It's probably like the issues we have here.
I have no doubt that there is plenty of PPE. And there always will be, if you don't hand it out to the people who need it.
Coronavirus Thread
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
I have no doubt that there is plenty of PPE. And there always will be, if you don't hand it out to the people who need it.
fubar57
General
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
"the level of hysteria the media is stirring up is shocking !"
You're not accustomed to it yet?
Remember about Pravda and Izvestia? They married. Their many children emigrated to US/UK/EU. Now you understand?
Truth, fact, understanding, wisdom, perspective, these all have no "currency value".
Readership, which sells advertising, is the sole metric. Clickbait > fact.
You're not accustomed to it yet?
Remember about Pravda and Izvestia? They married. Their many children emigrated to US/UK/EU. Now you understand?
Truth, fact, understanding, wisdom, perspective, these all have no "currency value".
Readership, which sells advertising, is the sole metric. Clickbait > fact.
at6
1st Sergeant
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Ummm, that's Breitbart - Kind of like using TheOnion as a source...
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Better "The Onion" than any of the lamestream media.
Breitbart pushes half truths and "alternative facts" to push its partisan agenda. So how is that any better? Answer: It's not.
They can spin it however they want, his words were " And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" Trump said during his daily briefing at the White House. "Because, you see, it gets on the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So that you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds — it sounds interesting to me."
They can spin it however they want, his words were " And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" Trump said during his daily briefing at the White House. "Because, you see, it gets on the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So that you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds — it sounds interesting to me."
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Sounds like inhalation therapy to me, not an IV.
Half-truth is a measure NYT, WaPo, and Yahoo seldom meet. "Alternative fact" applies to them extensively. Let's consider this "getting political" please.
Donald Trump is the President of the United States, not a "former reality show host", just as President Barak Obama was the President of the United States, not a "former community organizer".
President Trump is not a doctor, he does not play one on TV, but he does dare think aloud.
T Bolt
Colonel
I recorded this clip Thursday morning at 5:30 am just south of the junction of interstates I-90 and I-94 on the north side of Chicago.
Doesn't look likepeople are paying attention to the lockdown
There is going to be a second wave for sure.
Doesn't look likepeople are paying attention to the lockdown
There is going to be a second wave for sure.
Even so, inhaling a disinfectant into your lungs? Really? There is a reason they are for external use only...
So you admit Breitbart is nothing more than a partisan opinion hack job?
That can of worms was opened with the use of Breitbart as a factual source.
I'll refrain from answering to the rest...
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
United States
April 24, 2020, 05:47 GMT
Total Cases: 886,709
New Cases: +267
Total Deaths: 50,243
New Deaths: +7
Total Recovered: 85,922
Active Cases: 750,544
Serious/Critical: 14,997
Total Cases/1M Population: 2,679
Deaths/1M Population: 152
Total Tests: 4,775,625
Tests/1M Population 14,428
April 24, 2020, 05:47 GMT
Total Cases: 886,709
New Cases: +267
Total Deaths: 50,243
New Deaths: +7
Total Recovered: 85,922
Active Cases: 750,544
Serious/Critical: 14,997
Total Cases/1M Population: 2,679
Deaths/1M Population: 152
Total Tests: 4,775,625
Tests/1M Population 14,428
wuzak
Captain
Injection doesn't suggest inhalation, nor is it necessarily IV. It suggests injection.
It isn't clear where "injection inside" would mean. Whether that was in the lungs, or the body in general.
wuzak
Captain
That's fine in meeting with the experts that can say whether it is a good idea or not.
But in a televised briefing, not so much.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
I am sorry to say that watching the whole of the press conference with President Trump does not provide any reason to think that he did not mean direct injection. Don't get me wrong, he may not have meant direct injection . . . possibly he meant using a disinfectant lung lavage (ie a lung bath) or some such. Lung lavage (using a saline solution) is sometimes used to remove contaminants or biological substances that build up in the lungs and result in difficulty breathing. There are two problems with this idea.
One problem is that although saline lung lavage has been used to treat lung disease symptoms (ie DIP and PAP), it has no known effect on the underlying pathogenic or genetic cause.
Another problem is that a lung lavage using disinfectant is not the same as a lung lavage using saline solution. Any type of disinfectant that is capable of killing a virus (ie alcohol, lye, acid, various high test solvents, etc) will damage the lungs in rough proportion to the type and amount of the disinfectant used. The virus is, for the most part, not just lying around on the interior surfaces of the lung. For the chemicals to kill the virus causing the damage they would first have to penetrate the various lung structures and cell walls, damaging the structures and killing the cells in the process. In addition, the lung damage caused by these chemicals is the type of damage that can result in ARDS, which is similar to/the same as what is often the end stage killer in COVID-19.
There are some ionized gases that will kill nearly all bacteria and viruses present in the area of effect. Such a gas (ozone for example) could easily be introduced into the lungs in a controlled manner. The problem with using such gases for treating pneumonia or other pathogenic lung diseases is that they have been shown to trigger cell death (apoptosis) and/or cause tumors.
