but not in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.32; P=0.72). The risk of ventilation was similar in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.79; P=0.48) and in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.12; P=0.09), compared to the no HC group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.

The actual paper is here should anyone wish to read it - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1 - not peer reviewed yet.

Remember, the experimental evidence for usefulness of hydroxychloroquine in Covid19 was always weak. it's also a drug with a lot of really dangerous side effects - cardiac arrhythmia's, retinopathy and quite a few people go crazy on it (acute brain syndrome). We were taking in PNG and my friend went completely and utterly violent & loco.

I am aware that chloroquine has had toxicity issues.

Here is the actual paper:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1.full.pdf

Where is the viral load data?

Surely you can acknowledge that this might impact the effectiveness of drugs and and their dosage regime?

I don't think this is a particularly good paper mate.

 

[CD Xbow]

Can we mention positives here?
Unlike the US, the major parties in Australia have largely set aside petty point scoring to work together.

True, we should be grateful, but isn't it how it should be?

I have in other posts recognised how good our response has been, and said thanks to our pollies.
Also have to say thanks to all you folks out there who have complied with the restrictions, you are all life saving heroes. Tens of thousands of Australians have been saved because of our actions. It's tremendous.

The US has been a complete disaster in many ways. Delayed response. Inadequate preparation. Confusing and conflicting messaging. The president pushing unproven treatments. Fractured response, Fed/state warfare almost. Who has been most responsible for that - Mr Trump, directly.

I hope this disaster will make people realise how dangerous lies & misinformation can be and not listen to those twisted souls that have pushed it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[CD Xbow]

I am aware that chloroquine has had toxicity issues.

Here is the actual paper:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1.full.pdf

Where is the viral load data?

Surely you can acknowledge that this might impact the effectiveness of drugs and and their dosage regime?

I don't think this is a particularly good paper mate.

You are not going to get a better paper for a long time. If it made a difference it should have shown in this paper, even if it didn't reach strict significance, however the trends were bad.

The viral load issue is a very interesting one, because there is some suggestion from recent H1N1, SARS and MERS that viral load may be important to the subsequent illness. How you study in regard to specific treatments would be very difficult.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You are not going to get a better paper for a long time.

????

If it made a difference it should have shown in this paper, even if it didn't reach strict significance, however the trends were bad.

Are you aware how these drugs work?

The viral load issue is a very interesting one, because there is some suggestion from recent H1N1, SARS and MERS that viral load may be important to the subsequent illness. How you study in regard to specific treatments would be very difficult.

Of course it's a crucial factor.

The correlation between viral load, dosage and treatment effectiveness is the core factor of this type of research.

In vitro analysis:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0.pdf

 

[Marcel Proust]

anyone heard the guy that does the covid/politics/news soliloquys on 3CR?

he makes some good points and is funny, almost like watching yes minister

Pretty clear that Fauci is now blaming Trump for preventable deaths. Ballsy statement -

Donald Trump's infectious diseases adviser says "there was a lot of pushback" to starting social-distancing measures earlier to curb the spread of COVID-19 in the US.
Anthony Fauci also said there were many factors that led to the US reaching half a million confirmed coronavirus cases and 20,000 deaths but "obviously" if mitigation measures started earlier "you could have saved lives".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...lia-live-updates-covid19-latest-news/12143690

he is like 80, dispite looking 25 years younger perhaps

nothing to lose i guess

 

[Snake_Baker]

Spoiler

 

[Les Malone]

We should caution that the reported available data on comorbidities and deaths without comorbidities are sparse to-date. It is also possible that information on comorbidities is not accurately captured. Some people with no recorded comorbidities may have had some underlying diseases, but these where not reported in a crisis setting, or these conditions may have been undiagnosed. Overall, this further strengthens the notion that for healthy non-elderly people, the risk of dying from COVID-19 this season has been infinitesimally small. This is in stark contrast with many news stories that focus on the demise of young people and the panic and horror that these widely reverberated stories are causing.

Another interesting observation is the higher share of deaths in the <65 years old group in New York City, Louisiana, and Michigan as opposed to the 8 European countries and Washington state. This requires further investigation, but it may reflect unfavorable socioeconomic circumstances for victims of COVID-19 in New York City, Louisiana and Michigan. It is important to study in more detail the socioeconomic profile of the COVID-19 victims, but preliminary data show that deaths cluster in areas with high levels of poverty and underprivileged populations. If this early observation gets validated, this may signify that COVID-19 is yet another disease with a profile dependent on inequalities. Of interest, influenza deaths seem to have a similar difference in age distribution between the USA and European countries like Italy: a larger proportion of influenza deaths in the USA tend to be in the <65 age group,26 as compared with Italy.27 Of course, a major difference between influenza and COVID-19 is that the latter does not cause deaths in children, in contrast to influenza.

The vast majority of victims from COVID-19 are elderly people and in all European countries analyzed as well as in Washington state, more than half and up to three quarters are at least 80 years old. The median age of death for COVID-19 tends to be similar or slightly smaller than the life expectancy of the population in each respective location. In several locations, large cluster of deaths have been observed in nursing home facilities.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054361v1.full.pdf

 

[Les Malone]

Uniquely, this recession has happened because of a knowing act of government policy. It’s “the recession the medicos said we had to have” as the only way to stop the virus killing people.

As we’re about to discover, it’s a huge price to pay. And a month or two cooped up at home is the least of it. Many of those people who’ve lost their jobs will still be cooped up at home many months after the rest of us have resumed normal lives.

And let me tell you, being unemployed for months on end also has adverse social consequences: feelings of anxiety, inferiority and worthlessness, depression, suicidal thoughts, money worries that lead to marital conflict, breakups and violence.

This recession will be so big and bad that not even the official always-look-on-the-bright-side brigade is trying to gild the lily.

It’s because this recession is happening by government decree – by the government ordering many industries to cease trading – that it will be so much bigger than usual. Usually, economies slow for months before they stop; this time, most industries stopped on pretty much the same day. (Not to mention that the same thing has happened around the world to the countries that buy our exports.)

After the anti-social lockdown comes the anti-jobs recession

Uniquely, this recession has happened because of a knowing act of government policy. As we’re about to discover, it’s a huge price to pay.

www.smh.com.au

And to top of all that we will discover as many already have, the predictive mortality rate models were outrageously wrong as well as how lethal the virus was and the demographic of people it was making sick.

Had the virus been the killer it was claimed it was going to be, most people would cop it sweet.