Follow-up on the Manchester Guardian article:
The U.S. government's National Institutes of Health launched an official clinical trial of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ, a medication President Trump has touted as a possible "game changer" in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.
The NIH's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) announced Thursday that the first patients had been enrolled at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville in a trial to assess the drug's safety and efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
The statement did not say how many patients there had been given the drug. It did say the goal of the blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to "enroll more than 500 adults who are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department with anticipated hospitalization," across "dozens" of centers that form a drug trials network across the U.S. That network is known as the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Clinical Trials Network
"All participants in the study will continue to receive clinical care as indicated for their condition. Those randomized to the experimental intervention will also receive hydroxychloroquine," the statement said.
"Many U.S. hospitals are currently using hydroxychloroquine as first-line therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 despite extremely limited clinical data supporting its effectiveness," said lead researcher for the trial, Dr. Wesley Self of Vanderbilt University Medical Center. "Thus, data on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 are urgently needed to inform clinical practice."
President Trump's assertive backing of the drug as a COVD-19 treatment before any clinical evidence was available to prove it safe and effective for that use put him at odds with his own senior medical experts.
"Preliminary reports suggest potential efficacy in small studies with patients," NHLBI Division of Lung Diseases Director James P. Kiley said alongside Thursday's announcement.
"However, we really need clinical trial data to determine whether hydroxychloroquine is effective and safe in treating COVID-19."
© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
We are now at the point of the predicted peaking of the virus. Within a week or so, we will learn whether the prediction is accurate. Then the next big drama will be the decision to end the lockdowns, let people return to work, and open up the economy.
The President intends to end the lockdowns 20 days from now, and let people resume work, but others, such as Dr. Fauci, seem to be expecting the shutdown to continue for as long as 540 days.
It is hard to say where the American people are on this decision. Many are anxious to get back to work, but many others are probably enjoying the opportunity to comfortably stay home with full pay for as long as possible. The “stay home” advocates will cite the risk of rekindling the virus by ending the lockdowns too early.
The question will be whether the President has the authority to end the lockdowns, or whether the States have the authority to continue them. It would be easier for the President to advocate against the will of Dr. Fauci on this matter had he not put the doctor in the position of having medical authority in this crisis.
I think this is shaping up to be a spectacular confrontation starting 20 days from now.
daveklepper I will cease posting Israel's progress in controling the virus unless someone requests me to do so.
Who "requested"?
Euclid We are now at the point of the predicted peaking of the virus. Within a week or so, we will learn whether the prediction is accurate. Then the next big drama will be the decision to end the lockdowns, let people return to work, and open up the economy. The President intends to end the lockdowns 20 days from now, and let people resume work, but others, such as Dr. Fauci, seem to be expecting the shutdown to continue for as long as 540 days. It is hard to say where the American people are on this decision. Many are anxious to get back to work, but many others are probably enjoying the opportunity to comfortably stay home with full pay for as long as possible. The “stay home” advocates will cite the risk of rekindling the virus by ending the lockdowns too early. The question will be whether the President has the authority to end the lockdowns, or whether the States have the authority to continue them. It would be easier for the President to advocate against the will of Dr. Fauci on this matter had he not put the doctor in the position of having medical authority in this crisis. I think this is shaping up to be a spectacular confrontation starting 20 days from now.
And what about all of those staying home without full pay? Or who's economic situation has been impacted in other ways?
I am neither poor nor rich, but I am growing weary of people who's salaries I pay, some of whom live in houses I pay for, guarded by men with guns I also pay for, telling me I should not be concerned about my property and my money, and that they will put me in jail if I am not a good little comrad.
Don't get me wrong, I am very concerned about the safety of my family, and everyone out there. But the virus is not the only threat here.
Again, it is easy for those who earn their living manipulating information on computer screens to just carry on at home. It is easy for those who are in "protected" employment to go for run with the dog until this is over.
But for people who actually "do stuff" for a living, it is a different story.
Sheldon
Sooner or later someone's going to have to stick their neck out, assume the risk, and make the decision, either the president, assuming he has that authority, or the governors, to end the "lockdowns" and get commerce started again. I'm guessing May 1st, if the cases peak and slack off by then.
This can't go on forever. We can't have the whole country on welfare, which is a distinct possibility unless commerce is started again.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd what about all of those staying home without full pay? Or who's economic situation has been impacted in other ways? I am neither poor nor rich, but I am growing weary of people who's salaries I pay, some of whom live in houses I pay for, guarded by men with guns I also pay for, telling me I should not be concerned about my property and my money, and that they will put me in jail if I am not a good little comrad.
