SaintInBucLand
Veteran Starter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2014
- Messages
- 2,385
- Reaction score
- 3,046
Offline
Didn't they run stories prior to this stating that it was not effective?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Didn't they run stories prior to this stating that it was not effective?
Hopefully Edwards comes out with another strong statement along the lines of "Let's try and be safe out there."
They did. No idea what to think. I'm thinking more testing needs to be done because there are enough side effects to worry about.
They did based on numerous, multinational double blind studies.Didn't they run stories prior to this stating that it was not effective?
So, the front page of the T.P./Advocate says that there is a shortage of COVID tests in New Orleans but I can't find that information anyplace else. And, the article that says that does not appear online. I'm curious what's up with that?
I saw somewhere they were reducing daily tests (per site) from 250 to 150 because of “supply chain problems”.
First, the headline is a bit misleading since in the first sentence of the article it says " But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed." And then goes on to say " It's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects. " And, they limited its use to patients with no cardiac issues. " "The combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin was reserved for selected patients with severe COVID-19 and with minimal cardiac risk factors," the team wrote.
So, while it can be helpful in some limited circumstances as another tool in the treating doctor's tool kit of drugs, it's not some savior or solution to the problem. It doesn't prevent Covid and it can only be used on specific patients and it only really helps if the patients are treated with it prior to having severe symptoms.
Second, many of the prior studies showed that it did not prevent getting the disease and that was what some claimed it would do early on in all this. As far as I recall, it was always thought that it might help as a treatment. The issue is that it has some bad side effects, heart issues specifically, that make its use highly questionable in regards to the treatment being worse than the disease.
But I'm sure SaintInBucLand will soon ask once again why they don't report the numbers of recovered more often? It's almost as if his posts have a consistent agenda and a drive-by posting nature.
Perhaps we could bomb the supply chains like the Ho Chi Minh Trail and eliminate the virus all together.I saw somewhere they were reducing daily tests (per site) from 250 to 150 because of “supply chain problems”.
What are y'all's opinions of face shields instead of masks. I'm seeing quite a few of them (mostly at one place in particular in Metaire, and they don't seem like they would be as effective as masks (either for the wearer or the rest of us), but people seem fine with them and I guess they meet the requirements of the mask mandate.
I keep picturing somebody with one good sneeze gobbing up their face shield and having to wipe it all off.
Yep, meant to post last night that Charleston's lead grew pretty substantially yesterday with 7 day rolling average increasing about 8% in one day.