And when people were desperate for relief it was the governor that decided to ban off-label use of drugs for COVID meanwhile his brother sprang back into action fairly quick after becoming infected and taking: https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-ver...
These two brothers are also not the same person, so it's entirely possible for one of them to ban something while the other still wants to use it.
I know such theories always sound convincing. So did miasmas, and blood-letting, and so on. But that way of thinking just never worked!
No, you are:
https://jvi.asm.org/content/91/21/e00754-17
Paper title: "Zinc Salts Block Hepatitis E Virus Replication by Inhibiting the Activity of Viral RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase"
Published in 2017.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21079686/
Paper title: "Zn(2+) Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity in Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture"
Published in 2010.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but this is an absurd statement. COVID itself is a heart condition. HCQ for COVID is dangerous.
You're being gaslit.
Wonder what the justification was. Hindsight 20/20 as they say, but wasn’t it known the age and various conditions that older patients might have are risk factors early on?
Sorry, but that excuse won't fly for several reasons:
1) We had sars-1 and mers earlier, both corona viruses
2) China was slow in providing info initially, but eventually they did. There's a number of papers to read online. (Same as in sars-1, where world notification was delayed from Nov. 2002 to about Mar. 2003.)
3) The CDC and other agencies are supposed to be on top of pandemics. The White House has a pandemic playbook. These are paid professionals who are supposed to have foresight, not blame hindsight.
(FYI: one of the US disease pros involved said that false alerts essentially neutered pandemic response since 2010 in this country. I empathize with that. All I can suggest is to point out that sars-1 killed thousands, and mers and sars-2 are also coronas.)
The white house HAD a pandemic playbook. They didn't use it.
An excellent case study on why overly pessimistic models not only lead to high economic cost, but also a cost in lives.
California's is not. (https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-m...)
At some point the responsible thing to do is to use a more accurate model, but that's not what's happening.
Newsom plans to run for President, so it's hard to believe anything he says, doubly so with the incorrect stats available.
The only good thing I can say about the proposed rail system so far is that both San Jose and SF have "terminals" for it, so it could be built more quickly in the future.
When I was looking at the US fatal accident rate recently (about 37,000/year), what struck me was that it was basically 1 fatality per accident (ie. Americans really do drive sole occupant trips.)
How are any of these things a useful means of control? What do governments gain by people wearing masks?
If anything, historically, governments have disliked people wearing masks because it makes people hard to identify.
That theory is being tested in Sweden right now. No government force, just strongly trying to convince residents to socially distance. And now its one of the highest death rates in all of Europe.
The libertarian ideal of people "doing the right thing" simply doesn't work.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
[1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
> "Does WHO recommend wearing medical masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19?"
> "Currently, there is not enough evidence for or against the use of masks (medical or other) in healthy individuals in the wider community. However, WHO is actively studying the rapidly evolving science on masks and continuously updates its guidance."
https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coro...
The Dr. Fauci reference:
That Fauci statement was from 3/8 before shit really hit the fan in the US and he was trying to preserve supply for healthcare workers. Fauci is wearing a mask now in public.
Cloth face masks are a good idea in indoor public spaces... it is about reducing the load of virus I would expel into a closed space if I am infected and don't know it yet. Also, it reduces the distance particles travel from my mouth when breathing or talking. These two things together reduce the risk for those around me in enclosed spaces. It also provides some moderate reduction in aerosol I inhale. This has been studied and well documented.
We know now that transmission through common surface contact is minimal... not zero, but very low compared to aerosol transmission. The risk of touching your face more is not significant enough to offset the benefit of wearing a mask. I probably touch my face more without a mask on. That being said, it is important that your mask be comfortable so that the need to adjust it is minimal.
I wear a mask at work and wash my hands and mask with warm very dish-soapy water for 20-30 seconds when I get home. I also wash my hands regularly during the day. Soap is very effective at inactivating most all virus; commonly wrecking their surface proteins (that they need intact to get into cells) or even destroying the capsid shell.
FWIW: We are also running ozone generators at night where I work in the high traffic areas to provide a 2-3 log reduction of active surface virus (should any exist). I don't recommend doing this unless you really know what you are doing... exposure to high concentrations of ozone is really bad for you (read, can kill you if exposure is bad enough).
It just seems weird that nobody would describe (explicitly or implicitly) the elimination of all alcohol related deaths as insignificant.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200430140410/https://www.nytim...
CA got off easy, relatively speaking. Probably fewer nursing homes. It's amazing how idiotic government officials can be.