RedDenver
New member
There's really big difference between scientists disagreeing and clinical trial data.
Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?
- Thread starter BIG ERN
- Start date
Nebfanatic
New member
The scientists that promote HCQ also tend to promote crazy ideas like using alien DNA to cure disease. Not all scientists are created equal.
Huskers93-97
New member
This looks like a sample of trial data to me? If anything I think we can agree on something. (Why can no one agree on anything with Covid)?
These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.
Dr. Strangelove
New member
Tell me HCQ does not stand for hydrochlorquine or hydroxychloroquine. I realize that linking scientific studies is a waste of time, but im going against my instincts on this one:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
There's really not that much disagreement among scientists. Scientists are a lot more comfortable than politicians and the public when discussing uncertainties. We ask them for definitive answers but they typically want to know more before declaring anything as fact. We could all benefit from a peer review process, but we're incredibly impatient as a rule.
A Tea Party organization recently launched a group of front-line healthcare workers to promote hydroxychloroquine as both treatment and cure. The political motives are much clearer than the results -- the narrative is to go back in time and support Trump's early endorsement of hydroxychloroquine, blame the media for not reporting the success of hydroxychloroquine (only Breitbart covered their presser on the Capitol steps) and literally state that hydroxychloroquine and zinc eliminate the need for wearing masks.
The medical establishment never said hydroxychloroquine wasn't worth pursuing: they knew all about it from malaria treatments. By the time Trump spoke they'd had the first run of tests and found the results to be either unsuccessful or inconclusive, but kept hydroxychloroquine in the mix. Trump took that tiny glimmer and ran with it. Most folks in the medical community thought it was irresponsible for the President to endorse it as a cure to a frightened nation. That's not a conspiracy against Trump, but it does reveal why scientists would prefer he shut up about all the things he knows nothing about.
A Tea Party organization recently launched a group of front-line healthcare workers to promote hydroxychloroquine as both treatment and cure. The political motives are much clearer than the results -- the narrative is to go back in time and support Trump's early endorsement of hydroxychloroquine, blame the media for not reporting the success of hydroxychloroquine (only Breitbart covered their presser on the Capitol steps) and literally state that hydroxychloroquine and zinc eliminate the need for wearing masks.
The medical establishment never said hydroxychloroquine wasn't worth pursuing: they knew all about it from malaria treatments. By the time Trump spoke they'd had the first run of tests and found the results to be either unsuccessful or inconclusive, but kept hydroxychloroquine in the mix. Trump took that tiny glimmer and ran with it. Most folks in the medical community thought it was irresponsible for the President to endorse it as a cure to a frightened nation. That's not a conspiracy against Trump, but it does reveal why scientists would prefer he shut up about all the things he knows nothing about.
RedDenver
New member
That is from an opinion piece by a doctor, not a trial or even a paper. He provides no links to any of the trials he's claiming support his conclusions. The only paper he gives a reference to is his own paper from May 27.
What really undercuts his case though is the anecdotes he uses to draw conclusions from, which is exactly why clinical trials have strict controls and methodology - to prevent the exact cherrypicking of data to draw conclusions that doctor then does throughout the rest of the article. He doesn't point to any clinical trials because every clinical trial conducted so far contradicts his conclusion.
Branno
Donor
What are the actual risks? Death is an actual risk to ~1% of those that catch the virus. Serious ongoing impaired health to some number of those infected is an actual risk. Literally the longer this goes on, and the more we learn about the health risks outside of death, the more we understand that this isn't just some bad case of the flu. One study shows 78% of recovered patients show ongoing heart issues. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916
So your argument is that because small portions of the US sometimes voluntarily choose to take medication that might have negative health impacts we should just stop caring about a virus that continues to spread in which those that are infected have no choice? This is absurd.
