MovieChat Forums > filmflaneur
filmflaneur (1136)
Posts
Gaetz withdraws.
Church covered up 'abhorrent' abuse, report finds
Gaza’s top Islamic scholar issues fatwa criticising 7 October attack
All without proof naturally...
International ‘race science’ network secretly funded by US tech boss
Melania Trump is latest Republican First Lady to back abortion
One in six children sexually abused in Jesus Army cult
Why would an all-good deity deliberately create evil (misfortune)?
Judge delays sentencing in Defendant Donald's hush-money case
Is anyone here who is not white and male?
View all posts >
Replies
The idea that The National Library of Medicine, or indeed the other site, is fake news is really hard to argue. In fact suggesting that nothing a corrective or inconvenient voice provides by way of answer is necessarily mis/dis-info is just a lazy trope.
And one notes that you do not offer the alternate data and sources I suggested you provide. Funny that.
<blockquote> The death rate for people who were put on ventilators was as high as 97%. </blockquote>
"Among 1,966 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, 1,198 (61%) died within 28 days after intubation, 46 (2%) were transferred to other hospitals outside of the Northwell Health system, 722 (37%) survived in the hospital until 28 days or were discharged after recovery. The risk of mortality of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to expanded ICUs was not different from those admitted to traditional ICUs ,,,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9353963/
Ventilators can damage lungs no doubt but they have saved lives. (Also there is a difference between warning that ventilators should not be used on damaged lungs, which our friend did above in shouty letters, and occasions when they damage lungs as an instance)
<blockquote>Remdesevir ... biggest killer during the plandemic. (sic) </blockquote>
"In this retrospective cohort study of 24 856 patients with COVID-19 and 24 856 propensity score–matched control patients using US-based health insurance claims and hospital chargemaster data, remdesivir treatment was associated with significant 17% lower risk of inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799114
Now I don't pretend to have medical knowledge I can only report what my research tells me. If you have alternate data and sources which are much different please share.
<blockquote>How many times do I have to repeat?
VENTILATORS SHOULD NOT BE USED ON PATIENTS WITH DAMAGED LUNGS!!</blockquote>
That may be so, but how many times have I insisted they ought to be? I just said above that ventilators should be properly managed. It seems likely that your unhappy experience is making you too proscriptive. From the link you supplied we also read "The reason [for the death rate] is not clear. It may have to do with what kind of shape the patients were in before they were infected. Or it could be related to how sick they had become by the time they were put on the machines, some experts said..." Again I have no medical training but it seems that it is not all black and white. I would emphasis sensible point too, from your link, that many Covid victims were dying anyway and so the ventilator was very often a last hope, hence the high mortality.
<blockquote> It has become apparent you deem yourself to be more knowledgable than the above physicians </blockquote>
Then you are mistaken, as we both agree that ventilators ought not to be dismissed as a medical aid especially when proven to have saved lives during the epidemic but that they are, like most medical interventions, not without risk - and so should be properly managed.
Since we are just repeating things and you are now getting abusive, this is all from me. And, as with the last exchange between us on this thread, all the information has already been provided, so please just check back. I am not even sure of your argument tbh. Trump says there are apparently fine people on both sides of the confrontation. He makes an effort and condemns the neo-Nazis and others. <b>But then, as pointed out several times already, he also says that <i>he puts no one on a moral plane</i>. In which case, distinguishing between fine people he approves of and the rest is moot.</B> How can he supposedly condemn a group and yet at the same time not make a moral judgment? That makes everyone 'pretty fine'.
Thank you for playing.
edit: clarifying and emphasising the points here.
<blockquote>Still not the full quote. </blockquote>
I have linked to the transcript in full just above, but good try.
<blockquote>Are you stupid or dishonest? I'd say both. </blockquote>
I'd say that insults are now all you have.
"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. " ... but also apparently " I'm not putting anyone on a moral plane" LOL So he condemns people and then, er, does not, not even the worst.
<blockquote>It's been about 7 years now, everyone knows what Trump said.</blockquote>
We sure do.
Next time you discuss this with someone, remember to recognise Trump's moral equivocation.
Always happy to correct myself, thank you. Its funny when you don't recognise Trump putting all on an equal moral plane and calling right wingers, who include the worst, 'very fine people' I can only report what was said.
'Very fine people' was said of a group which included white supremacists and neo-Nazis. It is true later in the conversation he condemned Nazis and nationalists. But then only after, as I pointed out, Trump confusingly refused to put anyone, including the worst of the worst, on a moral plane. Job done.
All fair points but to dismiss ventilators out of hand as a medical aid, when it is proven that they can work to save lives, and certainly did during the epidemic is a little extreme. I don't dispute they can have problems, and that your experience is genuine. Just let's have a sense of proportion. You are, obviously, entitled to listen to any medical advice you prefer.
View all replies >