boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,387
- Reaction score
- 7,907
That's reassuring. How long would it take to actually give people the shots?
Coronavirus: What questions do you have?
- Thread starter cwbullet
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Status
I guess you would find out if they had the antibodies after taking the vaccine then? (I'm not a medical guy, I just said the first thing that popped into my head in the previous case) And was the rest of what I said more or less right?
We shoot up to 1200 a day in the military. It can and will be done.
Yes. They check antibodies and measure the levels over time to see how long they last. Even 6 months of immunity is better than no immunity. If the risk is a dirt nap, I will take the vaccine every 6 months.
NateB
Well-Known Member
Will the feds distribute the supplies in storage to the States? We have supplies we need and cannot get because the manufacturer is being forced to fill an order for FEMA first.
Joe Bruce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 93
By a similar token, since the risk is a dirt nap, if I contracted COVID-19 *now* I would ask my physician for HCQ + azithromycin + zinc. With several hospitals showing an anecdotal upside, and a drug that has little downside, what better option is there for early treatment? There couldn't be studies yet of other drugs, either, right?
I would never recommend that combination. Anecdotal = guinea pig.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,387
- Reaction score
- 7,907
Edging ever so slightly into politics... A vaccine is a lot different psychologically than PPE (though PPE is extremely important!). Whoever is in charge when the vaccine gets approved has an extremely strong political incentive to get it distributed as quickly as possible. Before the election, it's "elect me, we've got this." After inauguration, it's "aren't you glad you elected me? We've got this." In between it could get a little dicier if there's a change of party in charge, but I'm sure cooler heads will prevail and get stuff done.
If we go into a state of emergency, the GOV can order it. The supplies have given out to states from teh Federal Reserve. It requires a documented need and an application. FEMA or HHS are likely the right place. This is not my area. I plan and treat. If logisitics needs, in my area and region, are brought to my attention, I report it. In the NW, I am nto sure where your depot is But suspect they have storage on Fort Lewis. Just so you know, most of these supplies are there for a time of war. They have been accessed for some equipments and supplies during COVID. Most of the supplies are PPE.
NateB
Well-Known Member
The supplies I am talking about are not PPE and used for patient care. We are adaptable, but according to the manufacturer, their supply has to go to FEMA before they can fill our orders. The current administration is already on the record for saying the Federal supply is for themselves and not the states and the states need to prepare for themselves. I don't have a lot of hope when they are confiscating supply lines and preventing states and hospitals from getting what we need.
Joe Bruce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 93
So the 600+ medical professionals in America's Frontline Doctors cannot be trusted? We aren't talking untested meds, just unproven for this use other than the thousands they've treated.
What is the correct treatment for early-stage COVID? I'm not trying to be combative, just want advice. With the politicization of medicine, trust is impacted. Sad days...
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Messages
- 8,993
- Reaction score
- 3,517
At the risk of derailing this most excellent thread: AFD registered their website about two weeks ago, pushed content on the 22nd including their references which are exactly two self-published tertiary sources, hosted their press conference on the 27th, and went offline halfway through the 28th, just before their second press conference. AFAICT none of them are epidemiologists or pharmacists.
A thorough discussion of AFD can be found in many places; here is one of them:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/how-...ead-misinformation-to-millions-213923648.html
But seriously, the doctor who our president said was an important voice is also known for stating in 2015 that our "Government is being run by Reptilians" and there is a great video of her discussing astral sex as the cause of gynecological problems, and another where she rants about alien DNA used in vaccines.
Judge credibility for yourself.
I will look up a recent post by Chuck that describes his thought on proper treatment protocol.
Here is a link to where Chuck describes current treatment go-to cocktail:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/coronavirus-what-questions-do-you-have.158020/post-2025404
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/coronavirus-what-questions-do-you-have.158020/post-2025404
There is no research-proven, well trusted initial treatment for COVID. The only treatment that is symptomatic control. I have down hours to days of research on zinc - not impressed. Zinc by itself causes anosmia. Why would you want to make your taste and smell even worse? I am a true skeptic after the last several months. My job is to do research and advise non-clinical folks on COVID and we are participating in several large clinical trials. So far, I am impressed with the data, but no sold on Dexamethasone, Remdesivr, and two dialysis filter that remove either the virus or the cytokines. I am hopeful that a new study will who better results with HCQ. All this being said, not a single drug has shown a definitive shortening of the disease, reduction in infectivity, or protection against catching it.
