Glen Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 1 minute ago, dtait93 said: It's a very safe drug according to the professionals and 6,000+ doctors are recommending it in 30 different countries. These doctors feel this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 1 minute ago, ET80 said: I can agree to this, but - wouldn't "few and far between" grow exponentially by putting 80,000 people into a single building? Maybe I misunderstood your point I 100% agree we need to be very careful about large public gatherings until there is a vaccine or cure, even if that means people can't physically attend sporting events for the next year or two But I don't see any reason we couldn't resume professional sports without fans. It would be weird but I think better than the alternative of not having any sports until maybe 2022 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 Just now, mission27 said: But I don't see any reason we couldn't resume professional sports without fans. It would be weird but I think better than the alternative of not having any sports until maybe 2022 I would sign off on this - I don't need fans to appreciate the event. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 Local distillery just brought our employees a bunch of hand sanitizer they’ve bottled in their single shot mini bottles. and now I’m thirsty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 Just now, Glen said: These doctors feel this way? First, why do we need more testing on a drug that's been around for 70 years and is safe according to the professionals? Secondly, no. They're recommending the drug based on facts of how their patients responded to the drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, dtait93 said: More testing? Hydroxychloronique was approved for medical use in the US nearly 70 years ago. It is on the WHO's List of Essential Medicines which if a drug is on that list is considered the most safe and effective medicines. There are no feelings here, only facts. It's a very safe drug according to the professionals and 6,000+ doctors are recommending it in 30 different countries. With hydroxychloroquine its not really safety testing that people are saying we need more of We know the drug well, side effects, and the type of people who shouldn't take it Its a question of whether its actually any more effective in treating COVID-19 than other drugs Personally, if I had COVID-19 and was very sick, I would want to try it because the anecdotal evidence and response from doctors has been very positive. But because we are probably dealing with a disease with a CFR below 1% and because the sample in these studies has been pretty small and because there have been varying results from different studies, I don't think we can say definitively that this is going to be a game changer yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, mission27 said: What if you were told there would never be a vaccine or cure? What then? Do we never live our lives again? Lockdowns = brute force public health response that was necessary because this caught us off guard and we weren't ready, they are NOT the long term strategy, they are not a conventional public health response to a pandemic There are much smarter, more targeted, identification and containment strategies that we will inevitably need to pursue because people aren't (and shouldn't) accept being told to stay home forever once case numbers fall to a very small % of our communities, and that is going to happen in all likelihood many months if not years before we have a vaccine or effective treatment for coronavirus (best estimates show case numbers falling rapidly in May / June vs. likely mid-next year for a vaccine, if we find one that works) Its not comfortable and more people will die than the brute force approach forever but we can't all stay home forever hoping for a miracle You said exactly what I recommended. So I'm unsure why you're coming at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, mission27 said: But I don't see any reason we couldn't resume professional sports without fans. It would be weird but I think better than the alternative of not having any sports until maybe 2022 The chargers have done it for years 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naptownskinsfan Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 9 minutes ago, ET80 said: I guess we wait on sports. I don't think it'll take that long, but I'm admittedly not educated on such things. It's 12-18 months for a trial to be approved because they have to track that long to see if there are any effects from it. Already, restrictions have been lifted to get vaccines to human trials, so I don;t think they will be lifting the 12-18 month restriction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, dtait93 said: First, why do we need more testing on a drug that's been around for 70 years and is safe according to the professionals? Secondly, no. They're recommending the drug based on facts of how their patients responded to the drug. Maybe it would be a good idea to test the drug to see how a larger group of subjects(with symptoms) react to the drug rather than saying its the magic cure & giving it to everyone who shows symptoms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, ET80 said: I would sign off on this - I don't need fans to appreciate the event. Yep There are some things we clearly need to hold off on until we have this thing really and truly under control I would say. off the top of my head... 1. Cruise ships 2. Large events like sports and concerts with people in attendance 3. Conferences 4. Travel to and from countries with significant outbreaks (we should be able to open our borders and re-open the world, but need to be ready to institute restrictions again for people who have been to a country that has a flare up or is otherwise worse off than we are) But I think you can do that without completely taking away things people care about, like being able to watch sports or go to a bar or take a vacation, as long as you avoid the most high risk activities 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Glen said: You said exactly what I recommended. So I'm unsure why you're coming at me. Because you are not the right man for the job the MoL is 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 1 minute ago, dtait93 said: First, why do we need more testing on a drug that's been around for 70 years and is safe according to the professionals? Secondly, no. They're recommending the drug based on facts of how their patients responded to the drug. Different question - what's the countermeasure to people who have allergic reactions to hydroxychloroquine? Penicillin is considered a great countermeasure to a lot of viruses, but people (such as myself) are allergic, it'll literally kill us. No matter, I can get a Z-Pack or Erythromycin and I'm just as good. If someone is allergic to hydroxychloroquine, what's the countermeasure? You may not have the answer, but part of making this a solution is having an answer to that. You can't eyeball this, it has to be precise to every possible scenario. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 Just now, mission27 said: Because you are not the right man for the job the MoL is THE OPPOSITION STRIKES! Trying to use my arguments against me! Are these the people you want to support? Pwny/Glem 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naptownskinsfan Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, ET80 said: I would sign off on this - I don't need fans to appreciate the event. The Orioles-White Sox game in 2015 was eerie on TV to watch, but this still promotes an issue I made a joke about earlier in the thread in regards to Zack Hample showing up to chase baseballs around and autograph-seekers trying to get to the spring training centers. About 400 fans gathered outside the centerfield gate at Camden Yards, where you can barely see into the stadium and were cheering for the team. They were heard on the broadcast and I think they showed them at one point You would have to chase all of these people away from the event. Just another logistical thing they have to consider. And yes, I believe Zack Hample is dumb enough to pull that stunt and drive down to Florida and chase home runs all summer at empty stadiums. And so would a lot of other people show up for a variety of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts