2 2
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Did you listen or read the data? The guy that "invented" the PCR test has stated many times that it doesn't work for this purpose. That is a main point in the article.

No, not really obscure. Dr Mercola has been around for many years and is quite credible. He believes in Integrative Medicine and that goes against some traditional medical treatments. Traditional medicine is diagnose and prescribe. That's great for big pharma. Other doctors prefer prevention that includes a healthy or super healthy immune system. 

I read it but didn't watch the video. Wonderful, lawyers to the rescue again. So the test isn't advertised to be infallible. No surprise there. Still, like Trump yards signs, they can offer valuable information to a skilled observer. That said, to my knowledge, there are better and faster tests than PCR on the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Isn't this interesting.

One huge point this article makes is that the PCR test is not an indicator of COVID.

The PCR test is an accurate indicator for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In fact it's currently the most accurate test out there.  It can, like anything else, be misused.  It looks like the White House, for example, was misusing that test.

And from Mercola?

Business Week said that Mercola uses "slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics" to sell quack cures.  Three times over the last 15 years, the FDA has warned them that they were making illegal claims for their products, claims that have no scientific backing.  Quackwatch, a medical watchdog site, warned that Mercola makes "unsubstantiated claims [that] clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations and many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements."  Surgeon David Gorski (professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine) says it "mixes the boring, sensible health advice with pseudoscientific advice in such a way that it’s hard for someone without a medical background to figure out which is which."

You should get some better sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That said, to my knowledge, there are better and faster tests than PCR on the way.

There are faster tests than PCR, but better? That would be great to have, but right now PCR is the gold standard to compare against.

 

billeisele's view is the standard "I'm alright Jack, I don't know anyone who's been hospitalized or died from coronavirus, so it must be a big hoax and all these restrictions should stop".

Try telling that to the face of someone who lost a relative from covid, billeisele. See if you don't get punched in the face.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The White House actually wasn't using that test - they were using a less accurate, more rapid test. Which is one of the reasons Trump eventually got it.

If they had put the medium on a long coke spoon instead of a swab we wouldn't be in this position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for the medical experts here. Would there be any improved immune response to taking multiple vaccines once they become available? Naturally over some period of time.

In other news: Remdesivir Fails to Prevent Covid-19 Deaths in Huge Trial

"Remdesivir, the only antiviral drug authorized for treatment of Covid-19 in the United States, fails to prevent deaths among patients, according to a study of more than 11,000 people in 30 countries sponsored by the World Health Organization.

The drug was granted emergency authorization by the Food and Drug Administration on May 1 after a trial by the National Institutes of Health found that remdesivir modestly reduced the time to recovery in hospitalized patients. President Trump received the antiviral after he began showing symptoms earlier this month....

The antiviral has been administered to thousands of patients since its emergency authorization. The drug costs $3,120 per treatment course for patients with private insurance in the United States."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Major decisions about quarantine, closing businesses, social distancing and mask wearing are based on these test results.

That is not correct. Test results are a signal, but hospitalizations and deaths are what moves public officials to close things down. The test results are meaningless when the testing system becomes overwhelmed. But dead people do not lie, and hospital capacity being reached scares everyone who thinks about what it means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

 

The antiviral has been administered to thousands of patients since its emergency authorization. The drug costs $3,120 per treatment course for patients with private insurance in the United States."

Which means the real cost is more like $300. Insurance companies dont pay retail. They pay about 10% of the asking price. Prices in the medical world are set by insurance companies, not by hospitals. The hospital can charge whatever they want, but the insurance company and their contract with the hospital determines how much they actually pay. I have had hospital bills that were $20k and the insurance company said cool, we'll pay $2k for that and the hospital said ok. It's a contract requirement. The charges are agreed upon in advance when the insurance company generates a contract with the provider.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Awesome. So when do us corporals and privates get a jab? It's good news but the vaccine is a chimera, for sure. We want it, and hopefully you kids need to wait in line behind the deserving elderly, but it's cheap and accurate testing with immediate results that will set us free.  No one has any clue how long the immunity will last and, even after a few months when it finally trickles up to Canadiens, there will still be 40 million Americans who won't vaccinate. In the meantime, everyday I check for monoclonal anti-bodies on Amazon but still it's only books. 

