Cont: The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

[Meadmaker]

FDA chief apologizes for overstating plasma effect on virus.



He seems to be saying that Trump may have been lying about the treatment being historic and a game changer.

Whodathunkit?

So, did anyone understand what he said?

In a different article, he said that the Mayo Clinic study cut deaths by 35%. What he apologized for was misquoting the study. He said the reduction was relative, but when he spoke, he implied that the reduction was absolute.

I'm not sure he meant relative to what or absolutely what, and of course none of the media sources gave the explanation of what the Mayo Clinic actually said.

Maybe if I google Mayo......will I get the story, or a sandwich?

 

[carlitos]

So he was over egging his case and you’re going to check at the Mayo?

 

[Stacyhs]

My sister sent for the My Pillow. She sent them back . They were just basically foam bits inside a pillow casing.

 

[varwoche]

Fixed it for you.

I have no idea if there is anything different about "MyPillow" compared to any other brand of Motel 6 quality pillow, but it is, indeed, just a brand of Motel 6 quality pillow...

 

[Minoosh]

My brother is conservative and angry about COVID-19. He was dropping off something at campus and called to let me know but then went into a mini-rant that incoming traffic was backed up as the security guard screened people and he was still in the street. He said, "These people are so ******* stupid" or something like that. So he's basically screaming abuse in my ear (he was dropping off a birthday cake and pizza). His anger seemed to be free-floating, but I'm hoping he realizes the campus is trying to save people's lives.

I directed to him to the person on campus who can clear him for a visit. I hope that calms him down and lets him see that kind people are doing their best to follow policies that are reasonable, while understanding that it's rough not being able to see your 95-year-old mother for 6 months. The "no visitors" rule can be got around if he has a valid caregiving function so I told him to say his mother's storage closet needs sorting out. He may have thought I was joking - nope, we could use the help!

It almost seems like he believes COVID-19 protections are being arbitrarily imposed on him, for malicious reasons. I hope he understands some day that wearing masks, sheltering at home and stepped-up testing and contact tracing were not political ploys by the radical left but sound public-health measures that have made a difference. The hostility ... isn't helpful. For starters it doesn't help him and I didn't need the birthday tirade either.

The campus has recorded 11 COVID-19 deaths, including 7 in the nursing home. I don't know how many of those people would have died soon anyway.

 

[Minoosh]

So he was over egging his case and you’re going to check at the Mayo?

Is this some kind of yolk?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, did anyone understand what he said?

In a different article, he said that the Mayo Clinic study cut deaths by 35%. What he apologized for was misquoting the study. He said the reduction was relative, but when he spoke, he implied that the reduction was absolute.

I'm not sure he meant relative to what or absolutely what, and of course none of the media sources gave the explanation of what the Mayo Clinic actually said.

Maybe if I google Mayo......will I get the story, or a sandwich?

I was under the impression the deaths were cut in people who were treated when they were first diagnosed. If you used it to treat someone on a ventilator in the ICU the results were much less promising.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Are Trump-fans aware that he just asked Americans to literally give their blood to others?

We are at the actual stage where large numbers of people for the foreseeable future have selling their plasma as the only income.

 

[Armitage72]

Good news everyone! The CDC guidelines now say that you don't need to be tested if you're exposed to the virus.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed its Covid-19 testing guidelines. The agency no longer recommends testing for most people without symptoms, even if they've been in close contact with someone known to have the virus.

Here's what the CDC website said previously: "Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested."

The CDC changed the site on Monday. Here's what it says now: "If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms, you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one."

We only have more cases because we do more testing. If we stop testing, the new cases will disappear.

 

[Giordano]

So, did anyone understand what he said?

In a different article, he said that the Mayo Clinic study cut deaths by 35%. What he apologized for was misquoting the study. He said the reduction was relative, but when he spoke, he implied that the reduction was absolute.

I'm not sure he meant relative to what or absolutely what, and of course none of the media sources gave the explanation of what the Mayo Clinic actually said.

Maybe if I google Mayo......will I get the story, or a sandwich?

Imagine a trial where 20 out of 100 untreated people die whereas 10 out of 100 treated people die. The relative reduction was 50% but the absolute reduction was 10%.

 

[Meadmaker]

Imagine a trial where 20 out of 100 untreated people die whereas 10 out of 100 treated people die. The relative reduction was 50% but the absolute reduction was 10%.

And that's what puzzled me. He said the reduction was 35%, and in his apology he said that he had previously implied that the 35% was an absolute number, rather than a relative number.

I of course did not think it was an absolute number even when I heard it the first time. You can't have an absolute reduction of 35% in deaths when only 1% of the people die. It could only be a relative reduction.

What disturbs me here is that the story goes like this:

Trump says, "Awesome news! Great treatment! Yay, me!" (Or words to that effect.) During the announcement, the FDA head says something that could be taken incorrectly.

The next day, FDA guy says, "This is what I meant. Sorry for saying the other thing yesterday." (Even though, really, it was still fairly obvious what he meant when he said it.)

The press reports: "That stuff Trump talked about yesteday doesnt really work, and scientists are really mad at him and his buddy at FDA!"

