COVID-19

[bg17]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

 

More on HCQ

[Weave]

Yeah, that site doesn't have an agenda.  LOL

 

Let me rephrase that.  Yeah, that author doesn't have an agenda, LOL.  He's a right wing bio guy for military applications.  Right wing hawk.

 

And.... yeah, politics thread for this.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Weave

[SwampD]

33 minutes ago, bg17 said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

 

More on HCQ

That article is not about HCQ.

[nfreeman]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average?time=2020-07-12..&country=USA~GBR
 

Perhaps in cumulative total, but not recently.  UK had a very high peak early on but then  quickly and consistently trended down.  US has recently seen an increase in cases and deaths, driven by the large outbreaks in several southern states.

First, that is an excellent website you linked to -- thanks.

You are right that the UK has a lower death rate currently, but the difference is pretty low in absolute numbers -- about 2 deaths per million.  Also, I think rolling 30-day average is probably a  bit more accurate than rolling 7-day.

In any case, my point was about the states, which are the bodies (along with localities) that set school-opening policy, not the fed.  Again, many states have lower death rates, including current death rates, than the UK, and those states are taking a substantially different approach from the UK's. 

I'm not saying that one is right and the other is wrong, but I find it interesting that credible parties are taking different approaches on a major issue here.

[Eleven]

Please be wary of accounts that rarely post in hockey threads, but often post in threads like this one.  POV is immaterial.  Please just be wary.

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Eleven

[Curt]

42 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

First, that is an excellent website you linked to -- thanks.

You are right that the UK has a lower death rate currently, but the difference is pretty low in absolute numbers -- about 2 deaths per million.  Also, I think rolling 30-day average is probably a  bit more accurate than rolling 7-day.

In any case, my point was about the states, which are the bodies (along with localities) that set school-opening policy, not the fed.  Again, many states have lower death rates, including current death rates, than the UK, and those states are taking a substantially different approach from the UK's. 

I'm not saying that one is right and the other is wrong, but I find it interesting that credible parties are taking different approaches on a major issue here.

You’re points are valid.  I have a hard time seeing regularly open schools not being a catalyst for increasing infection rates.  I guess we’ll see how things go.

[shrader]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Please be wary of accounts that rarely post in hockey threads, but often post in threads like this one.  POV is immaterial.  Please just be wary.

 

Hey wait a second. I barely ever post in hockey threads anymore. Actually, now that I think about it, you have a point. 

[Weave]

So, a new “study” purporting to show success with HCQ is now making the rounds on Fox News.  Its from HCQTrial.com. Problem is the trial report lists no authors, no affiliations, and its ICANN information is hidden so you cannot determine the sites registry.

Someone or some group is putting alot of effort into pushing HCQ with questionable information at best.

If you have twitter, the full thread had more information.

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Weave

[Eleven]

14 minutes ago, Weave said:

So, a new “study” purporting to show success with HCQ is now making the rounds on Fox News.  Its from HCQTrial.com. Problem is the trial report lists no authors, no affiliations, and its ICANN information is hidden so you cannot determine the sites registry.

Someone or some group is putting alot of effort into pushing HCQ with questionable information at best.

If you have twitter, the full thread had more information.

 

Some countries are just pulling out of HCQ research altogether.  Here's Australia:  https://www.smh.com.au/national/thumbs-down-for-hydroxychloroquine-from-government-virus-taskforce-20200806-p55j76.html

[Wyldnwoody44]

On 8/7/2020 at 9:46 AM, PASabreFan said:

Wouldn't the person coming in for the psych consult be offered a virtual visit?

How many people would have died from Covid if you could have had your way? How many of these non-Covid deaths you're referring to would have been avoided?

And here's your chance to report on the fallout you've seen.

 

A virtual visit sometimes simply isn't enough.

Since this began and all these drastic measures have been put into place, I have seen a significant increase in mental health issues, visits, inpatient admissions and overall increase in severity and number, many of them stem from economic fallout, and Covid related measures. 

