The Coronavirus - a virus from eating bats, an accident or something sinister gone wrong?

[Muda69]

As more studies roll in, little evidence that hydroxychloroquine works:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/more-reason-for-caution-with-malaria-drugs-as-covid-19-treatment/

Quote

A study observing COVID-19 patients has found no evidence that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, touted as a possible treatment for COVID-19, made a difference to the chance that patients would need a ventilator. The results also suggested that patients treated with hydroxychloroquine had a higher rate of death than those who weren’t treated with the drug.

The study was not a randomized clinical trial, which means that the evidence it offers is tentative and should be interpreted with caution. It was also published on preprint server medRxiv, which means it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

But interpreting the evidence with caution does not mean disregarding it completely. This study is one of a growing number telling us that we don't yet know enough about hydroxychloroquine, adding more weight to the argument that we need to wait for better-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials before we start widespread use of a drug with significant side effects.

Premature

Some small studies have given us reasons to think that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine could have potential as treatments for COVID-19. In some cases, the findings come from experiments in cultured cells, which won't necessarily translate directly to using the drugs in sick humans. In others, the findings come from small studies that have critical flaws like using very small groups of patients, having no control group, or excluding patients who died from analysis.

“Normally, such research would be deemed hypothesis-generating at best,” wrote doctors Jinoos Yazdany and Alfred Kim in an opinion piece in the Annals of Internal Medicine. And they were released at the same time that other early studies were finding no evidence that these drugs help COVID-19 patients.

However, early hype—including repeated promotion from President Trump—led to a runaway train of enthusiasm for the drugs. The Food and Drug Administration authorized treatment of COVID-19 patients with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine despite the lack of good evidence for their efficacy, sparking backlash from former FDA leaders.

These drugs have a range of possible adverse effects, including serious cardiac damage. Using them for critically ill COVID-19 patients therefore not only runs the risk of not helping, but also of actively harming people. The worldwide run on the drugs and resulting shortages are also a problem for patients using them for conditions like lupus, where they have been found to be effective.

A range of clinical trials are now underway to establish whether these drugs are actually beneficial. In the meantime, the FDA authorization means that there is a growing pile of data from patients who have been treated with them.

Testing on the fly

The US Veterans Health Administration is a national system of clinics, hospitals and other medical centers. Because it’s a single organization, data on patients is gathered in a consistent way, which makes it easier for researchers to compare apples with apples.

A team of researchers used VHA data to track the outcomes of confirmed COVID-19 patients at veterans hospitals who were treated with just hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus an antibiotic, or neither of the drugs. They found that 27.8 percent of the 97 patients treated with just hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 11.4 percent of the 158 patients who weren’t treated with hydroxychloroquine at all, and 22.1 percent of the 113 patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic. Rates of ventilation were similar across the three groups.

This evidence is weaker than a randomized controlled trial because the patients who were given different treatments may have had other important differences to begin with. In a randomized trial, patients are assigned different treatments (or a placebo) randomly, which means that different groups should all have a roughly similar mix of people who are very sick or only a little bit sick, old and young, and so on.

In a retrospective study like this one, the doctors may have given the hydroxychloroquine treatment only to the sickest patients, in which case we’d expect that group to have worse outcomes. There are ways to try to account for this lack of randomization in the statistical tests that researchers use to calculate the risks across different groups, but these adjustments require the researchers to work out what other factors might complicate the analysis—a difficult challenge with a random population like this one.

The patients also weren’t representative of the wider population. They were all men and all older than 59 years, which means that the results wouldn’t necessarily be the same in younger groups or among women.

The results don’t mean that hydroxychloroquine is definitely useless or that clinical trials should be halted. Recent NIH guidance for clinicians treating COVID-19 patients says that there currently isn’t enough evidence to recommend for or against treating with hydroxychloroquine, and that remains true.

But they do offer more evidence suggesting that we don’t yet know enough to forge ahead with using the drugs as treatment. The authors of the study acknowledge the shortcomings of their own work but argue that the results nonetheless “highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”

Orange Man Bad.

 

[Howe]

17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

As more studies roll in, little evidence that hydroxychloroquine works:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/more-reason-for-caution-with-malaria-drugs-as-covid-19-treatment/

Orange Man Bad.

 

Interesting developments. Big Pharmaceutical cannot make any real money on a 70 year old generic drug. A small study that hasn't had controlled clinical trials or been peer reviewed is considered "evidence"? The fact that doctors are hoarding hydroxychloroquine for their families and testimonials of surviving patients indicates a degree of effectiveness. Several virologists have been critical of this study.