I believe it was you who had mentioned Sweden's alternate approach? I just found the following at CNN this morning regarding Sweden's "progress". It appears that Sweden is now paying for it's slow start with bodies, much higher fatality rate than Norway or Finland:
Flintlock76 Sooner or later someone's going to have to stick their neck out, assume the risk, and make the decision, either the president, assuming he has that authority, or the governors, to end the "lockdowns" and get commerce started again. I'm guessing May 1st, if the cases peak and slack off by then. This can't go on forever. We can't have the whole country on welfare, which is a distinct possibility unless commerce is started again.
Oh yes, the President will take the risk, and he is insisting on April 30 as the day we put everyone back to work. But I think he will face fierce opposition on this from many governors, Dr. Fauci, and most of the media. The governers will argue that they have the authority to continue their lockdowns, and the President does not have the authority to end their lockdowns. So if the President sends people back to work, the governors might arrest those poeople for violating the lockdown. This is a constitutional argument as to who really has the authority in this matter.
Convicted One ATLANTIC CENTRAL And what about all of those staying home without full pay? Or who's economic situation has been impacted in other ways? I am neither poor nor rich, but I am growing weary of people who's salaries I pay, some of whom live in houses I pay for, guarded by men with guns I also pay for, telling me I should not be concerned about my property and my money, and that they will put me in jail if I am not a good little comrad. I believe it was you who had mentioned Sweden's alternate approach? I just found the following at CNN this morning regarding Sweden's "progress". It appears that Sweden is now paying for it's slow start with bodies, much higher fatality rate than Norway or Finland: Sweden's "curve" -- the rate of infections and deaths caused by coronavirus -- is certainly steeper than that of many other European countries with stricter measures. A study by Imperial College London estimated that 3.1% of the Swedish population was infected (as of March 28) -- compared to 0.41% in Norway and 2.5% in the UK. As for deaths, by April 8, coronavirus accounted for 67 fatalities per 1 million Swedish citizens, according to the Swedish Health Ministry. Norway had 19 deaths per million, Finland seven per million. The number of deaths rose 16% on Wednesday. Some Swedish researchers are demanding the government must be stricter. This week ..... Read the full story here: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/europe/sweden-lockdown-turmp-intl/index.html
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And what about all of those staying home without full pay? Or who's economic situation has been impacted in other ways? I am neither poor nor rich, but I am growing weary of people who's salaries I pay, some of whom live in houses I pay for, guarded by men with guns I also pay for, telling me I should not be concerned about my property and my money, and that they will put me in jail if I am not a good little comrad.
And again, to be clear, I was not saying they were right, I was just observing and asking questions.
And I admit, I have a personal bias in this. I am not a cruise ship patron, frequent airplane flyer, European or Caribbean vacation goer, bar fly, womanizer, party goer, jet set celebrity, or otherwise highly exposed.
I live in rural fly over/drive by country with the dairy cows and corn fields near a little town where 3 stories is a tall building. And in the past few years seldom venture more than 50 or 100 miles from home.
So my risk, even in my normal routine, is much lower risk than say the average resident of New York City.
Despite being "near" Baltimore and Philadelphia, our numbers are still real low around here, and people are being careful and respectful..........so far.
But what will happen when their stress levels get too high?
I ask that question somewhat rhetorically as the husband of a retired mental health and addictions treatment professional.
Hoping for the best, prepared as much as possible for the worst.
As I said much earlier in this thread, there are deer in the back yard, and I am a good shot.
EuclidOh yes, the President will take the risk, and he is insisting on April 30 as the day we put everyone back to work. But I think he will face fierce opposition on this from many governors, Dr. Fauci, and most of the media. The governers will argue that they have the authority to continue their lockdowns, and the President does not have the authority to end their lockdowns. So if the President sends people back to work, the governors might arrest those poeople for violating the lockdown. This is a constitutional argument as to who really has the authority in this matter.
First of all, the president's not insisting everyone go back to work on April 30th. He's said all along the decision should be made on an area by area or state by state basis. April 30th is a target date but its not set in stone. Second, the Feds can make recommendations but it is and always has been up to the individual governors as to what's going to take place in their states as well as what restrictions should be in place. If the legislators want to, they can always overrule their governor. Third, this president has faced opposition from most of the media since day 1 so no matter what he does, those media will be opposed to it. Fourth, I'm not buying Dr. Fauci is infalible. His earlier statements before March showed that he didn't have a good understanding of what was going on. I also remember him at one of the March pressers coming to the defense of the Director of WHO which is ridiculous in my opinion and I am pretty sure I'm not alone in that opinion.