I also see elderly patients in the home and have for several years now, I have seen a dramatic shift in health negative wise from the pure isolationism that they have to endure. As a matter of fact the daughter of a client of mine told me Covid killed her mother, she said not the disease itself, but the loneliness from no one seeing her killed her, very sad convo I had a couple of months ago. 

With the cancelled surgeries, many patients did not get proper care and their health conditions progressed; that diabetic foot ulcer they put off turned into necrotizing fasciitis and the patient went septic, lost an appendage or life. Many nursing facilities are now now letting patients back without a negative Covid test which takes several day, in the meantime there elderly patients are in a hospital where they are at severe risk of almost any infection, besides the risk of Covid. 

Furthermore, we have a very very sick population in the southern tier, the ERs basically dried up from fear, the census daily went from over 100 to 20, maybe even less, it's not like magic came and cured all these chronically ill patients, they were too afraid of Covid to seek treatment for anything else. 

The list goes on and on, and I'm simply reporting things I've personally seen in a tiny hospital in the middle of nowhere, I feel it's safe to assume that these things and more are occurring all across the country as well, and in greater numbers. 

It always seems so simple from the other side, but this whole thing goes much much deeper than a news story, metrics on a chart, and etc. 

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

A virtual visit sometimes simply isn't enough.

Since this began and all these drastic measures have been put into place, I have seen a significant increase in mental health issues, visits, inpatient admissions and overall increase in severity and number, many of them stem from economic fallout, and Covid related measures. 

I also see elderly patients in the home and have for several years now, I have seen a dramatic shift in health negative wise from the pure isolationism that they have to endure. As a matter of fact the daughter of a client of mine told me Covid killed her mother, she said not the disease itself, but the loneliness from no one seeing her killed her, very sad convo I had a couple of months ago. 

With the cancelled surgeries, many patients did not get proper care and their health conditions progressed; that diabetic foot ulcer they put off turned into necrotizing fasciitis and the patient went septic, lost an appendage or life. Many nursing facilities are now now letting patients back without a negative Covid test which takes several day, in the meantime there elderly patients are in a hospital where they are at severe risk of almost any infection, besides the risk of Covid. 

Furthermore, we have a very very sick population in the southern tier, the ERs basically dried up from fear, the census daily went from over 100 to 20, maybe even less, it's not like magic came and cured all these chronically ill patients, they were too afraid of Covid to seek treatment for anything else. 

The list goes on and on, and I'm simply reporting things I've personally seen in a tiny hospital in the middle of nowhere, I feel it's safe to assume that these things and more are occurring all across the country as well, and in greater numbers. 

It always seems so simple from the other side, but this whole thing goes much much deeper than a news story, metrics on a chart, and etc. 

Good post.

Still not sure what the “correct” course of action should have been, though. They were finding bodies in the trunks of cars in NY because funeral homes couldn’t keep up. Would it have been better if that lady’s mother had died from Covid, instead? I don’t really know.

Seems like any path taken could be viewed as the wrong one by someone.

[Wyldnwoody44]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Good post.

Still not sure what the “correct” course of action should have been, though. They were finding bodies in the trunks of cars in NY because funeral homes couldn’t keep up. Would it have been better if that lady’s mother had died from Covid, instead? I don’t really know.

Seems like any path taken could be viewed as the wrong one by someone.

I'm not so sure either, the whole point was to slow this down initially, and we have "kind of" done that. Flatten the curve, whatever you want to call it. 

Without a true herd immunity this virus will continue, and the people that will have fallout from it will still eventually get it, instead of all at once, just prolonged. I don't have much faith In a real treatment anytime soon and a vaccine will be Meh at best, especially initially. 

There is a ton of Grey in this whole thing, I just have a gut feel that the long term fallout from this will rear its ugly head in a few years, mental health, economic, etc etc, things we can't tangibly put numbers to, and those things are being dismissed at the current time, incorrectly so. 