[gonzoron]

7 minutes ago, Howe said:

Interesting developments. Big Pharmaceutical cannot make any real money on a 70 year old generic drug. A small study that hasn't had controlled clinical trials or been peer reviewed is considered "evidence"? The fact that doctors are hoarding hydroxychloroquine for their families and testimonials of surviving patients indicates a degree of effectiveness. Several virologists have been critical of this study.

From a friend:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/health/hydroxychloroquine-veterans-study/index.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/21/840341224/nih-panel-recommends-against-drug-combination-trump-has-promoted-for-covid-19

https://www.foxnews.com/science/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-showed-no-benefit-more-deaths-va-virus-study

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/health/new-french-study-hydroxychloroquine/index.html

Edited April 23, 2020 by gonzoron

[Howe]

21 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

From a friend:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/health/hydroxychloroquine-veterans-study/index.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/21/840341224/nih-panel-recommends-against-drug-combination-trump-has-promoted-for-covid-19

https://www.foxnews.com/science/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-showed-no-benefit-more-deaths-va-virus-study

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/health/new-french-study-hydroxychloroquine/index.html

CNN, Fox and NPR are considered controlled clinical trials and peer reviews?

[gonzoron]

1 minute ago, Howe said:

CNN, Fox and NPR are considered controlled clinical trials and peer reviews?

You see, the way links work, you click on that link and then go read the articles. The studies are described in the story. I realize it's not a video, but you might try reading for a change.

[Howe]

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

You see, the way links work, you click on that link and then go read the articles. The studies are described in the story. I realize it's not a video, but you might try reading for a change.

Yet again,  No controlled clinical trials or peer review studies.

[Muda69]

The Destructive Effects of the Coronavirus Relief Package

https://mises.org/wire/destructive-effects-coronavirus-relief-package

Quote

Governments and their central banks have put together mega–bailout packages. In the US, President Donald J. Trump has signed off on a $2 trillion “virus relief package” amounting to around 10 percent of the US gross domestic product. It is meant to provide massive financial support—in the form of loans, tax breaks, and direct payments—to large and small businesses as well as individuals whose revenue and income have been destroyed by the politically dictated “lockdown.”

What is more, the US Federal Reserve (the Fed) has provided a colossal “backstop” to financial markets. It injects ever higher amounts of central bank money into the financial system by buying up all sorts of credit instruments—not only government bonds, but also mortgage debt, corporate bonds, commercial papers, etc. The Fed thereby props up financial asset prices, keeping the cost of credit artificially low and, most importantly, avoids payment defaults on a grand scale.

In fact, the Fed is at the heart of all these rescue measures, for the US administration does not have the money to finance all its promises. The US Treasury will issue new bonds that will be bought by the Fed, which thereby creates new US dollar deposits in the hands of the US government. These are then transferred to the bank accounts of entrepreneurs, consumers, and most of all to government beneficiaries (its employees, service providers, and contractors). As a result, the newly created money shows up in people’s bank accounts, increasing the stock of money in the economy.

Beyond that, the Fed purchases credit instruments—bonds and bills (and perhaps even other assets at some stage). As it does business with banks, the Fed ramps up the central bank money supply to the interbank market: Banks hand credit papers over to the Fed in exchange for newly created central bank money deposits. As a result, the “excess reserves” of banks increase and credit risk is taken off their balance sheets. Equity capital is freed up and can be used to increase lending to corporates, consumers, and, of course, government entities. This also contributes to the increase in the outstanding money stock.

If and when the Fed purchases credit products from, say, hedge funds, mutual funds, and insurance companies, the quantity of money will also be increased: these market players will hand unwanted credit products over to the Fed in exchange for deposits held with commercial banks. These new money balances can, and most likely will, be used to purchase other assets (e.g., stocks, land, commodities, etc.).

It becomes obvious that the mega–bailout package will effectively result in an increase in the quantity of money in the economy. Sound economics tells us what the consequences are: the increase in the quantity of money will result in higher goods prices, thereby lowering the purchasing power of money. In other words: the mega–bailout package boils down to “money printing”—to an inflationary policy. Again, sound economic tells us that inflation is a policy redistributing income and wealth among people: it does not create a win-win situation; it creates winners and losers.