If everyone listened to you we'd end up with 3.8 million people dead in the US alone with millions more suffering from ongoing heart/lung/psychiatric conditions. 1% doesn't sound like a lot until you do the math does it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hilltop
New member
We would reach herd immunity long before that happened... and your math is bad. 1% is only 3.28 million.
In all seriousness, do any of you guys personally know someone who has had the virus that has some of the long term effects discussed? I now know more than 20 people who have had it now. It wasn't easy for some of them but all but one say they feel completely normal now. The one that doesn't lost his sense of taste/smell. It has just started to return 4 weeks after being diagnosed. That was his only symptom.
I do think it's serious even if it ONLY kills the .3% of people that my math comes up with. It sucks that we as a society are going through this. That said, I think it's crazy to not take all the information into account. This doesn't impact kids the same way it does older adults. Our kids can go to school and play sports. Yes, they may have to quarantine for a while before they go visit family but that beats the heck out of not living their school/college lives for a year or two.
kansas45
New member
You noted: I think it's crazy to not take all the information into account. You have ALL the information you need. And you made the solemn pledge that "student-athlete health and safety is paramount."
You have to make a decision here and each of these levels are different with these three things: students, student-athletes, finances, liability, media, brand, fans, faculty, staff, parents and ethics. Your decision must accompany all of these things and be taken into consideration. Please be specific. Do not weasel out of this by saying "I am not in this position." I just put you in these positions and you have to make a decision and tell us your plan of action.
1. You are the President of the University of Nebraska system. What is your decision and what do you do?
2. You are the Superintendent of Schools in an area where there is an unusually high number of covid? What is your decision and what do you do?
3. You are Bill Moos. What is your decision and what do you do?
4. You are Scott Frost. What is your decision and what do you do?
5. You are the parent of a football playing student-athlete at Nebraska who has a chance at a pro-career. What is your decision and what do you do?
6. Your other child is a high school senior, not playing athletics. What is your decision and what do you do?
Hilltop
New member
1- I follow the local health directives in place at the time. I absolutely open school if it's allowed.
2- I follow the local health directives in place at the time. I absolutely open school if it's allowed.
3- I follow the directives of the B1G, NCAA, and local health directives in place at the time.
4- What my boss tells me to do.
5- I tell them they are an adult and it's their decision. Exactly what I told my son yesterday.
6- I send them to school if it's open.
You are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools.html
2- I follow the local health directives in place at the time. I absolutely open school if it's allowed.
3- I follow the directives of the B1G, NCAA, and local health directives in place at the time.
4- What my boss tells me to do.
5- I tell them they are an adult and it's their decision. Exactly what I told my son yesterday.
6- I send them to school if it's open.
You are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools.html
Enhance
Administrator
I don't mean to be bombastic or generate a gross over-simplification, but I'm going to do that a bit anyways:
Why are people critical of the 1% projected death rate? Yes, we're probably not going to have 3.28 million people die from it this year, but even the ~150k we have dead right now is disappointing.
What if we had been told that we could have a college football season in 2020, but one Husker player had to die? Or, 1% of college football athletes had to die? Would people be so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about it all then?
I get that this isn't like heart disease or the flu, but it's something that SCIENCE is trying to guide us on... and we have a lot of people right now just saying 'meh... science schmience.'
Why are people critical of the 1% projected death rate? Yes, we're probably not going to have 3.28 million people die from it this year, but even the ~150k we have dead right now is disappointing.
What if we had been told that we could have a college football season in 2020, but one Husker player had to die? Or, 1% of college football athletes had to die? Would people be so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about it all then?
I get that this isn't like heart disease or the flu, but it's something that SCIENCE is trying to guide us on... and we have a lot of people right now just saying 'meh... science schmience.'
knapplc
Active member
Sadly, there is a significant portion of the population so selfish they are willing to risk someone else's life so they can have football.
i suppose this is the only one of the many studies done showing adverse results?
nothing positive out there on this drug....sigh
still many health care workers using. this as a preventative, they must be crazy.