[kas23]

5 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I don't have much faith In a real treatment anytime soon and a vaccine will be Meh at best, especially initially. 

I agree with the current treatments, but I’m curious, why are you negative about the potential of vaccine? Multiple small P2 trials have already shown more than adequate antibody production, and P3 trial results should be back in 1-2 months. Most of these drug companies are already stockpiling doses as we speak. Will these antibodies persist beyond 2-3 months, I don’t know. But, even if they lessen the severity of a primary infection, any subsequent secondary infection will likely just be mild. This virus isn’t going anywhere, but the severity associated with a primary infection will. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

14 minutes ago, kas23 said:

I agree with the current treatments, but I’m curious, why are you negative about the potential of vaccine? Multiple small P2 trials have already shown more than adequate antibody production, and P3 trial results should be back in 1-2 months. Most of these drug companies are already stockpiling doses as we speak. Will these antibodies persist beyond 2-3 months, I don’t know. But, even if they lessen the severity of a primary infection, any subsequent secondary infection will likely just be mild. This virus isn’t going anywhere, but the severity associated with a primary infection will. 

I don't have much scientific backup when it comes to the vaccination, at least not when it comes to this specific virus; I'll have to do a little research on that. I just simply don't trust a vaccination that is being rushed fairly quickly, and it's also being touted as this holy grail among most of the general public as well. I'm ok with them studying and making one, I just don't think that a vaccination is going to be as big of an answer as we hope. Hell, I'm more than ready to get back to some normalcy, so I hope it proves me wrong. 

[Stoner]

18 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

A virtual visit sometimes simply isn't enough.

Since this began and all these drastic measures have been put into place, I have seen a significant increase in mental health issues, visits, inpatient admissions and overall increase in severity and number, many of them stem from economic fallout, and Covid related measures. 

I also see elderly patients in the home and have for several years now, I have seen a dramatic shift in health negative wise from the pure isolationism that they have to endure. As a matter of fact the daughter of a client of mine told me Covid killed her mother, she said not the disease itself, but the loneliness from no one seeing her killed her, very sad convo I had a couple of months ago. 

With the cancelled surgeries, many patients did not get proper care and their health conditions progressed; that diabetic foot ulcer they put off turned into necrotizing fasciitis and the patient went septic, lost an appendage or life. Many nursing facilities are now now letting patients back without a negative Covid test which takes several day, in the meantime there elderly patients are in a hospital where they are at severe risk of almost any infection, besides the risk of Covid. 

Furthermore, we have a very very sick population in the southern tier, the ERs basically dried up from fear, the census daily went from over 100 to 20, maybe even less, it's not like magic came and cured all these chronically ill patients, they were too afraid of Covid to seek treatment for anything else. 

The list goes on and on, and I'm simply reporting things I've personally seen in a tiny hospital in the middle of nowhere, I feel it's safe to assume that these things and more are occurring all across the country as well, and in greater numbers. 

It always seems so simple from the other side, but this whole thing goes much much deeper than a news story, metrics on a chart, and etc. 

You're not looking at it from both sides though. I challenged you to estimate how many lives would have been lost without so-called drastic measures (I don't think a lot of what was asked was "drastic," but that will have to be another debate), and you didn't.

It was a really cold and rational calculation that had to be made — what response will save the most lives? I have no idea if the mitigation steps we took as a country (or 50 mini-countries, actually) were the ideal response, but I know it was better than what you would have done, chase after herd immunity that even Sweden hasn't come close to. Now, you would have helped a lot of the non-Covid victims you've talked about (if they had avoided getting sick and ending up intubated), but you don't consider the cost of achieving that.