The University of Illinois is doing great work on testing. Most undergrad students are required to test 2x weekly, or 3x for those identified as high risk. 1x/week for grad students and staff. Anyone can test more than that if they want at no direct cost to themselves and results have been same-day. A typical day is around 10,000 tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nwt said:

The University of Illinois is doing great work on testing. Most undergrad students are required to test 2x weekly, or 3x for those identified as high risk. 1x/week for grad students and staff. Anyone can test more than that if they want at no direct cost to themselves and results have been same-day. A typical day is around 10,000 tests.

He is asking about vaccines, not testing. Testing doesent really help the person infected. It just helps the government keep numbers and charts. I'd say it helps others by allowing for contract tracing, but I'd just be blowing smoke as we all know no one really does contract tracing anymore. They never really did much of it to begin with and now people just flat out dont care anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Westerly said:

He is asking about vaccines, not testing. Testing doesent really help the person infected. It just helps the government keep numbers and charts. I'd say it helps others by allowing for contract tracing, but I'd just be blowing smoke as we all know no one really does contract tracing anymore. They never really did much of it to begin with and now people just flat out dont care anyway.

This is what he said:

Quote

it's cheap and accurate testing with immediate results that will set us free.

Seems like he's saying cheap, accurate, fast testing is what we need, and he's right. It's not only about helping the person infected, it's also about reducing the spread from that person. If an asymptomatic person finds out early that he has it, that person can isolate and infect fewer people on average. That should have a great positive impact to the course of this pandemic, which is to a large degree driven by asymptomatic spread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
21 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Which means the real cost is more like $300. Insurance companies dont pay retail. They pay about 10% of the asking price. Prices in the medical world are set by insurance companies, not by hospitals. The hospital can charge whatever they want, but the insurance company and their contract with the hospital determines how much they actually pay. I have had hospital bills that were $20k and the insurance company said cool, we'll pay $2k for that and the hospital said ok. It's a contract requirement. The charges are agreed upon in advance when the insurance company generates a contract with the provider.

Well that might be normal but in these matters the US had the "greatest negotiator of all time" at work in the negotiations.

"Federal health officials and Gilead Sciences have settled on priority distribution to Americans — and nonnegotiable pricing."

"Hospitals will receive the product shipped by AmerisourceBergen and will pay no more than Gilead’s Wholesale Acquisition Price (WAC), which amounts to approximately $3,200 per treatment course. "

Dear Secretary Alex Azar:

"regarding the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHSor the Department) recent announcement that “President Trump has struck an amazing deal” for a large supply of remdesivir, an antiviral drug that has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing recovery time for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, for the American people.1Remdesivir has the potential to benefit Americans hospitalized byCOVID-19, but it appears that the Department acquired its supply by allowing Gilead Sciences, the drug’s manufacturer, to charge American health insurers the highest price in the world2—representing windfall revenues of up to almost half a billion dollars for the company, paid for in whole or in part by increased premiums for American families3—despite having other options available to expand remdesivir access in the U.S, and despite the fact that American taxpayers spent over $70 million to help develop and test the drug....

It appears, however, that the Department acquired its supply of remdesivir at an exorbitant cost. According to the Department’s announcement, “hospitals will receive the product...and will pay no more than Gilead’s Wholesale Acquisition Price (WAC), which amounts to approximately $3,200 per treatment course.”10The same day that HHS made its announcement, Gilead publicized its global pricing system, indicating that governments of other developed countries will be paying $2,340 for a treatment course.11In other words, America’s private health insurers—and,ultimately, all families and businesses that pay for these costs via health insurance premiums—will be paying $860 more than governments in other countries will pay."