Trying to read through the politics, it sounds to me like this is a really good treatment that produces good results. It's not some sort of miracle cure, because most of the people who would have died will die anyway, but a significant fraction will not. Also, there's not a whole lot of available plasma, so it's not like everyone can be treated with this technique. So, no panacea, but still some good news.

That's not what I'm getting from the media headlines.

 

[Darat]

I very rarely do this but there is an excellent radio programme in the UK called "More or less" and it is all about the numbers and stats we see thrown about especially by governments and the media. They had an (yet again) excellent programme today and it was all about the blood plasma treatment. If you want to understand what the actual stats say (you may be very surprised) and what the study means invest the 30 minutes in listening to it. (The blood plasma section is the first about 10 minutes.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lzgy

 

[Trebuchet]

Good news everyone! The CDC guidelines now say that you don't need to be tested if you're exposed to the virus.




We only have more cases because we do more testing. If we stop testing, the new cases will disappear.

Any explanations of why they made this change would be far more believable if Trump hadn't been ranting for months about too much testing.

 

[Armitage72]

Any explanations of why they made this change would be far more believable if Trump hadn't been ranting for months about too much testing.

This was just posted on CNN a half hour ago.

CDC was pressured 'from the top down' to change coronavirus testing guidance, official says

A sudden change in federal guidelines on coronavirus testing came this week as a result of pressure from the upper ranks of the Trump administration, a federal health official close to the process tells CNN.
"It's coming from the top down," the official said of the new directive from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This was just posted on CNN a half hour ago.



CDC was pressured 'from the top down' to change coronavirus testing guidance, official says

The issue itself is alarming, certainly.

But I often find myself wondering what "pressure" even means.

Like someone is getting browbeaten and they cave in because they don't like all the hostile, expletive-laden phone calls?

Their job is threatened and so they decide to cooperate with willfully misinforming the American public about what the truth is?

Sure, the ones doing the pressuring are in the wrong.

At the same time, I don't have much sympathy for spineless cowardice and self-dealing followed by whining about how they were "pressured" to do so. It is just some public-facing self flaggelation after the fact.

It does nothing to address the problem they participated in making, but they also get to bask in the victim spotlight.

 

[Sherkeu]

Trying to read through the politics, it sounds to me like this is a really good treatment that produces good results. It's not some sort of miracle cure, because most of the people who would have died will die anyway, but a significant fraction will not. Also, there's not a whole lot of available plasma, so it's not like everyone can be treated with this technique. So, no panacea, but still some good news.

That's not what I'm getting from the media headlines.

And no one, to my knowledge, has mentioned that this type of treatment isn't something "Big Pharma" benefits from when there is this huge expensive race for the first approvals. This is a 100yr old treatment from blood plasma. Like cannabis, vitamins, or exercise. No patent, no profit.

I'd question the voices against it when there has been no adverse affects reported, only improvements (even among most of those who eventually die)

 

[carlitos]

And no one, to my knowledge, has mentioned that this type of treatment isn't something "Big Pharma" benefits from when there is this huge expensive race for the first approvals. This is a 100yr old treatment from blood plasma. Like cannabis, vitamins, or exercise. No patent, no profit.

I'd question the voices against it when there has been no adverse affects reported, only improvements (even among most of those who eventually die)

Can you please say more directly what you're trying to say here?

 

[Sherkeu]

Can you please say more directly what you're trying to say here?

I guess it is just my observation after seeing the reaction to the previous 'drug' therapies touted by the WH.

Some journalists/bloggers were bent on saying that there was money changing hands with Big Pharma because there was money to be made. ie "This guy has stocks in that company!"

But this treatment has no big money in it. It is more of a natural treatment.
The Red Cross might like it well enough though.

I tend to think that anything the the Administration says has an automatic response of "WRONG!" in some media outlets, no matter what it is.
Like Meadmaker, I just want to know if something works or not. This one looks like it works well if given early (and each day earlier it is given improves the efficacy)

What do you think?

 

[Meadmaker]

I very rarely do this but there is an excellent radio programme in the UK called "More or less" and it is all about the numbers and stats we see thrown about especially by governments and the media. They had an (yet again) excellent programme today and it was all about the blood plasma treatment. If you want to understand what the actual stats say (you may be very surprised) and what the study means invest the 30 minutes in listening to it. (The blood plasma section is the first about 10 minutes.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lzgy

Thanks. Very informative, and not cluttered with politics. (Although, I did love the announcer's tone of voice at the beginning. He had such a wonderfully British way of indicating contempt for Donald Trump without actually saying anything negative.)

When it comes to the 35% number, that was what I assumed had been meant all along, but listening to Dr. Hearn's (sp?) words, I can see why people would not understood him.

 

[Darat]

And no one, to my knowledge, has mentioned that this type of treatment isn't something "Big Pharma" benefits from when there is this huge expensive race for the first approvals. This is a 100yr old treatment from blood plasma. Like cannabis, vitamins, or exercise. No patent, no profit.



I'd question the voices against it when there has been no adverse affects reported, only improvements (even among most of those who eventually die)

Listen to the programme I linked, you'll find the actual figures and the actual strength of the non random, non controlled, and not peer reviewed paper...