Instead of 2,000 deaths a day, try on 15,000 or 20,000 for size. You'd have real panic, and even more businesses would have closed as people hunkered down for survival and not because the guvment said so. How many citizens would have died if police and fire departments had been wiped out? And the hospitals truly would have been overrun, even in little southern tier towns. People were still in the hospital for other things in May. What if every resource at your hospital had been directed at Covid 19? You wouldn't have restricted visits to long term care facilities, I'm guessing. What would that have produced?

There's a sweet spot. You're missing it like an Alexei Zhitnik slapshot. Most of the rest of us are at least clanging one off the post.

Edited August 9, 2020 by PASabreFan

[Stoner]

13 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I don't have much scientific backup when it comes to the vaccination, at least not when it comes to this specific virus; I'll have to do a little research on that. I just simply don't trust a vaccination that is being rushed fairly quickly, and it's also being touted as this holy grail among most of the general public as well. I'm ok with them studying and making one, I just don't think that a vaccination is going to be as big of an answer as we hope. Hell, I'm more than ready to get back to some normalcy, so I hope it proves me wrong. 

I think the public health folks have been lowering expectations of late for the vaccine. Dr. Fauci said it's very unlikely to be a highly effective vaccine (but that's defined as upper 90% effective). The vaccine could be as low as 50% effective and still be acceptable. We're looking at the flu shot here.

The answering on the rushing charge is that safety corners aren't being cut, companies are just producing vaccine "at risk," meaning they're producing vaccines before it's proven they work, which saves a lot of time (but costs a lot of money if the vaccine doesn't pass muster in Phase 3).

Edited August 9, 2020 by PASabreFan

[Wyldnwoody44]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

You're not looking at it from both sides though. I challenged you to estimate how many lives would have been lost without so-called drastic measures (I don't think a lot of what was asked was "drastic," but that will have to be another debate), and you didn't.

It was a really cold and rational calculation that had to be made — what response will save the most lives? I have no idea if the mitigation steps we took as a country (or 50 mini-countries, actually) were the ideal response, but I know it was better than what you would have done, chase after herd immunity that even Sweden hasn't come close to. Now, you would have helped a lot of the non-Covid victims you've talked about (if they had avoided getting sick and ending up intubated), but you don't consider the cost of achieving that.

Instead of 2,000 deaths a day, try on 15,000 or 20,000 for size. You'd have real panic, and even more businesses would have closed as people hunkered down for survival and not because the guvment said so. How many citizens would have died if police and fire departments had been wiped out? And the hospitals truly would have been overrun, even in little southern tier towns. People were still in the hospital for other things in May. What if every resource at your hospital had been directed at Covid 19? You wouldn't have restricted visits to long term care facilities, I'm guessing. What would that have produced?

There's a sweet spot. You're missing it like an Alexei Zhitnik slapshot. Most of the rest of us are at least clanging one off the post.

This is the problem, this "debate" isn't possible with tangible evidence because it's all really a great unknown, so for right now we will just have to settle with being on separate pages. 

I don't discount the numbers of things I've seen, and many others I haven't seen when it comes to collateral damage from the Covid lockdown. I'm also not fully bought into the death toll numbers overall, I have personally seen many cases of them being fudged, and on a bigger scale, those add up. I get why, it does get into my gripe of modern medicine, but I digress. 

I don't think this is a made up disease, but I think the gross overreaction was a bit much and I guess I just ask too much of the leaders in the realm. The public panics easy, it's human nature and expected, maybe my military training is getting the better of me when it comes to dealing with people in a time of panic, remaining calm is a virtue that not many posses, under fire. 

Anyways, I'm more than happy to keep chatting on this , I'm honestly just happy things can be a bit more civil and more constructive, even if we don't fully agree ?

[SwampD]

33 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

This is the problem, this "debate" isn't possible with tangible evidence because it's all really a great unknown, so for right now we will just have to settle with being on separate pages. 

I don't discount the numbers of things I've seen, and many others I haven't seen when it comes to collateral damage from the Covid lockdown. I'm also not fully bought into the death toll numbers overall, I have personally seen many cases of them being fudged, and on a bigger scale, those add up. I get why, it does get into my gripe of modern medicine, but I digress. 

