March Madness and Covid-19

Status
Not open for further replies.
Starting to hear Hydroxychloroquine is having great success in treating and preventing the Wuhan. Anybody else hearing this? What say you, those in the know?
 
paboomersooner said:
Starting to hear Hydroxychloroquine is having great success in treating and preventing the Wuhan. Anybody else hearing this? What say you, those in the know?
Click to expand...

I saw that paper, and it’s very flawed. I tend to doubt that current medications are going to work. We will need new ones.
 
BoulderSooner said:
There really are only about 3 outcomes.


1. The USA gets a handle on this in the next 30 days And slowly life goes back to normal.

2. The USA doesn’t get a handle on this but in 30 days decides to go back to norma any way and accepts that some +/- of the population will have a chance to die. And try to protect those at risk

3. Things are the same or worse in 3 day’s and we clamp down the country more.
At this point unemployment will be pushing 20% and will go much much higher. The entire financial system will fail soon after. We will have Marshall law Nationan wide. And then the country as we know it is over
Click to expand...

You're correct Boulder for the short term. Outside of testing, researching vaccines and medications, and possibly developing immunity once infected, there were only 3 things that society could (to one degree or another) do behaviorally regarding public health:

1. Do nothing and go about our daily lives. Virus would spread rapidly and by sheer numbers, millions would get sick and it would have an incredible strain on healthcare.....likely catastrophic. Theoretical positives to this action would be that many would be exposed to the virus and hopefully develop some type of immunity as it burns through our population. The economic impact would likely be less stressful as well.

2. Total/National lockdown and quarantine. Virus would spread minimally and fewer would get sick. The stress to the health care system would be much more manageable, but the economic impact would likely be catastrophic.

3. Attempted containment and mitigation (social distancing, recommended isolation in some cases, etc.). This is what we are doing right now and we are seeing an adverse impact economically, and we will soon see what effect we have on the virus in our attempts to "flatten the curve". We aren't far enough into this to measure the degree of strain on the health care system....but we can all agree it will be strained.

IMO, given the choices (all of them suck) we have, I do think we are going about it the right way. However, we are a social species and it's proving difficult to get everyone to "buy into" what needs to be done from a societal standpoint.
 
stormspencer said:
You're correct Boulder for the short term. Outside of testing, researching vaccines and medications, and possibly developing immunity once infected, there were only 3 things that society could (to one degree or another) do behaviorally regarding public health:

1. Do nothing and go about our daily lives. Virus would spread rapidly and by sheer numbers, millions would get sick and it would have an incredible strain on healthcare.....likely catastrophic. Theoretical positives to this action would be that many would be exposed to the virus and hopefully develop some type of immunity as it burns through our population. The economic impact would likely be less stressful as well.

2. Total/National lockdown and quarantine. Virus would spread minimally and fewer would get sick. The stress to the health care system would be much more manageable, but the economic impact would likely be catastrophic.

3. Attempted containment and mitigation (social distancing, recommended isolation in some cases, etc.). This is what we are doing right now and we are seeing an adverse impact economically, and we will soon see what effect we have on the virus in our attempts to "flatten the curve". We aren't far enough into this to measure the degree of strain on the health care system....but we can all agree it will be strained.

IMO, given the choices (all of them suck) we have, I do think we are going about it the right way. However, we are a social species and it's proving difficult to get everyone to "buy into" what needs to be done from a societal standpoint.
Click to expand...

The problem I see with #2, is even if we completely quarantine for 2-3 weeks (which is nearly impossible), and everybody that has the virus let's it run it's course and recovers, the virus will likely still be out there. Somebody won't have 100% recovered. It'll be on surfaces. Or medical equipment. Or somewhere. And somebody will get it again, and spread it again. It would slow it down for a bit, but I don't see how that doesn't get us right back to the current situation at some point down the road.
 
The FDA guy said it will take at least 12 months for the potential vaccine that they just started a trial on sent for approval
 
steverocks35 said:
That French study was ridiculously flawed. Trump is just grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

This why you are a joke. TDS af. Youre acting as if trump is conducting this study lol and not that the entire world is talking about cholorquine.. again, have you contacted the government to let them know your expert analysis? And waiting for your alternatives..
 
Last edited:
hoopsaustin said:
This why you are a joke. TDS af. Youre acting as if trump is conducting this study lol and not that the entire world is talking about cholorquine.. again, have you contacted the government to let them know your expert analysis?
Click to expand...

I guess you didn’t notice that the FDA guy didn’t mention chloroquines at all. That’s the tell. This has nothing to do with my feelings about Trump. I couldn’t care less about the politics of this at the moment.

You can call me a joke all you want, I just laugh.
 
steverocks35 said:
That French study was ridiculously flawed. Trump is just grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

Trump going all in with it... I watched the interview. Hopefully it works out.

I haven't researched it... why is the study flawed?
 
thebigabd said:
Trump going all in with it... I watched the interview. Hopefully it works out.

I haven't researched it... why is the study flawed?
Click to expand...

The main thing was the tiny size of the study. 24 people. But also, 3 of the people in the control group got sent to ICU or died and they weren’t included in the final numbers. They should have scrapped the whole thing at that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Team Trends Heading into Last Weeks of Season
Replies
5
Views
425
WichitaSooner
W
C
Quick Intro and a few thoughts
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
opsooner
O
BoulderSooner
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Replies
0
Views
178
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
O
Resume is Fine; Eye Test is Not
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
3K
WichitaSooner
W
Sooner04
Along Came Jones
Replies
5
Views
1K
ousooners1baby
ousooners1baby
Back
Top