Those holding money will lose; their wealth will dwindle. And so will those holding bonds and bills denominated in the official currency. In contrast, those holding stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, art, etc. may well benefit—if and when the prices of these assets increase as a result of the expansion of the outstanding money supply. Overstretched borrowers will also benefit, as their default is prevented and their careless creditors’ deserved losses are thus warded off.

Most importantly, banks, financial institutions, big business, Wall Street, the establishment, and the deep state will for sure rank among the beneficiaries of the Fed’s backstop policy. This amounts to a repetition of what happened during the crisis of 2008/2009, when the Fed bailed out the economic and financial system. This time, however, the costs will be higher—for it is very likely that people will see and feel its consequences—namely conspicuously rising goods prices.

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) did capture what governments will do if and when they have access to the printing press very well. In early 1923, shortly before the scary hyperinflation took off in Germany, he finished the script for his essay “Stabilitsation of the Monetary Unit—from the Viewpoint of Theory” (“Die geldtheoretische Seite des Stabilisierungsproblems”). In it, Mises—clearsighted and foresighted as he was as an economist—anticipated the monetary disaster resulting from a central bank catering to the needs of a bankrupt policy. He wrote:

We have seen that if a government is not in a position to negotiate loans and does not dare levy additional taxation for fear that the financial and general economic effects will be revealed too clearly too soon so that it will lose support for its programme, it always considers it necessary to undertake inflationary measures. Thus inflation becomes one of the most important psychological aids to an economic policy that tries to camouflage its effects. In this sense, it may be described as a tool of anti-democratic policy. By deceiving public opinion, it permits a system of government to continue, which would have no hope of receiving the approval of the people if conditions were frankly explained to them.1

Today, the policy of printing new money to hold up an economic and financial system that cannot last is being pursued again—as it has been in the past, on many occasions. The question is not whether money will lose its purchasing power. It is just a question of how much and how quickly. The best-case scenario is that the economic slump will be overcome quickly and, as a result, central banks will not have to monetize too much debt and issue too much newly created money.

But even then the underlying problem will not be solved; it will merely be postponed, because the government-controlled unbacked paper money system will predictably lead to ever greater amounts of debt on the part of entrepreneurs, consumers, and, most importantly, governments. At some point, debtors will no longer be in a position to service their debt. This is the point at which the unbacked paper money system collapses altogether through payment defaults, or when governments begin to issue ever greater amounts of money in a last-ditch effort to fend off the inevitable. That said, economies that have become addicted to unbacked money will, at some point, be confronted with a “recession-depression” à la 1929 or a German hyperinflation à la 1923.

Meanwhile, however, governments and central banks’ mega–bailout programs may very well succeed in keeping the artificial boom going—that is, in transposing the approaching economic and financial bust into yet another boom, thereby preventing the system from collapsing. One thing, however, is certain: the official currencies—be it the greenback, the euro, Chinese renminbi, or the Japanese yen—will most likely lose their purchasing power. The truth is that they have never been a reliable means to store wealth—and never will be.

 

[swordfish]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/04/23/navy-comfort-westchester-county-center-coronavirus/3010754001/

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. – The Naval hospital ship USNS Comfort is set to leave New York City’s harbor after it floated for three weeks mostly empty of patients.

Projections about the spread of the coronavirus sent New York state scrambling to increase its hospital bed capacity by more than double its 53,000 limit.

The federal government was called in to convert spaces like the Jacob Javits Center in Manhattan into overflow hospitals, but a month after shutdown efforts, that capacity hasn’t been stretched to its limits. Comfort and its 1,000 hospital beds sailed into New York late last month, but was under scrutiny for being sparsely used.

 

Gov. Andrew Cuomo met with President Donald Trump Tuesday and their discussion included Comfort. They agreed the ship can be sent elsewhere.

Of four overflow hospitals built in the state, only the Javits Center has taken patients so far, according to state officials. Although the overflow hospital construction was overseen by the federal government, it was coordinated with the New York Department of Health.

The Navy hospital ship, equipped with 1,000 beds and 12 operating rooms, was intended to host non-coronavirus-related patients, which would free up resources at medical centers dealing with the outbreak.

Just outside of New York City, the Westchester County Center was ready to open this week as an overflow hospital but questions arose whether the 110 beds would be needed as the spread of the coronavirus shows signs of slowing.

“What we did was prepare for the worst and if the best comes to pass then we’ll consider ourselves fortunate,” said George Latimer, county executive of Westchester, which owns and runs the center.