As for UV light, unless the COVID-19 virus takes up residence on or a short distance under the skin, the UV wavelength that can penetrate any distance into the human body will not have any direct effect.
A process called Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation (UBI) was tried in the late-1800s/early-1900s, and one study reported a 100% success rate (75 out of 75) vs pneumonia. If this success rate were true, any responsible physician should be using the UBI process in place of pretty much all other treatments (today's fatality rate for pneumonia being treated in a hospital setting with antibiotics/antivirals is 5%-30% depending on the type, with an overall average of 5%-10%). UBI is apparently not used at all?
To use UV light internally is physically possible, and has been tried on otherwise probably terminal pneumonia patients. Once again however, the virus is for the most part not just lying around on the interior surfaces of the lung. An relatively powerful light source would have to be used for the virus to be killed in "a minute" or so, powerful enough to penetrate the mucous and other fluids (ie saline, blood sera, etc) coating the lung structures, the lung structures themselves, cell linings, etc. That much UV will itself will cause damage. A less powerful light source could be used for a longer time, but since the effects of such radiation is cumulative, the damage would still occur. As I said above, the process has been tried, using nasal/trachea passage of leads, but the success rate was apparently nil. If it had looked promising, the method would be in common use for the more serious pneumonia cases at the very least. It is apparently not used at all?
One problem is that although saline lung lavage has been used to treat lung disease symptoms (ie DIP and PAP), it has no known effect on the underlying pathogenic or genetic cause.
Another problem is that a lung lavage using disinfectant is not the same as a lung lavage using saline solution. Any type of disinfectant that is capable of killing a virus (ie alcohol, lye, acid, various high test solvents, etc) will damage the lungs in rough proportion to the type and amount of the disinfectant used. The virus is, for the most part, not just lying around on the interior surfaces of the lung. For the chemicals to kill the virus causing the damage they would first have to penetrate the various lung structures and cell walls, damaging the structures and killing the cells in the process. In addition, the lung damage caused by these chemicals is the type of damage that can result in ARDS, which is similar to/the same as what is often the end stage killer in COVID-19.
There are some ionized gases that will kill nearly all bacteria and viruses present in the area of effect. Such a gas (ozone for example) could easily be introduced into the lungs in a controlled manner. The problem with using such gases for treating pneumonia or other pathogenic lung diseases is that they have been shown to trigger cell death (apoptosis) and/or cause tumors.
As for UV light, unless the COVID-19 virus takes up residence on or a short distance under the skin, the UV wavelength that can penetrate any distance into the human body will not have any direct effect.
A process called Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation (UBI) was tried in the late-1800s/early-1900s, and one study reported a 100% success rate (75 out of 75) vs pneumonia. If this success rate were true, any responsible physician should be using the UBI process in place of pretty much all other treatments (today's fatality rate for pneumonia being treated in a hospital setting with antibiotics/antivirals is 5%-30% depending on the type, with an overall average of 5%-10%). UBI is apparently not used at all?
To use UV light internally is physically possible, and has been tried on otherwise probably terminal pneumonia patients. Once again however, the virus is for the most part not just lying around on the interior surfaces of the lung. An relatively powerful light source would have to be used for the virus to be killed in "a minute" or so, powerful enough to penetrate the mucous and other fluids (ie saline, blood sera, etc) coating the lung structures, the lung structures themselves, cell linings, etc. That much UV will itself will cause damage. A less powerful light source could be used for a longer time, but since the effects of such radiation is cumulative, the damage would still occur. As I said above, the process has been tried, using nasal/trachea passage of leads, but the success rate was apparently nil. If it had looked promising, the method would be in common use for the more serious pneumonia cases at the very least. It is apparently not used at all?
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Minnesota report, April 23
cases 2,942, recovered 1,536, hospitalized 712, deaths 200, tested 51,548*
fatality rate 6.8%
mortality rate 35.1 per million
tests rate 9 per thousand*
*Test kits are still in short supply, however, at the current time test kit processing is limited more by lack of materials (primarily reagents). Current testing primarily reflects use for suspected COVID-19 cases and first responder/healthcare/medical personnel. However, use is increasing in non-hospital facilities where COVID-19 cases have occurred (nursing homes, meat packing plants, etc) in order to determine if a facility needs to be closed or can continue in operation.
cases 2,942, recovered 1,536, hospitalized 712, deaths 200, tested 51,548*
fatality rate 6.8%
mortality rate 35.1 per million
tests rate 9 per thousand*
*Test kits are still in short supply, however, at the current time test kit processing is limited more by lack of materials (primarily reagents). Current testing primarily reflects use for suspected COVID-19 cases and first responder/healthcare/medical personnel. However, use is increasing in non-hospital facilities where COVID-19 cases have occurred (nursing homes, meat packing plants, etc) in order to determine if a facility needs to be closed or can continue in operation.
wuzak
Captain
I would think that the virus would not be found exclusively in the lung either.
I believe some studies show that there is damage to other organs as well.
Harold1071
Airman
- 45
- Apr 17, 2020
There is a search going on here in the state for a guy who tested positive for the corona. He walked out of the hospital and no one knows where he is. Unbelievable!
- Status