The bottom line: Sorry there is no magic bullet at this time. That being said, I take a common vitamin and that is it.
One more thing: I would add that there is some terrible research that does show that pineapple may have protective properties. You would have to eat enough to make you soil your britches so I have my doubts.
That would promote significant social distancing, which would lower the risk of infection...think outside the box.
An experimental drug (I can’t name it) I have worked on has entered testing for COVID, so out of an abundance of regulatory caution I will have to tap out of this thread.
Chuck, keep up the good work, and thanks for keeping up with this in addition to your particularly vital day job.
BBowmaster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2017
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 229
I am increasingly frustrated. The fear surrounding Covid-19 affects my income directly even if I’M not afraid. Shut down orders and similar also affect me. I can blame partisan politics in the US but this seems to be worldwide. I check BBC, NHK, and der Spiegal regularly.
Why are equally qualified doctors on opposite sides about so much of this? HCQ, masks, distancing, shutdowns; there are qualified medical experts saying opposing things. I don’t believe in scientific consensus, history has shown that the consensus is often completely wrong so numbers of experts don’t impress me.
I’m frustrated by the politicization of medicine and health. I trust MY doctor but can I trust the people informing her? I’ve already seen government interference in my healthcare (Medicare often overrides my doctor’s recommendations).
When a treatment or vaccine comes out, how will I know if it’s good? How can I tell my students “do this to be safe” if *I* can’t be sure? The news isn’t trustworthy, if only because they’re unqualified to judge science. Where should I look for trustworthy information?
Why are equally qualified doctors on opposite sides about so much of this? HCQ, masks, distancing, shutdowns; there are qualified medical experts saying opposing things. I don’t believe in scientific consensus, history has shown that the consensus is often completely wrong so numbers of experts don’t impress me.
I’m frustrated by the politicization of medicine and health. I trust MY doctor but can I trust the people informing her? I’ve already seen government interference in my healthcare (Medicare often overrides my doctor’s recommendations).
When a treatment or vaccine comes out, how will I know if it’s good? How can I tell my students “do this to be safe” if *I* can’t be sure? The news isn’t trustworthy, if only because they’re unqualified to judge science. Where should I look for trustworthy information?
There is only so much you can talk about. When you enter trials for drugs, you must sign a non-disclosure. I know of a couple that has shown some promise also, but I cannot release their names because of similar restrictions. One ones I have mentioned are not in trials at my facility or have been publicized by the press. You will notice "drug that shall not be named" and that is one I can't discuss.
If a vaccine is released, it will be 99.95% safe. Nothing is 100% safe. Your own tap or bottled water is not 100% safe, but you drink it. People have bad reactions of vaccines but that does not make them unsafe. As a culture, we have to do what is right for society as a whole. Part of the problem with today is the "me-me" approach we have taken. We have to protect one another and return to vaccination.
People die of the Influenza vaccine. It is exceedingly small in number. I cannot give you a number, but very, very few die of the vaccine. Thousands die every year because they chose not to vaccinate. That is a pretty good trade in my book. You want to know if something is safe, ask your doctor if they are getting the vaccine, and then jump in line if they say "yes". I will be the first one in line - after I read the research and product insert.
Last edited:
Saw this interesting article about there being roughly 6 different clusters of symptoms.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/different-types-covid-19-study
https://www.foxnews.com/health/different-types-covid-19-study
Fox News" "https://www.foxnews.com/health/different-types-covid-19-study said:
Before the trhead makes a giant leap. There is a difference between genotype and phenotype and the symptoms of a cluster do not necessarily mean that it is a different virus. It might be the genetics of that cluster. The timing of the infection, health and age of the cluster, and the genetic diversity of the cluster and just three examples that play into the severity and symptomology that appear. Sure, it could be completely different viruses, but it is not that simple.
A new study out fo France reportedly shows that dogs can pick up COVID better than out lab equipment. They can smell the virus. It was a study done on patient suspected to COVID. They found that dogs were 100% accurate - sensitive and specific for COVID. A larger study is needed, but Fido might replace your panther (PCR machine).