 

Projections be damned........Better safe than sorry I guess......

 

[swordfish]

https://www.953mnc.com/2020/04/23/tri-way-drive-in-theatre-denied-in-effort-to-reopen-on-friday/?fbclid=IwAR21yBSkNlteDUfBd2Bi0LswCUft5PrPGer4Lw4gYSTXyL627sORsepS81w

Tri-Way Drive-In Theatre denied in effort to reopen on Friday

By

 Tommie Lee

 -

April 23, 2020

Hundreds of people sit in their cars watching a movie trailer at a drive-in cinema, as all other theaters in Germany are closed due to the coronavirus in Essen, Germany, on Monday, March 30, 2020. Only two persons are allowed per car, tickets are available only online and no snacks are sold to limit social contacts. The new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms for most people, but for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness or death. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

Plans to open the Tri-Way Drive-In Theatre in Plymouth have been put on the shelf by the pandemic.

Tri-Way had announced their intention to open this weekend with a number of restrictions in place for social distancing.

Thursday the Marshall County Health Department received word from the state’s Excise Police saying the plan to reopen was not approved.

Tri-Way will have to wait until Governor Holcomb lifts the current restrictions.

 

 

 

[Howe]

Italy scheduled to start reopening businesses the first week in May. I thought everyone in Italy was supposed to be dead by May. The coronavirus is more contagious and deadly than Bubonic Plague.

 

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, Howe said:

Italy scheduled to start reopening businesses the first week in May. I thought everyone in Italy was supposed to be dead by May. The coronavirus is more contagious and deadly than Bubonic Plague.

 

Interesting that you should make that comparison. The Ro — the measure of ‘contagiousness’ — of primary pneumonic plague from Yersinia pestis, Bubonic Plague, was between 2.8 and 3.5. We are learning more and more every day about SARS-CoV-2, but right now estimates of its Ro are somewhere between 2 and 4. So, in terms of contagiousness, the diseases do appear comparable. But, that’s about as far as the comparison goes. The Plague is a bacterial illness, not viral. It’s spread is airborne, not via droplets. But most importantly, the mortality rate for Plague was well over 50%, because there were no antibiotics, no ventilators, and no ICUs. I wonder what the mortality rate for Plague would be today.

The very recent un-analyzed results of spot antibody testing may suggest that many more people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 than previously thought, which would bring the mortality rate quite low, under 1%. Although a lot of people think this shows the virus is not really a great risk, to me it says more. If the overall mortality rate is actually much lower than we thought, that means the mortality rate in the vulnerable population is even higher than we thought. Without restrictions, and in the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment protocol, this virus will eventually devastate the nursing home population. 

[Howe]

French Doctor Didier Raoult Cites ‘Scientific Misconduct’ in Recent VA Study on Hydroxychloroquine; Two Major Flaws

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/23/french-doctor-didier-raoult-cites-flaws-scientific-misconduct-in-recent-va-study-on-hydroxychloroquine/

The Veterans Health Administration released the results of a study on the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine on patients being treated for COVID-19. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Health and the University of Virginia. Researchers found that not only did the drug show no benefit, it may have actually caused harm. Study results can be viewed in the medRxiv online depository.

Researchers included data from 368 COVID-19 patients. 97 were treated with hydroxychloroquine, 113 were administered a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and 158 received “standard supportive management” for COVID-19. Here’s what they found:

The two primary outcomes analyzed in the study were death and the need for ventilation.

About 28 percent who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11 percent of those getting routine care alone.

About 22 percent of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival.

Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either.

The researchers said, “In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”

Researchers did not track side effects but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death.

 

This was not a peer-reviewed study.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a statement by email to Fox News which read, “This was not a clinical trial. It is simply an analysis of retrospective data regarding hospitalized patients. The findings should not be viewed as definitive because the analysis doesn’t adjust for patients’ clinical status and showed that hydroxychloroquine alone was provided to VA’s sickest COVID-19 patients, many times as a last resort.”

 

Sounds pretty grim considering the promising results we’ve seen from other studies.

As you would expect, the mainstream media was thrilled with the bad news about the drug that President Trump has been touting.

One of the studies that showed positive results was conducted by French Dr. Didier Raoult. His study included 1,061 patients who were treated with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and demonstrated 91% effectiveness with zero side effects.

