GV9's picture


MEMBER SINCE   November 25, 2012

Recent Activity

Comment 13 Aug 2020

Screw Kevin Warren!   He's the one who flashed the public doubt that the frightened presidents then used to weasel out.  A bunch of cowards who were looking for the easiest, safest path. Or maybe they put him up to it in which case he should've declined.  Profiles in courage? Any of them? Nope: "Let's just shut it all down" without even taking into account what the athletes wanted, yet USE the athletes as their excuse for taking the easy out.  I'm going to be pissed about this for a long, long time.   

Comment 11 Aug 2020

I've been saying this almost from the start but we're quarantining the wrong people.  Quarantine and thus protect the elderly and unhealthy.  This virus seeks out the elderly and unhealthy, and attacks.  Healthy people don't have a lot to fear from Covid despite media reports seizing upon every single exception to this rule and making big headlines out of those rare exceptions.  The vast majority of healthy people have little to fear from Covid; Stop Quarantining The Healthy!  Quarantine and Protect the elderly and unhealthy.  That's a lot of people, yes, but not nearly so many as the population of healthy people who need to carry on with life at some point.  That point is fast approaching b/c shutting down healthy, normal life, has a lot of seriously negative consequences too.   

Comment 10 Aug 2020

I don't think it was a trial balloon.  They were ready to cancel, but they didn't count on so much passion from the players themselves FOR a season to be played.  To disregard that strong athlete opinion would be elitist and disconnected to them, and they're smart enough to understand how bad that looks.   There's no need to rush.  Delay things some more if need be but try every angle to get some semblance of a season in or it just comes off as rushing a decision that doesn't need to be rushed.  That's my take anyway. 

Comment 25 May 2020

You should add a new forum topic discussion on this question. 

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.  It's true that Sweden's death rate from Covid today is higher than its more locked-down Scandanavian neighbors like Norway, Denmark, and Finland.  But it's still much lower than many other European countries that resorted to lock-downs such as Italy, Spain, England, France, and others. 

The one big failure made in Sweden, which even advocates of their approach woud concede, was that they failed to protect their elderly in nursing homes.  That failure accounts for a huge proportion of their fatalities.  However, it's not like Sweden was the only country that failed to protect their elderly.  That same tragedy unfolded across Europe, and here in America too.  

I think it's too early to say whether the Swedish model was better or worse.  If a safe & effective vaccine comes available by the end of this year, widely distributed, then it was probably better to lock down and save lives in the short term.  If a vaccine does not come in time then maybe Sweden just took their hit early and will be safer sooner through herd immunity than other countries which perhaps just spread the deaths out over a longer trajectory and will end up with as many or more dead than Sweden. 

We should know the answer by next Memorial Day, 2021.   

Here's an interesting take I found on Sweden's approach:  https://catalyst.independent.org/2020/05/15/sweden-covid-19-strategy-reopening/  

Comment 25 May 2020

That's true on the IV delivery Sani.  Also true that it's presently in short supply.  But there's good news also.  The study showed that a 5-day course is as effective as a 10-day course which means of course that it will go twice as far once it comes more fully available.  Also, production is in full gear now.  Assuming there's not some big 2nd wave there *should* be enough to around.  Also, the IV delivery will eventually be available in outpatient settings.  An easy pill form would be best, yes, but this is what we've got right now and it's a lot better than nothing.  

Also, more details have been released on that large study that showed efficacy for remdesivir.  Researchers are confident that the drug will prove even more effective in mild to moderate cases than it did for the severe cases that were in this study.  With expanded testing now in place, and more coming, it should be possible to catch most cases early and treat them effectively with this drug.  More studies coming but it is very promising.  Here's the latest on Bio Pharma Dive:   https://www.biopharmadive.com/   Have a good Memorial Day!  

Comment 24 May 2020

"These doctors were not silenced for questioning the lockdown. They did pass along misinformation, which was refuted by other doctors even from the same and neighboring counties, as well as nationally." 

Well, YouTube disagrees with you about that.  Their statement reads: "“We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance," said the statement. "

One could argue that "lockdown" is not explicitly cited, but they do explicitly cite disputing "social distance" and "...authority recommended guidance..." as reason(s) for removing the video.   

"Also, in the video above you notice that they have backed off their certainty about how their results translate to everyone, and now the doctor is downplaying how much his results translate to the rest of the country. If that was not his intent in the first interview, then he and his partner did a horrible job conveying their point." 

