7 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

If it were effective, it would be in use. 

It is in use in many instances, in many other instances doctors face hurdles and/or potential consequences for prescribing it. 

Whatever happened to a doctor/patient relationship and "right to try" what a doctor and patient think is best in a specific situation. 

Just now, theguru said:

It is in use in many instances, in many other instances doctors face hurdles and/or potential consequences for prescribing it. 

Whatever happened to a doctor/patient relationship and "right to try" what a doctor and patient think is best in a specific situation. 

As @bugatti said, it has "worked" in isolated situations. If it were as effective as some are making it out to be, every doctor everywhere would be using it. 

It's just another avenue for people to complain because they aren't getting to do what they want. 

3 minutes ago, bugatti said:

I will say it again, you can find a study to support what you want the truth to be about anything related to COVID. At some point when the overwhelming majority of medical professionals, health professionals, and science are saying masks are effective (seems there should be a common sense element that a virus spread by droplets might be at least somewhat thwarted by a screening barrier across your face) I am not going to the default position of "I need more proof." At some point you are zagging just for the sake of zagging.

I know. I am a sheep.

There are some studies from the past that dispel the effectiveness of masks against viral spread. 

Then you have to add in the ways masks could be more dangerous when they are worn improperly, saturated with moisture, or people keep touching their face/mask.

Additionally, if masks are so important why don't we have standardization and medical approved masks that specifically are proven to stop the spread of COVID?

Just now, TheDeuce said:

As @bugatti said, it has "worked" in isolated situations. If it were as effective as some are making it out to be, every doctor everywhere would be using it. 

It's just another avenue for people to complain because they aren't getting to do what they want. 

If you and your doctor think something is in your best interests I don't think you should be denied access. 

12 minutes ago, theguru said:

There are some studies from the past that dispel the effectiveness of masks against viral spread. 

Then you have to add in the ways masks could be more dangerous when they are worn improperly, saturated with moisture, or people keep touching their face/mask.

Additionally, if masks are so important why don't we have standardization and medical approved masks that specifically are proven to stop the spread of COVID?

And there are probably 1000s of studies to the contrary. If 95% of medical professionals are saying, "yeah, it's a good idea" call me crazy, but I am riding with that. Let's not overthink this.

I do agree to an extent with your second two paragraphs. But I do not believe anyone said it is 100% full proof. I can walk across a frozen pond in 10 degree weather with no shoes or socks on without getting frostbite, but I like my chances much more with some shoes and a jacket. I don't need a study for that. ?

2 minutes ago, bugatti said:

And there are probably 1000s of studies to the contrary. If 95% of medical professionals are saying, "yeah, it's a good idea" call me crazy, but I am riding with that. Let's not overthink this.

I do agree to an extent with your second two paragraphs. But I do not believe anyone said it is 100% full proof. I can walk across a frozen pond in 10 degree weather with no shoes or socks on without getting frostbite, but I like my chances much more with some shoes and a jacket. I don't need a study for that. ?

I am glad we mostly agree on 2 out of 3 of my opinions. ?

To your first paragraph, that's the rub, if those studies existed they would be force fed to us.

I ask again as I have asked on here before, if masks are ineffective then what hope do we have of controlling the virus?

What do mask naysayers recommend we do to try and control the spread of the virus?

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

Doesn't the Catholic church say in some cases it is ok to use vaccines developed from aborted fetal cell lines?

As this issue is important to you, you are probably aware the fetal cells used are from the 1970's-80's. Others reading this may not know that. The significance being use of these 40 year old fetal cell lines does not encourage abortions today.

I am pretty orthodox about this topic.  I firmly believe that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are wrong.  The time frame doesn't matter.  in regards to the Catholic position on this topic, the following is a good article on that.  A few key quotes:

"In the 2005 document, The Pontifical Academy for Life teaches that we have a duty to request and use those vaccines which are produced in a morally acceptable way. In the United States, we can make specific vaccine brand choices to avoid some vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue."

"In the United States, the National Catholic Bioethics center states that we should choose ethical vaccines when they are available."

"It is not necessary to use new aborted fetal tissue to continue to manufacture existing vaccines. Unfortunately, new cell lines derived from fetal tissues are still be developed and used for new vaccines and pharmaceuticals, including some COVID-19 vaccines. The 2005 document implores all of us to 'oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.'” 

https://mycatholicdoctor.com/our-services/vaccines/

My problem is knowledge.  If I don't know, that's one thing, but if I do know, I must look for an alternative for a COVID-19 vaccine.

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

I ask again as I have asked on here before, if masks are ineffective then what hope do we have of controlling the virus?

What do mask naysayers recommend we do to try and control the spread of the virus?

Considering there was a patient zero (one person) that started this pandemic and now we have tens of thousands of new cases daily we (human beings) are along for the ride.  

9 minutes ago, theguru said:

Considering there was a patient zero (one person) that started this pandemic and now we have tens of thousands of new cases daily we (human beings) are along for the ride.  

Please don't take offense but I would call that a quitters attitude. Just giving up, assuming there is nothing that can be done and whatever happens, happens. Should we stop trying to make a virus too? Gome on, G. We have to try something. Right now that something is masks. I know you want to hit a bar or two and it is not going to happen without trying something.

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

I ask again as I have asked on here before, if masks are ineffective then what hope do we have of controlling the virus?

What do mask naysayers recommend we do to try and control the spread of the virus?

 

44 minutes ago, theguru said:

Considering there was a patient zero (one person) that started this pandemic and now we have tens of thousands of new cases daily we (human beings) are along for the ride.  