I'll say it anyway, thanks trump! You're stupidity and negotiating skills helped subsidize the rest of the world, again.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
15 minutes ago, nwt said:

This is what he said:

Seems like he's saying cheap, accurate, fast testing is what we need, and he's right. It's not only about helping the person infected, it's also about reducing the spread from that person. If an asymptomatic person finds out early that he has it, that person can isolate and infect fewer people on average. That should have a great positive impact to the course of this pandemic, which is to a large degree driven by asymptomatic spread.

But asymptomatic people dont normally get tested because they have no reason to go seek out a test in the first place. if you're asymptomatic than in your mind you're not infected as far as you know so there is no reason to get a test. This plan would only work if there is large scale random, mandatory testing. Like employee drug testing basically. Even if tests could be found at every Walmart around, they were all free and all took 10 min, asymptomatic spread would still be rampid solely on the basis of people not being aware they should have taken a test in the first place.

Also I think you very seriously underestimate the number of people who flat out just dont give a shit. Either they think Covid is fake, or it's just the flu, or they just dont care either way--that's like 50% of the US population. Go outside and see how many people are not wearing a mask. Those are the same people that wouldent care about getting a test unless they were noticeably sick. Even the CDC changed their guidance now saying that there is no need for you to get tested unless you have symptoms, although I suspect such change was entirely politically driven and not even remotely scientifically driven.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Buy asymptomatic people dont normally get tested because they have no reason to go seek out a test in the first place.

If a contact tracer calls them up and says "you've been exposed," they have a strong incentive to test. If they've been in a risky situation (we traveled to Las Vegas and back recently for a Grand Canyon raft trip), then a test is a good idea. If you want to go to some states without self-isolation, a test is a substitute (but it's best to give any germies you have a few days to multiply -- taking a covid test the day you were exposed is kind of pointless).

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Hospitals and other providers always mark up the cost of everything. 

 

That doesent mean anything. Did you read what I said? Hospitals dont set prices, insurance companies do. When a hospital joins an insurance company's network, they need to sign a contract with the insurance company and part of the stipulation is an agreed upon price for every single line item on the charge master. Basically the insurance says 'we pay exactly this amount for this charge, do you agree or not?" The hospitals agree as such is required if they want to join their network and when the patient later uses the services, the insurance company basically says 'according to the contract you signed with us, this is what we agreed to pay for this line item" which ends up being about 10 - 20% of the asking price. So in reality the total on a hospital bill is just a BS meaningless number. Insurance companies dont even look at it--they dont care. They already know what they pay for each line item on a bill and whatever that amounts to is what it amounts to. The insurance companies have the upper hand and they set the prices. They say WE decide how much we are going to pay, not YOU.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

If a contact tracer calls them up and says "you've been exposed,"

Yes, but contract tracing basically dosent exist. I have met more than 10 people who has had Covid and none of them had a contract tracer call them. Some states have ZERO contract tracing of any form and not one single state does 100% contract tracing. Contract tracing is just like testing--highly over promised and under delivered.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Westerly said:

But asymptomatic people dont normally get tested because they have no reason to go seek out a test in the first place. if you're asymptomatic than in your mind you're not infected as far as you know so there is no reason to get a test. 

Right. I am advocating for routine, asymptomatic testing. I feel I made this pretty clear.

Quote

This plan would only work if there is large scale random, mandatory testing. Like employee drug testing basically. Even if tests could be found at every Walmart around, they were all free and all took 10 min, asymptomatic spread would still be rampid solely on the basis of people not being aware they should have taken a test in the first place.

This sort of incorrect thinking seems to be pretty common and it's been very frustrating for me. For this and other measures, it just isn't true that it won't be helpful with less than 100% compliance. There's not even any logical reason to think that. Certainly the more people who participate, the more effective the measure will be, and partial participation will be partially effective.

