Wear a freaking mask already

In this case he does't need to wear one. Where did you see advice for wearing one in this situation? The man should keep one in his pocket, though, in case he stops to rest in the proximity of other people.

 

Whoa, in the middle of a pandemic where so many doctors are soldiering on with inadequate PPE, many are catching the virus and some are dying, I think you're being a bit too harsh on the class of doctors.

 

Absolutely. Agreed.

 

People are dying in large numbers from this virus and wearing a mask seems like the least you can do in a closed room crowded situation. It may or may not help but why not do it for the possible benefit of those at risk. Once again what's the big deal?

 

Didn't I already explain to you the limitations of herd immunity or was it someone else?

HCQ remains available off-label to whoever wants to prescribe it, but it isn't very helpful. At best it helps for being a zinc ionophore but there are better zinc ionophores (such as quercetin). Some people are under the impression that HCQ is forbidden. It isn't. It's just that it isn't that helpful. The FDA withdrew the emergency indication of HCQ for COVID-19 (just like the FDAs of various developed countries did) but didn't take the drug off the market. At this point, though, I wouldn't use it. Get quercetin + zinc instead.

What are the "other treatments" you suppose the bureaucracy is trying to withdraw from the public? Pray tell.

OK, so you don't trust science. Gotcha. So why are you talking about herd immunity? It's a scientific concept. The Herd Immunity Threshold is 1 minus 1 over R naught times 100. Given the number needed in percentage of the population to achieve HIT (for this virus with an R naught of up to 5.7, 82.5% of the population) and the infection-fatality rate of 0.65% to 1%, going for Herd Immunity would result in 2 to 3 million dead people, and even with that death toll, it might not be achieved, given that IgG antibodies seem to last little and be less than neutralizing, and just today the first confirmed case of re-infection was described (with genomic sequencing showing that the two strains that got the same man were different).

I don't understand why people continue to run around yelling Herd Immunity! Herd Immunity! when they don't seem to understand what it is and what is needed for it. Of the 215 countries in the world, 214 of them including ours (thanks, Mr. President) have looked into this and have decided that going for Herd Immunity was a bad, bad, bad, bad and stupid idea.

So you think you are right and the health officials of 214 countries are wrong. Gotcha.

 

It helps, period. It doesn't eliminate the risk but it decreases it, and this is not controversial or in dispute. It's proven.

Anyway, I'm very glad to see you, a conservative poster, defending mask use. Bravo. I wish more of your fellow conservatives understood the issue, too. The mind-boggling thing is that when Trump resumed his press briefs, he did very clearly position himself for masks... so I don't understand why his followers still oppose it. And the BLM protesters crowding the streets without masks are just as imprudent.

 

Decisions made by the doctors who serve their employer masters.

 

Your herd immunity death toll is artificially high because the concept is to let young healthy people who rarely suffer ill effects much less die build up the herd immunity while at risk groups continue to isolate.

 

No generalization is ever accurate. There are lots of good doctors around.

 

I'm scratching my heads at the same question.

They don't trust their guy, whom they say they trust.
They don't trust these loons out rioting, but say it's safe to go out without masks, now, because lunatics endorse it. Does that mean they trust the rioting loons?

Seriously bizarre logic, there.

 

No, it's not. I'm not using Case-Fatatlity Rate. I'm using Infection-Fatality Rate, which ALREADY takes into account the mild and asymptomatic cases. And no, there isn't such a thing as an easy-to-determine risk group, in a country like ours where 100 million Americans have hypertension, 132 million are obese, 56 million have diabetes, etc etc etc. And pray tell, how will the youngsters avoid contaminating the older and infirm people? And what exactly is the advantage of your approach? Say, the young and healthy catch it, don't have consequences, and don't die. What exactly have you accomplished? Because they wouldn't have died anyway. How does that help the susceptible ones? They'd still be exposed to a much bigger population of infected people. By the way, contrary to initial studies, it is now looking like the youngsters transmit the illness just as well as adults.

Not to forget that we don't know of the full consequences yet, even for asymptomatic cases, and even for the young. Have you read the German study that found 78% of COVID-19 survivors with significant heart damage, including 67% who had mild and moderate disease that didn't require hospitalization, and the damage happened regardless of pre-existing heart conditions? This might result in heart failure in a few years... Do you want to condemn a huge chunk of our youth population to a curtailed life span due to cardiac issues down the road?

Did you know that the Epstein-Barr virus, previously considered benign, has now been shown to significantly increase the risks for 8 nasty and life-threatening diseases a couple of decades later in life, including non-hodgkin's lymphoma, a nasty and fatal cancer?

This is a novel disease and we are just now starting to understand its mid-term and long-term consequences even for those with mild cases, so, no, going for herd immunity is plain stupid and dangerous; much better is to wait for a vaccine and be prudent in the meantime.

 

The Fauci lie made a lot of people distrust all mask information.

 

I tire of worst case scenarios being presented as likely. If at risk individuals continue to isolate as young healthy people gain immunity through infection at some point the virus has nowhere to go and begins to die off.

 

Sorry, your optimism is touching but this virus won't die off. It will become endemic. Wanna bet?

Again, you guys are proposing the most mind-boggling strategy. It is estimated that two thirds of Americans have underlying medical conditions. So let me get this straight. You are proposing that we lockdown 67% of our population, right? Well, we tried that already. We locked down 60%. It didn't work. Why? Because of too many exceptions. So 40% of people continued to circulate. How exactly is your approach better than that? And how do you plan to avoid the 33% passing the virus on to the 67%, pray tell?