Upon hearing the surprising results of the VA study, Dr. Raoult reviewed their findings and discovered several glaring instances of “scientific misconduct.” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham reported on Raoult’s response on her program Wednesday night.

Ingraham read about the first problem from Raoult’s response, “In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct and this article [VA findings] is an absolutely spectacular example of this. The analysis of the data shows two major biases…Lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups as the non-HCQ group and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia and fatality rate, which is well known.”

One of the major problems Raoult found was that the HQC and the HQC/Zpak were given after the patients had been intubated. "This is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm [after patient is critically ill], as it is unlikely that HCQ alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.”

 

The second problem: “Incomprehensibly, the ‘untreated group’ actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID-19 (Gautret 2020) with in-vitro efficacy.”

Well, then you can’t call these patients untreated. I suppose we won’t be seeing any media coverage of the serious problem Raoult discovered in the VA study.

It looks as if the VA researchers had been trying to achieve a particular result.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bobref]

8 hours ago, Howe said:

It looks as if the VA researchers had been trying to achieve a particular result.

That’s an unwarranted conclusion. This was a retrospective study, meaning that they took medical records of old patients and analyzed them. Such studies are not nearly as valid as randomized, controlled and blinded prospective studies, because of the former’s inability to control variables. Not even the VHA people would consider these results anything close to conclusive. The results support only the very conclusion reached by these researchers: that the results should not be considered conclusive, and this study is no substitute for the type of controlled studies mandated by the FDA approval process.

No conspiracy hiding under this rock. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Muda69]

8 hours ago, Howe said:

As you would expect, the mainstream media was thrilled with the bad news about the drug that President Trump has been touting.

Bingo.  Orange Man Bad.

 

[Muda69]

The laziness and fear mongering of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  https://reason.com/2020/04/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-vice-fighting-income-inequality-is-higher-priority-than-getting-people-back-to-work/

Quote

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) argued in an interview released Wednesday that much of the public should just say "no" to going back to work after COVID-19 subsides.

Appearing on Vice TV's Seat at the Table, the democratic-socialist legislator declared that workers should fundamentally reject the current system, which she claims is preventing people from maintaining a proper work-life balance.

"Only in America, does the president, when the president tweets about liberation, does he mean 'Go back to work,'" the congresswoman said. "We have this discussion about 'going back' or 'reopening'—I think a lot of people should just say, 'No. We're not going back to that. We're not going back to working 70-hour weeks just so that we can put food on the table and not feel any sort of semblance of security in our lives.'"

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average U.S. workweek is 34 hours, not 70. However, Ocasio-Cortez appears to think 70-hour workweeks are commonplace: "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs," she told the PBS program Firing Line in 2018. "Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." Only 8.3 percent of people have more than one job, according to the most recent Census data.

...

In any event, the congresswoman is yet another politician using the COVID-19 crisis to push for policies that have little or no connection to the pandemic.

In Ocasio-Cortez's case, that means placing the fight for income equality above reviving a wrecked economy in which more than 26 million people have filed for unemployment in the last five weeks. Instead, it is time for those same people—many of whom are unable to provide for themselves and their families—to insist on better pay and benefits if they are to return to work at all.

This is par for the course for Ocasio-Cortez, whose first Green New Deal overview extended far beyond climate issues by stipulating that the government should provide "economic security for all those who are unable or unwilling to work." [Emphasis added.]

Zoom out, and you can see in the congresswoman's positions the belief that technological advances should reduce the role of work in our lives, not just change the way we clock in. While some liberal lawmakers have proposed finding disincentives for automating low-skilled work, Ocasio-Cortez says automation is an opportunity to pay humans what we don't have to pay robots.

"We should be excited about automation, because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in," she said last year in explaining why she supports a robot tax. "Because not all creativity needs to be bonded by wage."

Right now, many Americans would probably prefer to have their old jobs back—crummy hours and all—rather than sit around doing nothing and not getting paid for the privilege.

 

[Bobref]

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

The laziness and fear mongering of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  https://reason.com/2020/04/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-vice-fighting-income-inequality-is-higher-priority-than-getting-people-back-to-work/

 

Isn’t “income equality” Ocasiospeak for socialism?

[Muda69]

11 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Isn’t “income equality” Ocasiospeak for socialism?

Yep, pretty much. 

[gonzoron]

9 hours ago, Howe said:

 

Still wrapping my head around a bunch of Trump Groupies believing a drug that's been on the market for 65 years to treat malaria and diabetes is effective against a new Virus strain even though there is no other evidence to support this claim.