Quote

Also I think you very seriously underestimate the number of people who flat out just dont give a shit. Either they think Covid is fake, or it's just the flu, or they just dont care either way--that's like 50% of the US population. Go outside and see how many people are not wearing a mask.

Why do you think that? Because of what you think you saw last time you went outside? You think the number of people you think you saw without a mask on your block today is representative of the entire country or world? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westerly said:

Either they think Covid is fake, or it's just the flu, or they just dont care either way--that's like 50% of the US population. Go outside and see how many people are not wearing a mask. 

Around here, mask compliance indoors is well over 90%. About the only people who aren't wearing them are the homeless (or rare political activist.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Westerly said:

Buy asymptomatic people dont normally get tested because they have no reason to go seek out a test in the first place. if you're asymptomatic than in your mind you're not infected as far as you know so there is no reason to get a test. This plan would only work if there is large scale random, mandatory testing. Like employee drug testing basically. Even if tests could be found at every Wal-mart around, they were all free and all took 10 min, asymptomatic spread would still be rampid solely on the basis of people not being aware they should have taken a test in the first place.

Westerly,

Think at the restaurant door, at the ticket counters, at the boarding areas, at the school entrance and on and on. We survived TSA we'd survive that, too. Totally voluntary; you want in then take the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, nwt said:

 

Why do you think that? Because of what you think you saw last time you went outside? You think the number of people you think you saw without a mask on your block today is representative of the entire country or world? Really?

No, but we have this thing called Social media, the Internet and the news where I can see clips of video and photos from any location on Earth instantly and from that it's pretty easy to tell if people are wearing masks or not. Like everything, it's political. In most republican land of the free or die states, mask wearing is much lower. I know there are regions where mask wearing is high, I also know there are MANY regions where mask wearing is exactly 0%, and I see those regions every single day. I have been to areas where I was the only person I saw anywhere within 360 view that was wearing a mask. For many regions in the USA, it's total business as normal, as if the virus doesent even exist. The rising cases over the last few weeks should prove that in itself.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Westerly,

Think at the restaurant door, at the ticket counters, at the boarding areas, at the school entrance and on and on. We survived TSA we'd survive that, too. Totally voluntary; you want in then take the test.

Sure, that would work. But the test would need instant results which just wont happen. We arnt there. The technology exists and it has for a long time, but it's like an electric car in the 90s. It's more of a concept than a reality. I would bet my entire retirement that we will have an approved vaccine before testing becomes 'legit' in any measurable capacity of the word. I am fairly convinced that testing will never be brought to the level it should be and the virus will die off before we get there. Most areas are pushing for less testing, not more. Since the start we have been taking four steps backwards with every decision. The start line is a half mile in front of us at this point.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Sure, that would work. But the test would need instant results which just wont happen. We arnt there. The technology exists and it has for a long time, but it's like an electric car in the 90s. It's more of a concept than a reality. I would bet my entire retirement that we will have an approved vaccine before testing becomes 'legit' in any measurable capacity of the word. I am fairly convinced that testing will never be brought to the level it should be and the virus will die off before we get there. Most areas are pushing for less testing, not more. Since the start we have been taking four steps backwards with every decision. The start line is a half mile in front of us at this point.

I'm not at liberty to offer details but such a test has already passed a small initial trial with 99% accuracy. A larger test is now underway. Results are effectively real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2020 at 11:58 AM, billvon said:

Sure.  When he says that he won't negotiate for stimulus until after he wins, the stock market tanks.  Direct cause/effect.

When COVID-19 is out of control and requires massive shutdowns, the stock market tanks.  Much of that was Trump's negligence.  Again, direct cause/effect.

Normally the president has little to do with the stock market, other than setting fiscal policy.  It takes a huge screwup for the president's actions to affect the stock market directly.  Unfortunately, we have a huge screwup in the white house now.

 

Fiscal policy! aha...! what’s with the monetary policy ? your knowledge is very much a tunnel vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2