There are actions that can be taken AND get things headed back to "more normal" and start the ride back up.  Right now we are on merry-go-round that is the slowest ride ever. 

- Emphasis immune system health.  As stated (and there are lots of formal and informal sources on this) Vitamin-D is critical.  Where are the PSAs to encourage people to get daily sunlight or take supplements or eat and drink things that supply Vitamin-D?

- Encourage other supplements that actively fight the virus.  Zinc the most noted.  Most metals - copper, iron, etc. may also be useful.  Again, where are the PSAs for that? 

- Make hydroxychloriquine over the counter.  Take the controversy and politics out of it.   200 mg twice a week and daily zinc are now active proactive treatments.  At a very minimum stop the off-label restrictions.  (See previous post on this unprecedented and ominous action.)

- Develop strong protection plans for nursing homes and other vulnerable residences.  With half the deaths in these type locations this has to be addressed and still managed. 

- Carefully open up mass-gathering events where people are shoulder to shoulder.  That includes bars, sports events, concerts, etc.  'There is rightful concern on these potential fast spreader venues/events. 

So its not "mask-or-nothing".  There are lots of other things that can be emphasized and done.  The person who works in a hospital and has access to lots of the data said "everyone will get this, the best is that we keep from overrunning the system."  But the ride needs to speed up.  The current environment is not sustainable.  There will be more "cases" and sadly, fatalities, "related" to COVID-19.  But lock-down, mask and social distancing have had their run.  They are not magic. 

 

 

2 hours ago, theguru said:

If you and your doctor think something is in your best interests I don't think you should be denied access. 

I think you are right.   I have a close family member who is an infectious disease MD at a large local hospital.  He is right in the midst of it.   Whenever we can see him, we do not grill  him (as he is worn out)  but as I understand it, his treatment of any particular patient is  specifically tailored to the needs and responses of that patient, regardless  if on a "macro" level that treatment is or is not supposed to be effective.  For instance, he has used the chlorine treatment and the plasma treatment with good results.   You have to depend on and have confidence in your treating physician to do what is most effective  for you.

Links concerning HCQ:

https://abc7news.com/hydroxychloroquine-studies-for-covid-19-cdc-remdesivir-drug-treatment/6338596/

The above link is from today's California health press conference. In this article various recognized health authorities are listed saying HCQ has no proven benefit.

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavirus-medicine-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid19-treatment/

This is a thorough listing of HCQ studies.There are 16 total studies of HCQ noted in this link. Four studies showed some value in HCQ. The other 12 studies showed no value and in some of the studies patients treated with HCQ fared worse than those not treated with HCQ. This link also mentions that the FDA, NIH and WHO have all ended studies because they saw no benefit from HCQ.

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

This recent study from the Henry Ford Health System says HCQ did significantly save lives. They emphasized proper dosing and treatment along with other supportive treatments. But HCQ was proven effective in saving lives when administered properly in a hospital setting. There is another larger study underway now at Henry Ford on HCQ as a prophylactic.

 

49 minutes ago, tcjkbt said:

I think you are right.   I have a close family member who is an infectious disease MD at a large local hospital.  He is right in the midst of it.   Whenever we can see him, we do not grill  him (as he is worn out)  but as I understand it, his treatment of any particular patient is  specifically tailored to the needs and responses of that patient, regardless  if on a "macro" level that treatment is or is not supposed to be effective.  For instance, he has used the chlorine treatment and the plasma treatment with good results.   You have to depend on and have confidence in your treating physician to do what is most effective  for you.

There is a lot of "macro" going on with COVID-19 and its frustrating.

1 hour ago, Bluegrasscard said:

 

There are actions that can be taken AND get things headed back to "more normal" and start the ride back up.  Right now we are on merry-go-round that is the slowest ride ever. 

- Emphasis immune system health.  As stated (and there are lots of formal and informal sources on this) Vitamin-D is critical.  Where are the PSAs to encourage people to get daily sunlight or take supplements or eat and drink things that supply Vitamin-D?

Good suggestion.

- Encourage other supplements that actively fight the virus.  Zinc the most noted.  Most metals - copper, iron, etc. may also be useful.  Again, where are the PSAs for that? 

Use of zinc is also a good suggestion.

- Make hydroxychloriquine over the counter.  Take the controversy and politics out of it.   200 mg twice a week and daily zinc are now active proactive treatments.  At a very minimum stop the off-label restrictions.  (See previous post on this unprecedented and ominous action.)

Very risky. HCQ is unproven as a prophylactic treatment and poses health risks for some. 

- Develop strong protection plans for nursing homes and other vulnerable residences.  With half the deaths in these type locations this has to be addressed and still managed. 

I believe this is already in place.

- Carefully open up mass-gathering events where people are shoulder to shoulder.  That includes bars, sports events, concerts, etc.  'There is rightful concern on these potential fast spreader venues/events. 

Agree. We must be very careful here and for large events social distancing of crowds should be done.

So its not "mask-or-nothing".  There are lots of other things that can be emphasized and done.  The person who works in a hospital and has access to lots of the data said "everyone will get this, the best is that we keep from overrunning the system."  But the ride needs to speed up.  The current environment is not sustainable.  There will be more "cases" and sadly, fatalities, "related" to COVID-19.  But lock-down, mask and social distancing have had their run.  They are not magic. 

You are getting your wish on the ride speeding up. The US is leading the world in that. Almost one third of the world's cases are in the US.

 

 

See my comments in bold above.