Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

61 - 80 of 171 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
so much data that the "scientists" are using but won't let the rest of us in on.
This frustrates me.

I'm sure there is a belief within government that if they released more detail people (and certain tabloids) would cherry-pick it to justify doing or saying stupid things, and then complain that the guidance wasn't clear. They (gov't) are probably right, but that is a slippery slope of misinformation.

As with almost all things safety isn't a black/white thing, it's a span of risks. Although some of this is now starting to leak out in the relaxations it's not being made clear why they are considered acceptable and thus educate people better to manage their own risk zones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,913 Posts
Of those 'requiring' hospitalisation, if they don't go do they all die?
Yes. That’s why they’re admitted to hospital. Mainly because they have difficulty breathing.

Indeed patients with suspected COVID-19 are told to stay at home as long as possible. Hence many die before they even get there.

Do I need to explain to you why 100% of patients in need of intubation (or assistance in breathing) would die without an intervention? I mean die in a horrible, painful way. Not in a nice way.

I’m finding your comments in general pretty ignorant and offensive to the majority of healthcare professionals who do the job because they care, not for money or because they have some sort of ‘god complex’

You seem to be at the lower left of the Dunning-Kruger curve when it comes to this stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
well if you want the definition of stupid, why are there still hydrocloroxyquin (!) trials going on here, and yet now the "lancet" has said its lethal
Yes, that had me puzzled too, but if you dig a bit it makes more sense.
Experience suggests that if given to people in hospital suffering from Covid19 (so pretty sick) then they are more likely to die.
The trials are on healthy, uninfected people to see if it helps to prevent them becoming infected or sick in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
This frustrates me.

I'm sure there is a belief within government that if they released more detail people (and certain tabloids) would cherry-pick it to justify doing or saying stupid things, and then complain that the guidance wasn't clear. They (gov't) are probably right, but that is a slippery slope of misinformation.

As with almost all things safety isn't a black/white thing, it's a span of risks. Although some of this is now starting to leak out in the relaxations it's not being made clear why they are considered acceptable and thus educate people better to manage their own risk zones.
Science has never been more available or open. You can see data before it’s published (in the traditional sense) or even peer reviewed. We effectively do peer review on Twitter now because it’s faster.
Govmt is another matter.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
That's factually disprovable.

I know of at least one patient that went into hospital and was 'monitored'. If the medical need was hospitalisation then why not immediate intervention? The only possible reason not to intervene immediately is that they tend to get better by themselves in some cases.

... how many cases?


Do I need to explain to you why 100% of patients in need of intubation (or assistance in breathing) would die without an intervention?
That's tautological.

If they were intubated and would have died otherwise, then of course it was needed.
But there will be a population who were intubated that would not have died, and then of course it was not needed.

I’m finding your comments in general pretty ignorant and offensive to the majority of healthcare professionals who do the job because they care, not for money or because they have some sort of ‘god complex’
I haven't made a single comment about such people here.

I'm just asking how effective what they are doing is.

Isn't that the bottom-line, fundamental problem with the NHS .. that no-one really knows how effective they are?

If you don't know how effective you are, then you can never get better.

You seem to be at the lower left of the Dunning-Kruger curve when it comes to this stuff.
This is a pure and unadulterated ad hominem.

Please, stop with the insults. You have just made a flat out, brazen attempt to subvert the principles of a logical discussion by deflecting my question by claiming I am imbuing it with some sort of special knowledge that I might think I have, which is an utterly false and disreputable comment.

I am claiming to know nothing. I am asking questions of those who claim to know things. So far they, and you, are drawing very big blanks, reflective of you real, substantiated knowledge of the subject.

Stop making the claims you are making. It is, in fact, you who are the "Dunning-Kruger" candidate for making claims about things you have utterly no knowledge of.

I have not put forward here ANY attempt to 'know' anything or claim to know anything. I am asking questions that you don't like, that is all.

How effective is hospitalisation for Covid patients who reach a criteria of condition that means they get admitted?
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #69
OK, I have family members involved in both health and education... across a lot of settings.

I have elderly relatives. I have young adult children who careers and education are affected. I have very young relatives who contrary to populist opinion are not immune to the affects of COVID. For myself Covid makes earning my living much harder.

So I clap on Thursdays. Hope you do to. Give us a post of how that simple act provides some solidarity with your fellow citizens.
Supporting our NHS and abiding by the rules to show my respect for other people views when out and about has nothing to do with expressing my opinions on this forum. This is just a talking shop where over the years we have largely been civil with each other. But no one wins any arguments and there certainly are no winners on this virus issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Yes, that had me puzzled too, but if you dig a bit it makes more sense.
Experience suggests that if given to people in hospital suffering from Covid19 (so pretty sick) then they are more likely to die.
The trials are on healthy, uninfected people to see if it helps to prevent them becoming infected or sick in the first place.
There was a very early, very small trial in France. It was done on the first cases as they were contact tracing the first tens of mostly healthy people infected.
In that trial patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with azithromicin (an antibiotic with known antiviral properties) cleared the virus from their system faster than untreated controls. That was highly promising and hence why the interest in those drugs. It was however only a few people. Subsequent larger studies on patients with serious symptoms show no benefit or worse outcome than controls but it’s possible there could be an effect in the early stages of infection.

That’s a scientific rationale for continuing to investigate chloroquines. Then since the idea is so prevalent and promoted by US president we also need to clearly resolve it one way or another. Also a rationale for more testing.

After Trump tweeted about chloroquines people in some parts of the world had to be treated for chloroquine poisoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
No, Twitter is not peer review.

It's more akin to mob rule.

Unless your Peers are Moro*ns
Indeed twitter is not peer review but scientists use Twitter to share and discuss results and then start on their next piece of work way before peer review and publication take place. There are also specific servers where eg viral sequence data is shared.
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #72
Yes, that had me puzzled too, but if you dig a bit it makes more sense.
Experience suggests that if given to people in hospital suffering from Covid19 (so pretty sick) then they are more likely to die.
The trials are on healthy, uninfected people to see if it helps to prevent them becoming infected or sick in the first place.
And key to those trials the pills are not washed down with Dettol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
Supporting our NHS and abiding by the rules to show my respect for other people views when out and about has nothing to do with expressing my opinions on this forum. This is just a talking shop where over the years we have largely been civil with each other. But no one wins any arguments and there certainly are no winners on this virus issue.
I'm agreeing with all of your sentiments in the above.

It would be "nice" if as a serial OP, a positive thread was started looking at some positive consequentials.
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #75
Back to the original question, it's too late, the economy is f**ked, so will there be an admission?
No chance.
Our economy is not f**ked if we believe that the life style it supported is still viable. That is why I am against all the talk about a new norm. Yes there will be changes but the way we interact with each other will fundamentally be the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,074 Posts
A simple way to look at it is this, how many of the those who have died to date from the virus would still be alive by the end of this year or maybe even by today had the virus not come their way?
By the end of this year I can't say. But I think the figures tell us 36k have died from the virus, and about 20k more than that are the extra deaths this year compared to the average of the last 5 years. So regarding how many would still be alive by today, I'd expect the number to be about 20k more than officially have died from the virus to date.

While in some countries the lockdown might kill more than the virus, I don't think that's the case here. More refining is possible, I'm sure of that, but I'm also sure most politicians are reluctant to take risks with people's lives, for some reason.

Baby steps, looking at the evolution at each step, and adjusting the decisions based on that evolution doesn't sound all that stupid to me. Maybe some steps could be a little bigger, such as giving generic principles rather than saying which businesses can reopen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,074 Posts
Yes, that had me puzzled too, but if you dig a bit it makes more sense.
Experience suggests that if given to people in hospital suffering from Covid19 (so pretty sick) then they are more likely to die.
The trials are on healthy, uninfected people to see if it helps to prevent them becoming infected or sick in the first place.
I have to admit I've been puzzled by this hydroxychloroquine issue. It seems that all scientists around that have become politicians who wanted to prove they were right. Initial "study" was it made people better (done on people tested positive, some of which would never have shown symptoms, so obvious better results even if it doesn't help). Then first "counter study" was giving it to people with advanced symptoms, who have a tendency to get blood clots, and so a drug that can have heart issues as side effects didn't help, for some reason.

It seems a side effect of this virus is to make scientists unscientific.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
It seems a side effect of this virus is to make scientists unscientific.
That is kind of true. It's probably simply down to novelty and time.

The disease caused by the virus is proving to be far more complex and unpredictable than expected which has resulted in a number of unforeseen consequences. That has left some science looking a bit battered.
On top of that there is massive time pressure, so ideas are being aired and picked up by the media without the usual peer review, etc. That means that many 'fails' are quite public when normally they'd be quietly filed away.

The last time scientists were under this much pressure was probably WW2. When the things they got wrong were buried under the official secrets act.
 
61 - 80 of 171 Posts
Top