I don't think this is a made up disease, but I think the gross overreaction was a bit much and I guess I just ask too much of the leaders in the realm. The public panics easy, it's human nature and expected, maybe my military training is getting the better of me when it comes to dealing with people in a time of panic, remaining calm is a virtue that not many posses, under fire. 

Anyways, I'm more than happy to keep chatting on this , I'm honestly just happy things can be a bit more civil and more constructive, even if we don't fully agree ?

I really think your view would be different if you were down here (tristate area). I don’t know anyone who doesn’t know someone that died. We had 470 deaths in my town alone. With a population of around 16500 people, that’s almost 3%. That’s significant.

[Wyldnwoody44]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

I really think your view would be different if you were down here (tristate area). I don’t know anyone who doesn’t know someone that died. We had 470 deaths in my town alone. With a population of around 16500 people, that’s almost 3%. That’s significant.

That may be possible, I do work with nurses that have worked in the NY area during the worst and they certainly paint a grave picture. I don't discount the Tri state area, but I also know that the NY area is a bit of an overall outlier due to the sheer volume and density of people in a small area, there's almost no escaping anything when it hits that area. 

[freester]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

I really think your view would be different if you were down here (tristate area). I don’t know anyone who doesn’t know someone that died. We had 470 deaths in my town alone. With a population of around 16500 people, that’s almost 3%. That’s significant.

Any idea how many of the deaths in your town were nursing home deaths?  

[SwampD]

52 minutes ago, freester said:

Any idea how many of the deaths in your town were nursing home deaths?  

17

Edited August 9, 2020 by SwampD

[Stoner]

3 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

This is the problem, this "debate" isn't possible with tangible evidence because it's all really a great unknown, so for right now we will just have to settle with being on separate pages. 

I don't discount the numbers of things I've seen, and many others I haven't seen when it comes to collateral damage from the Covid lockdown. I'm also not fully bought into the death toll numbers overall, I have personally seen many cases of them being fudged, and on a bigger scale, those add up. I get why, it does get into my gripe of modern medicine, but I digress. 

I don't think this is a made up disease, but I think the gross overreaction was a bit much and I guess I just ask too much of the leaders in the realm. The public panics easy, it's human nature and expected, maybe my military training is getting the better of me when it comes to dealing with people in a time of panic, remaining calm is a virtue that not many posses, under fire. 

Anyways, I'm more than happy to keep chatting on this , I'm honestly just happy things can be a bit more civil and more constructive, even if we don't fully agree ?

I've heard many credible public health experts say the death toll is undercounted. There have been stories about "excess deaths," deaths you wouldn't have expected to see if the pandemic didn't happen. You could very well use that number and say it's the mitigation that killed those people, but that bit of data has led those experts to believe the direct Covid 19 death toll is in excess of 200,000.

I took a shot at you for your really very terrible nursing home comment. I think I've been civil otherwise. You had a dustup with someone else. I don't think you've been savaged by any means in this thread. Unless comments were deleted and I didn't see them. I saw your remark on the disrespect you've been shown and had to chuckle. You wouldn't want to go back in time and be PASabreFan for 15 years here. I've been personally attacked so many times I've lost count, with little to no support from the powers that be, who often have joined in the attacks (including a recent mysogyny accusation). You are by comparison a MFP.

[Wyldnwoody44]

I wasn't being sarcastic in my post, I genuinely meant that things were civil, many months ago things got outta hand, in the heat of the pandemic and I took some time away, it wasn't with you. 

Since this thing isn't going away anytime soon, how long do we keep many things at a low capacity, certain businesses closed, borders closed, etc. 

At some point we have to deal with the fact that we have a new thing to deal with and we have to open things up wisely, but they need to move forward. 

[Weave]

Anecdote time.