If Trump had said heroin has shown to be effective against Covid-19, they'd all be junkies now. Orange Man Golden Calf.

[Muda69]

25 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Still wrapping my head around a bunch of Trump Groupies believing a drug that's been on the market for 65 years to treat malaria and diabetes is effective against a new Virus strain even though there is no other evidence to support this claim.

If Trump had said heroin has shown to be effective against Covid-19, they'd all be junkies now. Orange Man Golden Calf.

It's obvious.  We need an Obama back in the White House to competently lead the country through this crisis.

 

[Bobref]

13 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

It's obvious.  We need an Obama back in the White House to competently lead the country through this crisis.

[gonzoron]

16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

It's obvious.  We need an Obama back in the White House to competently lead the country through this crisis.

 

Comparing Apples to Oranges.😄

Edited April 24, 2020 by gonzoron

[Muda69]

Just now, gonzoron said:

Comparing Apples to Oranges.

How so?  Surely Michelle or Barrack wouldn't enthusiastically flout hydroxychloroquine or heroin as a miracle drug against Covid-19, as Mr. Trump has done.

 

[gonzoron]

3 minutes ago, Bobref said:

 

[gonzoron]

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

How so?  Surely Michelle or Barrack wouldn't enthusiastically flout hydroxychloroquine or heroin as a miracle drug against Covid-19, as Mr. Trump has done.

 

We'll never know. Ingesting disinfectants is the latest recommendation.

[Muda69]

Michigan Gov. Whitmer faces protest outside her home as lawmakers mull curbing her powers

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-gov-whitmer-faces-protest-outside-her-home-as-lawmakers-mull-curbing-her-powers

Quote

Protesters gathered outside the home of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Thursday -- the same day reports emerged that she plans to extend the state’s coronavirus stay-at-home order by two weeks until May 15.

The demonstration, dubbed “Operation Queen’s Castle,” featured an image of Whitmer wearing a crown, FOX 2 of Detroit reported.

“We wanted to send Gretchen Whitmer a message, we didn't want to surrender our liberties just for a little temporary safety,” Brian Pannebecker, who helped organize the protest, told the station.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Legislature has scheduled a special session for Friday with the goal of creating an oversight committee to review Whitmer’s coronavirus orders and possibly strip her of some of her powers, the Detroit Free Press reported.

Critics have accused Whitmer, a 48-year-old first-term Democratic governor, of overstepping her authority with a series of measures intended to stem the spread of coronavirus in the state. April 9 revisions to her initial stay-at-home order included bans on visiting friends and relatives or traveling to vacation homes, and halts on sales of items such as furniture and gardening supplies.

In a podcast interview, she also said abortions should continue in the state during the virus outbreak because the procedures were part of "life-sustaining" health care for women.

In addition, Whitmer came under fire after a no-bid coronavirus-related state contract was awarded to a firm operated by a well-known Democratic consultant who had written that President Trump should "get coronavirus ASAP." Whitmer’s office later acknowleged that the contract was awarded without adhering to normal protocols.

Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, explained the point of Friday’s planned session in a Twitter message.

“The House & Senate will convene tomorrow to create a special oversight committee on COVID-19 to examine our government’s response,” he wrote. “Michigan needs to handle this pandemic seriously yet properly. It’s what the people deserve, and we will see that it happens.”

In another tweet, Chatfield noted that marijuana, lottery tickets and alcohol had been declared "essential," while lawn care, construction and fishing in a motorized boat had been declared nonessential amid the outbreak.

On Monday, Whitmer said she would take a 10 percent cut to her $159,300 annual salary and her staffers would take cuts of 5 percent as the state grapples with the financial fallout of the coronavirus shutdowns. She also continued defending the orders she has issued.

“I know it’s not easy, but the price of losing loved ones is what’s at stake,” she said, noting that many people who contract the virus show no symptoms but can still spread it.

The theme of Thursday’s protest in Lansing, the state’s capital city, was that many Michiganders who are able to work should be able to do so, Pannebecker said.

“Younger people, healthy people, without putting anybody else in danger, including ourselves, and others in danger, should be able to go back to work,”  Pannebecker told FOX 2.

The demonstration came eight days after a larger gathering outside the Statehouse called “Operation Gridlock.”

As of late Thursday, Michigan had more than 35,200 confirmed cases of the virus and nearly 3,000 deaths, the Detroit News reported.