No, I'm NOT proposing the worst case scenario. YOU are, although you don't realize it. You are proposing a CATASTROPHIC strategy that will result in an intolerable death toll (something that Trump understands too, that's why he did not go for the Herd Immunity concept, thank God!).

Me, I'm proposing a strategy that will not get even close to those numbers. That is, people should wear masks, social distance, wash hands, avoid crowded indoor spaces, and wait for a vaccine, instead of tossing all precautions off the window and trying to pursue this elusive herd immunity.

My proposal is not the worst case scenario. Mine is the best case scenario. You are the one who is trying to increase the death toll by preaching herd immunity.

 

I'm with you. I say flog them before you execute, them, too. Then get some Karens to lecture them while they're having their entrails fed to the vultures while they're gasping their last breath.

 

So either President Trump killed 175K people or he saved 2 million. Y'all need to get you story straight.

All I know is that I have not heard of a single person dying from COVID-19 while using hydroxochloriquine. Plus there are other treatments which they will not let doctors and patients try because of FDA deep state hate Trump bureaucracy.

Here's one of many other treatments:

 

Well, given that 99% of people survive this illness regardless of what they are taking, the fact that you don't know a person who died while taking HCQ doesn't prove anything. Zip, nada.
Y'all?
What makes you think that I'm a Trump basher? Don't put words in my mouth. I do not think that he killed 175,000 people. I praise him a lot for his Warp Speed initiative, and I've done it in multiple posts here.

Again, pray tell, what exactly are these treatments you think are being withheld by the FDA? I see that you didn't reply to my question... just repeated this groundless conspiracy theory. List the medications the FDA is withholding, please.

Oh wait, don't start yet. I need to go grab my popcorn.

Oh wait, you did edit, there's a video clip. OK, given your sources, I'm done. You lost me. Welcome to my Ignore list. Have a nice and long and healthy and safe life. Over and out.

 

Same to you. You reported me earlier and got my posts removed. Just a troll anyway.

 

Have a link for that claim?

 

HCQ has been actively suppressed by the establishment. There is no denying that.

 

Yes, I do. Although not 67% but 60%. Close. I've seen higher estimates before, though, but wouldn't find one now. Anyway, my point remains... the lockdown you are proposing is actually the same as what we had in the spring when 60% of the population stayed home.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm

 

Jesus, I participated thoroughly in your HCQ thread, and showed you all the non-biased research on it, and you still think that? Why isn't remdesivir being suppressed, then? Trump has also touted it. And what establishment? Because lots of other developed countries have cancelled their emergency authorizations for HCQ as well. Do they also have the same "establishment" that you see here? As a matter of fact the most convincing study of them all is not even American, but is rather British, from the National Health Service in association with the world-class experts of Oxford University.

 

Hey, I found a link to specific COVID-19 information about diseases that predispose to a severe case. They only looked at 5 diseases and excluded cancer given that the stats for cancer are more mixed (someone who just had one and is cured, or someone debilitated by one and its treatment). So, do notice that this is a gross UNDERestimation because cancer, after all, is the #1 cause of death in the US, but even WITHOUT cancer we have 92.6 million people at specific risk for severe COVID-19, and of these, 41.4 million are between the age of 18 to 64.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-cov...serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/

Again, this is still very underestimated because they only included heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), uncontrolled asthma, diabetes, or a BMI greater than 40.

They only went for morbid obesity, but BMI between 35 to 40 is also considered to be a high risk for severe COVID-19 (obesity is defined as BMI greater than 30).

They did not include many other diagnoses that can also land a COVID-19 patient in trouble, such as obstructive sleep apnea, renal disease (a baffling blunder of this article given that kidney disease is one of the worst risk factors for severe COVID-19), all the immunocompromised people due to their treatments for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and all other auto-immune diseases, people with transplanted organs, people with AIDS, etc. Add all the cancer patients and all these other diagnosis and your numbers will balloon even more.

But even if we were to just take these underestimated numbers, say, 92.6 million people, let's see what the Herd Immunity Threshold would represent for them.

See, now we need to switch to Case-Fatality Rate because these people tend to have severe illness; we should no longer look at IFR with the mild and asymptomatic cases. The CFR in the United Sates is about 3.1%. So, 3.1% of this - already greatly underestimated number of people due to the lack of cancer patients and other immunocompromised people and the 35-40 BMI obese - is 2,870,000 possible deaths.

That is VERY generous because the CFR of 3.1 still has a lot of mild cases.

So, even using VERY generous numbers that exclude a large number of diseases that are also risky, and uses a stat that does include mild cases, we still get to almost 3 million.

Come again, my numbers are inflated???

Again, please understand that these are not MY numbers. These are YOUR numbers. This worst-case scenario is what YOU are proposing. I'm merely showing to you the unintended consequences of YOUR approach.

MY numbers are much lower... because I do NOT want to recklessly and imprudently expose a huge chunk of the population to the virus, aiming for an elusive and catastrophic herd immunity. YOU are the one who want that.

Care to revise your plan for herd immunity? Does it still look like a good idea? Do you understand now why 214 countries did not adopt this idea? And hey, these other countries generally have a healthier population than ours, us being the #1 country in the world for obesity.

 

That is the American Way!

Vote Rapin' Joe/Horizontal Harris 2020