This country's economic well being is eventually going to have to be the number one concern even if the virus still exists in some pockets. Shutting the entire economy down until the virus totally disappears is not a workable option. Otherwise, the resulting fiscal disaster will have a far greater impact on everyone than the virus has on some.
Flintlock76This can't go on forever. We can't have the whole country on welfare, which is a distinct possibility unless commerce is started again.
Just being completely frank, the first job I ever had I started while a junior in high school, and stayed with that company 28 years. I then took a self funded vacation for 9 years, and then worked as self employed another 8 years.
I don't feel the least bit guilty enjoying this mandatory furlough.
alphas Otherwise, the resulting fiscal disaster will have a far greater impact on everyone than the virus has on some.
Aren't we really just "borrowing" from the future with these aid packages? Let's just tell our great grandkids this was the only workable solution to guarantee they would one day be born,
Guilt is a tremendous motivator.
Convicted One Flintlock76 This can't go on forever. We can't have the whole country on welfare, which is a distinct possibility unless commerce is started again. Just being completely frank, the first job I ever had I started while a junior in high school, and stayed with that company 28 years. I then took a self funded vacation for 9 years, and then worked as self employed another 8 years. I don't feel the least bit guilty enjoying this mandatory furlough.
Flintlock76 This can't go on forever. We can't have the whole country on welfare, which is a distinct possibility unless commerce is started again.
Good for you, we choose different paths. Glad you could put up with corporate america for 28 years............
I have been self employed most of my life. Started my first business at age 23. Never really worked for any big corporations, never worked for someone else more than a three or four year stretch.
As soon as I sell some excess real estate, I don't really have a care in the world. And it looks like the virus has only had a mild negative effect on the real estate market here where I am.
But I am seeing the effect on others in my community.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd I admit, I have a personal bias in this. I am not a cruise ship patron, frequent airplane flyer, European or Caribbean vacation goer, bar fly, womanizer, party goer, jet set celebrity, or otherwise highly exposed
Hey, don't knock it until you try it.
Since we are all "fessing up" here, I just filed for social security retirement benefits last November, getting my first check in January. So it's easier for me to find peace with the new reality, than for someone still trying to build their lives.
In terms of "a life well lived" I'll always have the warm glow of knowing I filed for benefits at exactly the right time....contrasted with the knowledge that if I get the bug and the hospitals happen to be overwealmed, I will likely be deemed "expendable".
That nice big stimulus check is merely a bonus for me, either way.
Gloom and doom prediction: Once the country goes back to work, there will doubtlessly be discussion of how we will "pay back" the debt of this stimulus package.
I'm predicting they will prefer some nice regressive scheme that punishes the bottom 50%.
There has been discussion of a national sales tax, for years. What better way to balance the accounts while leaving the top 10% unscathed. You heard it here first
alphas Euclid Oh yes, the President will take the risk, and he is insisting on April 30 as the day we put everyone back to work. But I think he will face fierce opposition on this from many governors, Dr. Fauci, and most of the media. The governers will argue that they have the authority to continue their lockdowns, and the President does not have the authority to end their lockdowns. So if the President sends people back to work, the governors might arrest those poeople for violating the lockdown. This is a constitutional argument as to who really has the authority in this matter. First of all, the president's not insisting everyone go back to work on April 30th. He's said all along the decision should be made on an area by area or state by state basis. April 30th is a target date but its not set in stone. Second, the Feds can make recommendations but it is and always has been up to the individual governors as to what's going to take place in their states as well as what restrictions should be in place. If the legislators want to, they can always overrule their governor. Third, this president has faced opposition from most of the media since day 1 so no matter what he does, those media will be opposed to it. Fourth, I'm not buying Dr. Fauci is infalible. His earlier statements before March showed that he didn't have a good understanding of what was going on. I also remember him at one of the March pressers coming to the defense of the Director of WHO which is ridiculous in my opinion and I am pretty sure I'm not alone in that opinion. This country's economic well being is eventually going to have to be the number one concern even if the virus still exists in some pockets. Shutting the entire economy down until the virus totally disappears is not a workable option. Otherwise, the resulting fiscal disaster will have a far greater impact on everyone than the virus has on some.
Euclid Oh yes, the President will take the risk, and he is insisting on April 30 as the day we put everyone back to work. But I think he will face fierce opposition on this from many governors, Dr. Fauci, and most of the media. The governers will argue that they have the authority to continue their lockdowns, and the President does not have the authority to end their lockdowns. So if the President sends people back to work, the governors might arrest those poeople for violating the lockdown. This is a constitutional argument as to who really has the authority in this matter.
There will be more talk about a restart on a regional basis. I doubt that any agreement will be found in how to accomplish that.
