Originally Posted by MamaHidesCookie

And - if you say - I take you down with me - I still contend the human race will be better off because of it...

Originally Posted by WutFace

3 million confirmed cases.
30 million probable cases.

260 million to achieve herd immunity.
"very close to herd immunity" -Mesabah

Just 230 million cases more to go. You're ridiculously uninformed.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

Not even close.

• Heart disease: 647,457
• Cancer: 599,108
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
• Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
• Diabetes: 83,564
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,633
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173

Worst outcome? Our COVID 19 death rate is 410 per million. Most of Europe is higher. Others will be when their stats catch up to reality.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

That's based on the assumption that the entire population can even contract Covid, Sweden is scientific proof otherwise. The genetic testing studies coming out on this virus are very interesting.

Originally Posted by WutFace

Oh do go on... I've got my bucket full of popcorn and hydroxychloroquine ready.

I wanna hear every crazy thing you have to say. Sources too.

Originally Posted by MamaHidesCookie

And - if you say - I take you down with me - I still contend the human race will be better off because of it...

Originally Posted by Excargodog

One needn’t get so partisan about a response to this. Ultimately the science either WILL or WILL NOT hold up.

and there is at least some theoretical support for the idea. Early on, due to theoretical concerns over the effect of glucocorticoids in suppressing the immune response, the medical community debated taking asthmatics many of whom are on regular maintenance inhaled glucocorticoids off those medications. The initial quick look was that - no, those on inhaled corticosteroids did NOT seem to be at particularly higher risk despite their underlying comorbidity AND the use of the inhaled steroids - but rather under somewhat lower risk.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236828/

other scientific articles also indicate that the possible therapeutic use of inhaled corticosteroids is certainly in the medical mainstream:



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270536/


The issue is that both these articles were published about six weeks ago and it takes time for ideas to percolate and prospective studies to be set up and more time still for the data to accumulate to get the statistical power to sort out fact from fiction.

I personally doubt this is going to be any ‘silver bullet’ but it certainly does have the potential to be helpful IF THE STUDIES DEMONSTRATE THAT. But that’s going to take time to sort out.

But to dismiss this out of hand is every bit as ‘cultish’ as to accept it unquestioningly. We all have ideas we cling to (The Miata is NOT a sports car and the Packers are my favorite NFL team) but rooting for or against a scientific theory because of the assumed political beliefs of those promulgating it is as crazy as it gets.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

One needn’t get so partisan about a response to this. Ultimately the science either WILL or WILL NOT hold up.

and there is at least some theoretical support for the idea. Early on, due to theoretical concerns over the effect of glucocorticoids in suppressing the immune response, the medical community debated taking asthmatics many of whom are on regular maintenance inhaled glucocorticoids off those medications. The initial quick look was that - no, those on inhaled corticosteroids did NOT seem to be at particularly higher risk despite their underlying comorbidity AND the use of the inhaled steroids - but rather under somewhat lower risk.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236828/

other scientific articles also indicate that the possible therapeutic use of inhaled corticosteroids is certainly in the medical mainstream:



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270536/


The issue is that both these articles were published about six weeks ago and it takes time for ideas to percolate and prospective studies to be set up and more time still for the data to accumulate to get the statistical power to sort out fact from fiction.

I personally doubt this is going to be any ‘silver bullet’ but it certainly does have the potential to be helpful IF THE STUDIES DEMONSTRATE THAT. But that’s going to take time to sort out.

But to dismiss this out of hand is every bit as ‘cultish’ as to accept it unquestioningly. We all have ideas we cling to (The Miata is NOT a sports car and the Packers are my favorite NFL team) but rooting for or against a scientific theory because of the assumed political beliefs of those promulgating it is as crazy as it gets.

Originally Posted by velosnow

It isn't partisan. I'm just tired of things like...

"Watch this banned video!"

"MSM panic porn!"

"Fauci is part of the deep state!"

Et al.

The original video posted is just another internet talk show with zero standing. Some of her videos even have a disclaimer at the beginning stating "The views and opinions expressed on this show are not necessarily those of real news communications network or real news PR". What am I supposed to do with that exactly? Writing off the CDC and WHO in place of lone doctors and internet talk show hosts with a clear bias isn't my jam.

Now, the actual research links posted are fine and I'm all about looking at the options out there to assist battling this bug. But they aren't proven cures or especially being suppressed via some dumb conspiracy. That is what I have a problem with.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

In fairness, it has been a rough year and we are all getting a little frazzled. But we need to TRY not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Be safe, take care, and realize this too will pass.

eventually.


I hope.