We had a cookout with long time friends this afternoon.  I worked with Matt for 12 years.  We meet up 3-4 times a year to catch up.  Matt, his wife, son, and both his parents had COVID in mid March.  Noone was hospitalized.  Matt’s mother had it the worst. She’s about 5 yrs older than I am.  She was bed ridden for 3 weeks.

Significantly, she is still having trouble breathing.  She cannot make it up the stairs without a break to catch her breath.  She cannot mow the lawn.  X-rays and MRIs cannot pinpoint any specific cause.

My buddy and his wife (age Mid 30’s)have still not regained their sense of smell and taste.  They are concerned about long term effects.

[Taro T]

On 8/7/2020 at 2:14 PM, atoq said:

You ask people to read 60+ articles and roll your eyes at 5 paragraphs. I did misquote, having originally intended to quote more and respond point by point, but instead responding more generally to the series of posts the followed. Oh well, nobody is perfect, I made careless mistakes in my post and you look for medical advice on a political sub-forum of a NFL message board. We're all doing our best.

3 minutes later. Nice try.

I think we can all get behind more quality science being made available to the public. However, in this case there was curation and interpretation of those studies, as well as misleading design elements on the page itself. I think 100% agree that it's a good thing that people read more science papers, but its also fair to say that trained experts are much more equipped to review, interpret and make decisions on this type of work. Let's be honest, neither you nor are I nearly as informed as we like to claim we are in internet message board arguments.

Please show me anywhere where I accused you of touting not social distancing, ignoring proper hygiene. As I had discussed in the previous paragraph, there is an undeniable segment of the population whose perspective on HCQ is influenced by the idea that the severity of the virus has been exaggerated, lock downs were/are unnecessary (and politically motivated), and that known medicines that work are being suppressed. People with these views are more likely to not wear masks and ignore social distancing protocols. Those viewpoints are widely expressed where you found the link, just one step away from this message board. I intentionally tried not to reference you specifically in this group (and certainly not shrader) to give you the benefit of the doubt that although you frequent those site and often share their content, you don't buy into the conspiracy theories.

Let's look at a case study of a public figure, Herman Cain, who touted HCQ treatment from March-June, later attended a large public event in late June against recommended social distancing protocols while also not wearing a mask (even though he touted mask wearing on his site), to later catch and die from COVID. He obviously understood the importance of masks and social distancing yet irrationally disregarded all of that advice. Obviously we can't say for certain if he took those risks because he thought he could rely on HCQ, but HCQ was certainly in the equation given how outspoken Cain was on the topic.

So then you agree that high profile government officials promoting the use of an unproven treatment is irresponsible? Especially given that it led to people taking a non-FDA approved medicine shown to potentially have side-effects, as well as causing a rush for those drugs thus limiting availability for those who may need the medicines for other conditions?

This isn't what I was saying, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. The pandemic response is as much as a social experiment as one of policy. We need both common-sense public policy that researches potential treatment and vaccines while at the same time enacting communication strategies that promote social behaviors that will keep the virus from spreading. I think we need both carrot-and-stick aspects to policy, in which certain standards are established with regards to use of masks, social distancing, testing and contact-tracing (stick) but perhaps even more more importantly, that these policies are bound together by cohesive public messaging that encourages mutually respectful behaviors that help slow the virus from spreading (carrot). I think it would be difficult to argue that either of these has happened in a country with the highest COVID case count and number of deaths in the world. I refer to HCQ as a distraction because policy and cohesive communications efforts have obviously proven insufficient so far, yet there has been a tremendous public focus on HCQ due to certain individuals, which has only created unnecessary debate, division and confusion.

Is there a good reason for publicly promoting unproven HCQ as a solution while publicly downplaying proven solutions like extensive testing and contact tracing (and even masks up until the past weeks)? Is this dichotomy due to concern for public health outcomes, or because there hasn't been enough tests available but lots of HCQ available? Do you think it is a coincidence that many of the countries most badly affected by COVID (US, Brazil, Mexico, India, Venezuela) are all promoting unproven medications?

