-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
He keeps contradicting himsself tho: Coronavirus US: Trump shakes hands repeatedly at conference | Daily Mail Online
Yeah, not a great look. One of the last corp. executives, when Trump extended his hand to him, actually did an elbow bump instead. It surprised Trump, of course, but Trump said "good idea" or something to that effect.
Yeah I saw that.
The corporate guy is like, "I'm not getting it foo."
I've got to believe that 45 has gotten tested already if not regularly.
He's way too cocky & the optics wouldn't look good (& we all know it's about the Trump brand to his base) if he did get tested while thousands can't get tested.
Going back a week or two - when Trump had a televised meeting with Dr. Fauci and a number of people from companies working to develop vaccines for coronavirus, a number of them when pressed replied they thought their new vaccines could be ready in some number of months. Immediately the top experts asserted that an effective vaccine would not be ready for a year to 18 months and explained that is the amount of time needed for clinical testing, safety reviews, etc.
Does anyone believe that this expert correction wasn't in whole or part motivated by not wanting the administration and public to reject the necessary measures needed right now because they think a vaccine will arrive to save the day in just a few months?
Saying it will be 18 months before a vaccine is ready is of course the responsible thing for those experts to say at this stage.
However will that still be the best thing to stick with in another few weeks when millions are temporarily unemployed and the level of urgency is where it should be - or beyond?
Some number of advanced vaccine companies have said they already have what they believe will be an effective vaccine and are beginning first stage clinical trials. I have to believe that these will include trials with subjects 65 and older. If the current measures don't stop the rapid spread of coronavirus and U.S. starts seeing hundreds and then thousands of deaths - mostly among seniors, are the authorities really going to hold off on approving one or more of the developed vaccines until every normal T is crossed and i dotted?
Wouldn't they decide that being 99.9% certain the vaccines cause no harm is good enough given the circumstances rather than testing for another year to reach 99.9999% ? The strategy then would be to vaccinate the groups at very highest risk as rapidly as possible followed by those at lower but still significant risk.
I'm sure others will see holes in this reasoning and I'm curious to hear them.
Does anyone believe that this expert correction wasn't in whole or part motivated by not wanting the administration and public to reject the necessary measures needed right now because they think a vaccine will arrive to save the day in just a few months?
Saying it will be 18 months before a vaccine is ready is of course the responsible thing for those experts to say at this stage.
However will that still be the best thing to stick with in another few weeks when millions are temporarily unemployed and the level of urgency is where it should be - or beyond?
Some number of advanced vaccine companies have said they already have what they believe will be an effective vaccine and are beginning first stage clinical trials. I have to believe that these will include trials with subjects 65 and older. If the current measures don't stop the rapid spread of coronavirus and U.S. starts seeing hundreds and then thousands of deaths - mostly among seniors, are the authorities really going to hold off on approving one or more of the developed vaccines until every normal T is crossed and i dotted?
Wouldn't they decide that being 99.9% certain the vaccines cause no harm is good enough given the circumstances rather than testing for another year to reach 99.9999% ? The strategy then would be to vaccinate the groups at very highest risk as rapidly as possible followed by those at lower but still significant risk.
I'm sure others will see holes in this reasoning and I'm curious to hear them.
Our health officials just announced new policy about testing. This is Finland.
- if you're health otherwise is ok, they only test over 70 year-olds
- outside that group, only test those that are already hospitalised, or that need to be hospitalised
- test people who work in hospitals, health centers etc
- test those coming from high risk areas, such as italy
- if you're health otherwise is ok, they only test over 70 year-olds
- outside that group, only test those that are already hospitalised, or that need to be hospitalised
- test people who work in hospitals, health centers etc
- test those coming from high risk areas, such as italy
Saw this LA Times article in Apple News this morning. Hope the link works for people.
They survived the coronavirus. Then they tested positive again. Why? — Los Angeles Times
the caption is “They survived the Coronavirus. Then they tested positive for it again. Why?” By Alice Su. 3/13/20.
I have seen several mentions from different country’s stories in my past reading where people have tested negative (usually do 2 tests before release) and they too then came up positive in the week or so after release. As the article above reports these people have later then died as it came back worse. This is very alarming on many fronts (false testing, new virus behavior?, etc) and as the article points out maybe there are several reasons for it but it has not been something that has happened before if you get over a virus. You have had some immunity to it, which is also why the UK plan to infect young people (mentioned up thread on here) is dangerous and playing with the unknown.
They survived the coronavirus. Then they tested positive again. Why? — Los Angeles Times
the caption is “They survived the Coronavirus. Then they tested positive for it again. Why?” By Alice Su. 3/13/20.
I have seen several mentions from different country’s stories in my past reading where people have tested negative (usually do 2 tests before release) and they too then came up positive in the week or so after release. As the article above reports these people have later then died as it came back worse. This is very alarming on many fronts (false testing, new virus behavior?, etc) and as the article points out maybe there are several reasons for it but it has not been something that has happened before if you get over a virus. You have had some immunity to it, which is also why the UK plan to infect young people (mentioned up thread on here) is dangerous and playing with the unknown.
BTW didn’t the CDC’s budget get cut in the last few years when people had already started saying that after SARS etc a pandemic was ripe for happening with global travel etc.? The fact that testing for the corona-type viruses hasn’t had sufficient funding has set us back in treating it no doubt. The undersupply of medical equipment etc for a country our size is also problematic. And let’s face it hospitals from what I’ve seen and read have been shutting down and or consolidating. Our own SF Bay area has seen this happen so well aware of it locally.
Last edited:
upkerry14
Member
Video of a Santa Clara County health official:
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DelightfulUnhappyAracari-mobile.mp4
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DelightfulUnhappyAracari-mobile.mp4
I saw that 18 month comment also.
IMO, we have to deal with realities & professional estimates. I don't believe it is a FDA red tape situation here.
99.9% maybe good enough for government work but ineffective results right now is a life or death situation.
Giving any false hope or worse no hope if trials don't produce anything is a worse scenario or people die even after being given the 99.9% vacination.
Do we really want Lysol results with this germ?
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
This has been addressed 3 times in this thread already. The portion of the CDC budget responsible for outbreaks has been relatively constant, both during the Obama and Trump administrations. It's the "Global Health Security" line item on the CDC budget (much of what the CDC does is actually not directly related to outbreaks like this one).
Military basic training? Lots of young healthier folks.
And then move all old and vulnerable people into Area 51.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
If you care about federal response, you should probably subscribe to the white house YouTube channel. There is a press conference going on right now.
among other things said: free testing. Domestic flight restrictions probbely coming soon. Uk flight restrictions coming soon.
among other things said: free testing. Domestic flight restrictions probbely coming soon. Uk flight restrictions coming soon.
Sounds like cutting the CDC’s budget (was being proposed as recently as this past week or so?) has affected overall response to the areas of the country though if local labs lose funding. This approach to turn things over to individual medical/health companies to handle things while it may “boost” corporate growth is not something I see as wise from an overall systematic approach to disease response and control. Too many hands in the pot and no good overall direction or quality check or I suspect communication. There are times when you want strong Government programs in place and I think this right now is an example. Article on CDC head speaking to Congress a few days ago on effect of budget cuts:
Coronavirus response hurt by lack of funding for public health labs, CDC director tells Congress
This guy doesn’t have a job anymore, but he was former GOP governor of KY. He’s literally practicing social distancing now. I’m concerned there’s many more ignorant people just like him in ‘Murica.
Matt Bevin on Twitter
Matt Bevin on Twitter
Similar threads