Okay, so this goes directly to what I was upset about to begin with regarding this video and its removal.  So, did I notice that they backed off their certainty about x, y, and z, you ask?   No, I didn't notice that because the video was removed and apparently I am not allowed to view it and decide for myself.  No, YouTube has decided for me. Verboten!  I was curious about that original video so I did a Google search and saw a bunch of stacked links, all with titles like "Dubious video removed for making false claims about Covid-19," and so forth.  The whole search page read out like that, most of them with that exact wording, "Dubious Video." this "Dubious Video" that.  I try to keep an open mind about things and that search readout looked like it was tailored and steered just to sites trying to discredit the doctor and video in question.  That made me mad so I stopped looking.  If someone has a link to the uninterrupted, unedited original video, I'll be glad to have a look with an open mind.  

There's more to reply to in your well-organized, articulate post but it will have to wait until later today. 

Comment 24 May 2020

Now watched.  To me, the surprising statement Dr. Erickson makes is toward the end when he says "An asymptomatic person is a healthy person."  That goes right to the whole question I posed when starting this topic.  Could he be right about that?  I don't know.  Maybe he means that you're only sick with Covid if you come down with more serious symptoms.  If you get exposed enough to register a positive on a test but you feel fine and your body's immune system fights it off before you get symptoms, are you really sick and a potential virus spreader, or are you healthy and non-spreading?   It's an important question.

Comment 24 May 2020

It's really not murky or nefarious at all.  The doctor thinks that the Swedish model of getting past CV19 through herd immunity is a better path than the one the U.S. and California is on. Since California's policy is/was especially stringent, and that's where the doctor lives and works, that's where he takes up his disagreement. He also believes that such lock down policies, and the severe social and economic pressures they entail, bring their own serious negative health consequences. 

Comment 24 May 2020

More to the point, why did YouTube remove that video?  Here is what they said:  "“We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance," said the statement. "However, content that provides sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic (EDSA) context is allowed -- for example, news coverage of this interview with additional context. From the very beginning of the pandemic, we’ve had clear policies against COVID-19 misinformation and are committed to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.” 

So that's it; the doctor shown (Dr. Erickson) questioned the need for Shelter In Place and Social Distance.  He wasn't saying that people should not do those things, he was just questioning it. And that's because he thinks something like the Swedish model of moving toward herd immunity would bring better results and avoid economic collapse (which has its own major health consequences, some of which he lists).  No Conspiracy theories, no wacky medical theories or quack cures, no calls for defying the sheltering policy.  Actually nothing weird or wacky or irrational, or seditious, or dangerous at all.  He simply disagrees with the policies in place in California, and says so with some good arguments made.  

Let's be honest, the reason it was taken down is because it disagreed with State policy and was striking a chord with people, getting millions of views.  

Comment 24 May 2020

Sort of related to all that, I was in Walmart the other day.  Masking was maybe 50/50, less than I expected.  I did have a mask on even though I don't like them.  Well, I went to check out and was taken aback when I saw the cashier.  She was the oldest looking lady I've ever seen doing cashier work and I've seen a lot of cashiers in my days.  She was probably in her 80's, no exaggeration.  She was masked but it was hanging down just below her nose, probably b/c it was easier for her to breathe that way.  I wanted to tell her to please go home and don't work again until the pandemic was over.  I hope she wasn't there workinig because she needed the money, but who knows?   So dangerous for an elderly person like that working retail at Walmart of all places during a pandemic.  I hope she comes through it safely.  

Comment 23 May 2020

Regarding my MIL, I'm hoping that the advancements with antiviral, antibody, and other treatments will make things safe enough so that we won't have to worry come fall.  I actually think it will be okay by then.  Most everyone is weighing dangers from CV based on what the situation is like now.  Now is better than a few weeks ago.  A few weeks from now will probably be better than now, and a couple of months from now will likely be MUCH better than now.  Is that wishful thinking?  No.  Is that hopeful thinking, Yes, in part.  For me it's actually realistic thinking.  As I wrote in my other post, there's already an antiviral in mass production now (remdesivir) that shows clear activity blocking CV and there are so many other efforts being made by determined, brilliant scientists to defeat this virus.  Yeah, it's heartening.  So I am less concerned about CV and MIL getting it in the fall, yes. 

Comment 23 May 2020

Hi Sani, I'll start with the last thing you wrote first.  The antiviral drug remesivir, as Fauci stated, showed clear activity against CV.  The effect, from the study, was to shorten the duration of disease and hospital stays, as you say.  But the implication is actually much more promising.  Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commisioner, said about the results, that Remdesivir is thought to be most effective before the virus establishes itself and the illness becomes severe. Yet the study that was done was with severe cases.  There are more studies coming and they will be with mild to moderate cases.  The results will likely be even better.  One large upcoming trial will also pair remdesivir with an anti-inflammatory versus remdesivir alone.  The pairing promises even better results because the anti-inflammatory will keep the system calm while the antiviral blocks further infection.  The drug combo approach was what finally allowed for effective treatment of hiv/aids and it promises to do the same for CV. We'll see, probably by July or August  The pharma industry news site STAT is a great source of info for the latest news about such trials.