|
|
Here is CDC data,Originally Posted by MoonPieBlue
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
Nationwide stats don’t have the same extreme concentration in the 70+ group. I didn’t compute the percentages - too hard for me to post the chart from my phone.
"Reasonable certainty" gets them the big check. THAT'S why NYC is taking wild guesses. How many of died in NYC hospitals over the past several weeks who did not have the China Virus? You are picking out the absolute worst example and jacking up the numbers. HBP alone is not a comorbidity so stop using it as a death knell regarding China Virus.
Here's the CDC data by percent. If I'm calculating correctly, Louisiana data shows 93% > 49 and and CDC data 91.7% > 54 (probably very similar results). CDC shows 78.9% for >64, Louisiana 83% >59, and New York 72.3% > 64 (Louisiana and CDC again very similar, New York not as many >64).
Closest we can compare 70+ is CDC >74 at 57.1%, Louisiana 70+ at 64%, and New York 47.7% at 75+ (if we had the same age breakdown I'd guess the numbers would be very close for 70+).
Age range Deaths % of Total <1 0 0.0% 1-4 2 0.0% 5-14 1 0.0% 15-24 21 0.1% 25-34 162 0.8% 35-44 423 2.0% 45-54 1129 5.4% 55-64 2712 12.9% 65-74 4574 21.7% 75-84 5801 27.6% 85+ 6225 29.6%
Good luck.
Have learned more about the VA so-called "study." Nothing there. It's really BS and contributes nothing to the overall base of knowledge. It needs to be thrown into the trash and completely disregarded.
Have also learned more about HCQ and how it has been administered. Now, this is useful information and will add to the wealth of data that will greatly aid us in battling C-19.
Early....VERY early...results from plasma therapy is encouraging.
The NIH recommends against the use of HCQ and ZPAC outside of a clinical trial.
You have a link? I am on the NIH's email list of "Latest News on Coronavirus" and I've looked all over their website and see nothing like such a statement. There are over 400 separate studies listed on the site, some recently withdrawn, new ones popping in. It's very interactive. I was on page 3 of that list and when I returned to page 1 a brand new study, out of Hong Kong, was just posted.
They have several insets at the top of their page directing users to specific information in their vast site. I would think it would be very easy for them to post "We do not recommend the use of HCQ in the treatment of C-19." And then direct you to a page with more information. Instead I see a number of studies that show very encouraging results for the use of HCQ in the treatment of C-19...without comment from the NIH either way.
I see news' stories stating such, one from the Washington Times, but nothing on the website itself.
So, if you please, post a link. Thanks.
https://covid19treatmentguidelines.n...investigation/
4.4 million newly unemployed, erasing all jobs created since 2009.
Your Chicom friends and other libs have done a great job of wrecking the US and world economies. Congrats! I know you are high-fiving yourself in the mirror in your basement.
Biden should be able to stumble around that to pick up a few votes on the above talking point. He is all about banning gas powered cars...
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/reagan...-gore-n2567447
This is what happens when you elect a TV president primarily on the basis that he would undermine the government he was put in place to lead.
He creates crisis - a bull in a China shop. That is what you wanted, but is actually the last thing you need when the country has a crisis.
The presidency is too important of a job to ever leave to a post-turtle. Some of you have to learn this lesson the hard way.
The NIH does not offer a recommendation for or against the use. It states "patients being treated with HCQ for C-19 treatment should be monitored." Ya think!?
Now, "the panel" did issue a recommendation against the use of HCQ. The panel is composed of pharma-funded researchers. Hello! you think they are going to recommend a generic drug that won't make their sponsors $mega-millions!? Hell no!
It's also disingenuous to say there have been no "clinical studies." There haven't been in the truest definition of the term, because, obviously, there hasn't been time nor the luxury of a non-emergency environment of setting up a "clinical study." But! such as the 1,000-patient study conducted in France, with incredible results, and now over 400 other "studies" to create a volume of data that can be analyzed. Some of these "studies" are better than others. One study I glanced at, listed on the NIH website, treated just 19 patients, all hand-picked as to demographic stats (age, etc...). Obviously very limited, but it did have "positive" results for that "test" group. By itself it doesn't mean much of anything. Taken with the overall results from the other 400+ "studies" it contributes to the consensus that there is something to the use of HCQ for the treatment of C-19.
BTW, that French doctor who spearheaded the 1,000-patient study wrote a stinging rebuttal of the VA "study." Perhaps not surprisingly, given his self-professed position on the matter. But his rebuttal does include a scientific analysis of the VA report and why it should be disregarded. I glanced at it, but such medical terminology and scientific methodology is above my pay-grade.
For me...IDK. I, at first, accepted at face value the VA "study." I had no reason not to. I even defended its results by offering even if it fell short of a "study" it was still an observation of some results and should be included in the wealth of information being gathered. Then I saw a whole lot more about it and now think the methodology was skewed toward "making" HCQ fail as a treatment for C-19.
I still don't "know" much. None of us do. Even those actively engaged in the research don't know as much as they need to, and will know, eventually.
There is so much I can rebut in this post. And will, over time. For now, I will focus in on just one point: "he creates crisis." Only for those who want to destroy this country in favor of their one-world globalist desire.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
