Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (721672)	7/16/2020 11:55:42 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793771

As usual, great points. It is not astonishing that a younger group of patients would be less likely to have had a significantly different finding. Median age of 50 strikes me as really weird.

To: skinowski who wrote (721672)	7/17/2020 12:30:16 AM
From: frankw1900	4 Recommendations Recommended By 3bar lightshipsailor Thehammer Thomas M. Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793771

If they had more patients, maybe they’d get significant results - but, they say they couldn’t get more patients. Because? The patients were not available? Or, to the point, the patients that matter - over 60 years old - were not available? I am skeptical because +60 cohorts are the majority of folk who pay attention to symptoms and are the majority who get ill from the infection and die from it. As the poster notes, the graph below is not exactly 'scientific' but I'd note it sure as hell is empirical. MDs see graphs like this and they're going to check out the HCQ option, see it's mostly safe and cheap, stick the symptomatic patients on it while the [if available] test rigamarole and wait happens. twitter.com Except for immuno-compromised and old farts like us the Covid-19 thing is grinding to a halt, isn't it?