In the meantime, I expect other shoes to drop both with the activity of the virus spread, and our relationship with China.
Convicted OneI'm predicting they will prefer some nice regressive scheme that punishes the bottom 50%. There has been discussion of a national sales tax, for years. What better way to balance the accounts while leaving the top 10% unscathed. You heard it here first
Tend to agree with your assessment - how dare the 1% pay anything of the tax burden. Trickle down my posterior!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In 2017, in the U.S.,:
The top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all the income tax collected.
Excluding that 1%, the next top 5% paid 20% of all the income tax collected.
The bottom 50% of all income earners paid less than 3% of all the income tax collected.
The 1,409 richest people in the country paid more income tax than the bottom 70 million taxpayers.
York1 John
BaltACDBaltACD wrote the following post 1 hours ago: Convicted One I'm predicting they will prefer some nice regressive scheme that punishes the bottom 50%. There has been discussion of a national sales tax, for years. What better way to balance the accounts while leaving the top 10% unscathed. You heard it here first Devil Tend to agree with your assessment - how dare the 1% pay anything of the tax burden. Trickle down my posterior!
More socialist tending countries have the most regressive "sales tax", usually know as the VAT or Value Added Tax. Google it per country to see what it is and how it works. My Canadian friends are always complaining about theirs.
York1The top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all the income tax collected. Excluding that 1%, the next top 5% paid 20% of all the income tax collected.
Which, if you increased everyone's income tax bill by 4%, guess who would get hit hardest?
Alternately, let's assume that the average citizen spends $10,000 / year on retail necessities
A 4% national sales tax is going to hit someone making $20,000/yr but spending half of it on retail necessities...much harder (in terms of as a percentage of their total income} than it's going to hit someone making $100,000/yr but splurging $15,000/yr on "necessities" (again as a percentage of their total income)
Plus, a national sales tax option recovers money from those care free retirees with no chargable income as well.
We have that already in Canada. Groceries are exempt as are listed necessities such as diapers, medications and so on. Not fast food or restaurants though. Below a certain income level a fixed amount is 'refunded' at specific intervals.
I would support a luxury tax or a higher level of value added tax on nonsense like $10,000 Gucci bags, really expensive watches and so forth. That particular cohort of folks could care less anyway.
Convicted OneOnce the country goes back to work, there will doubtlessly be discussion of how we will "pay back" the debt of this stimulus package.
Why would we care about paying it back?
Convicted OneA 4% national sales tax is going to hit someone making $20,000/yr but spending half of it on retail necessities...much harder (in terms of as a percentage of their total income} than it's going to hit someone making $100,000/yr but splurging $15,000/yr on "necessities" (again as a percentage of their total income)
Which is exactly why many European countries have such issues with their VAT, and is exactly why the U.S. should not have a national sales tax or a VAT.
The point is that this notion that the rich don't pay enough taxes is silly.
It's a continual drumbeat that somehow the rich are not being taxed. It's actually the bottom 44% of all American wage earners who pay no income tax.
York1and is exactly why the U.S. should not have a national sales tax or a VAT.
Just to assure an abundance of clarity, I am not advocating a national sales tax as a good idea. I just suspect that if used as a means towards a particular end, (stimulus recovery) ....this stimulus ends up being an incredible transfer of wealth from the 'have nots' to the 'haves'.
You think I may be giving someone more credit than they deserve by suspecting him?
EuclidWhy would we care about paying it back?
'Cause Milton Friedman was such a swell guy.
Convicted OneYou think I may be giving someone more credit than they deserve by suspecting him?
To my knowlege (and it's limited), the only mention I remember lately of a sales tax or a VAT has come from groups who are looking for ways to pay for their idea of free college and paid-off college loans.
Well, I hope we don't hear about one at all. But, cynic that I am, I expect the guilt peddeling to start not long after we are all back at the grind stone.
Convicted OneWell, I hope we don't hear about one at all. But, cynic that I am, I expect the guilt peddeling to start not long after we are all back at the grind stone.
I agree. I really think it is one of the most repressive types of tax, and it needs to be fought if it is ever proposed.
Well the latest news is that Trump is looking for a way to sue China for the damages caused by their coronavirus.
Euclid Well the latest news is that Trump is looking for a way to sue China for the damages caused by their coronavirus.
Free model trains and half price on everything at Walmart for the next 50 years......
Sounds good to me.
Sheldon: How much acreage is your house on? Firing a rifle in your backyard doesn't sound like a very safe practice. Depending on your rifle, ammo and terrain a stray shot could travel at least 200 yds to well over 1000.
deleted
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.