I hesitate to become involved here. CWbullet, please feel free to correct me, or just delete the whole post.
I suspect what we are seeing here is the layman's reaction to the scientific method in action. And much of the scientific method was corrupted by bad data in the beginning of the crisis.
When the people in the medical research community are presented with a problem of this magnitude, they fall back on past practice and the best information that is available at the time. If that initial information is false, that confuses the process and causes mid course corrections when the true data starts to drive the research.
The scientific method take time, but we (modern society) are used to science having all the answers, NOW!
This is compounded by "Talking heads" on the 24 hour news services making broad statements, many times with no background in the area and using non proven theory's. Add in the fact that all the 24 hour news services need "content" and viewers and it becomes easy to see how things spiral out of control in the publics view.
Now add in all the social media "experts" who can, and do, say anything they want just to get clicks. None of which are ever fact checked, but are shared at literally the speed of light.
Again. The scientific method takes time. Vetting drugs takes time. Developing treatment protocols takes time.
The facts as I see them now:
There is a global pandemic COVID-19
It started in China in 2019
It is more infectious than the flu, but not as infectious as Ebola.
It is more deadly than the flu, but not nearly as deadly as Ebola.
There appears to be long lasting implications from infection, even in some who don't show symptoms.
There appears to be no evidence that this was a created bio-weapon
Treatment's are evolving and improving.
A few vacancies are in trials that appear to show promise.
Guidelines/ policies/ procedures will continue to evolve as we learn more.
EDIT:
One last thing Consensus has no place in the scientific method. Repeatable data drives it.
On HCQ, There is just not a definitive study out there. I just reviewed nearly 30 studies. Sixteen studies who a mild to moderate improvement in death rates, but six failed to reach significance. Twelve showed no improvement to a worse fatality rate. A large number of the studies were done in late stages of the disease.
HCQ does not have clear evidence to prevent or treat infections. If I were in the ICU, I would discuss dexamethasone and possibly remdesivir with my medical treatment team.
HCQ does not have clear evidence to prevent or treat infections. If I were in the ICU, I would discuss dexamethasone and possibly remdesivir with my medical treatment team.
Joe Bruce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 93
Okay. So of these studies, do they intersect with the twelve studies that Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch speaks of in his Newsweek opinion piece, which discusses the article he published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (which itself refers to five of the twelve)? Dr. Risch is dumbfounded -- as other posters here are -- at the politicization of medicine and the rejection of science.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,598
- Reaction score
- 6,223
Gonna be tough economically for any country to vaccinate 90+ percent of their population once, let alone annually or biannually.
My wife was in medical research for over 40 years and she will tell you that epidemiologists are often on the wrong end of the stick. They typically work with retrospective data and studies, which are very easy to manipulate to fit a particular view. Very few work with randomized, double blind prospective studies that are the gold standard of medical research.
I agree that it is beyond insanity that we’ve allowed a pandemic to become a political football. History will not be kind to many of our actions.
As to the rejection of science, there is the unfortunate reality that medicine is still nearly as much art as science. This allows for a huge variance in interpretation of the science side of things. Doctors have political beliefs the same as everyone else, and some allow those beliefs to color how they interpret science.
Tony
Last edited:
There is some intersect. I have now reviewed over 50 studies. I would not fault doctors for using it. For the prevention of infections, it is unclear whether HCQ could flip the bill. Although an option piece, this editorial sums up the findings:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388.
I think there might be some benefits to use in an ICU setting. Our findings were plus-minus on this drug. We stopped using it not because of political pressure or FDA warnings. Rather we moved on to medications that were clearly working. Our death rate was just under 70% range with HCQ and is now under 40% with newer cocktails.
The problem with this article is that it is an opinion piece presented with are argument that the definitive treatment for COVID already exists. That is not quite as clear as the good doctor presents. That may change this afternoon, tomorrow, or even the next day. As far as hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc or any combination, the court is still out. I would not personally take it, yet. We need a very large peer-reviewed, randomized, multicultural study to show a benefit for the reduction of death or prevention of infections before I would recommend the use.
- Status