Shrader very well may be right that a certain segment of the population would ignore masks and social distancing recommendations anyway, for the reasons he listed. I see the HCQ conversation as just a small part of a larger discourse that attempts to minimize the severity of the virus, further emboldening those people to ignore public health advice.

I assume the scientists are continually doing their jobs looking for treatment and cures, the main failure I see has been with communication and community building strategies to foster the public cohesion needed to stop a pandemic. Undue and premature focus on HCQ has only worsened this. Is waiting for FDA approval considered a controversial stance in the US these days?

 

To your 1st paragraph, pretty sure the proper response is something else but will simply roll with 'whatever.'

To the rest, on at least 2 occasions now you've cut out large portions of my post and respond to snippets.  While I expect we could have a very interesting discussion about the overall topic and keep it to a non-political discussion, am expecting the effort to keep the discussion from getting moved isn't going to be worth it as you seem determined to conflate my views with those of people that do take extreme views (but said you'd give me the benefit of the doubt though so there's that).

Since you seem interested in my views on the virus itself, will provide them for kicks and giggles.  IMHO the initial lockdowns were good decisions as we had very limited information but believe places that hadn't seen a wave should've reopened when it became apparent they weren't getting hit.  Am absolutely in favor of the social distancing and improved hygiene efforts that this virus has spurred.  Believe there's times and places where masks can be useful but believe their usefulness is limited.  (Those 1st 2 items are far more effective in limiting the spread of this and other airborne viruses than paper masks are.  Would like to see respirator production ramp up and also have better education of how to properly wear them and care for them as they'd be far more effective than masks would be.)   

Agree that contact tracing can be effective in areas that have limited cases, but once a critical mass is passed in an area don't believe that it can be effectively implemented.  And with how quickly cases seem to multiply once they do start showing an exponential growth, expect that threshold where they are useful is lower than we'd hope.  Not saying tracing should no longer be attempted at that point, but its effectiveness is severely impaired at that point.  When 10-20% of a local population has the virus, unless you are locked in your house and treat every package entering your house with UV-C, you've come in contact with the virus.

As for HCQ, don't know that it works, expect that there's a reasonable likeliness that in limited situations (very early stage infection, in combination with something else) it does.  Definitely don't see it as a miracle cure.  But am as suspicious of those that are adamant that it should never be given to COVID patients due to "facts" like the debunked Lancet study as you are of those touting it as a "miracle cure."  

Right now, there is no proven treatment nor is there an effective vaccine (& contrary to what we hear, there may never be one (or we could have one this Tuesday; that's the thing with research, we don't know when a breakthrough will occur or even if one will occur)), there have been some therapeutics that anecdotally have shown to be promising.  Were I to get the virus, I'd be asking my Dr. about both HCQ & Remdesivir and what her thoughts were.  This current situation has finally gotten her pleas to take vitamin D to be heeded.  But, considering HCQ's lengthy history of extremely rare significant side effects for most people taking it for a limited time and low cost would be open to taking it in combination with something she seems appropriate as the downside to taking it at present is in all probability significantly less drastic than full course untreated COVID-2.   As we see additional research would be open to changing that opinion.  And really, as this virus has only been in public for shorter than a pregnancy, we are likely a long way from having anything other than Remdesivir (which seems only limitedly effective itself) which will be approved by the FDA; there aren't many other options available for the near future.  (And it is truly astounding the number of people working on mitigation of this virus in so many additional fields besides simply medicine.  We'll see a LOT of innovations because of it.)

And while you understandably are concerned about people not taking the virus seriously enough and we should be concerned about that, my bigger concern is that we often seem to be viewing the virus and how to respond to it in a vacuum and don't fully look at the big picture of how other things will also be effected by the response to the virus and we are very likely creating other problems that will have to be addressed as well.  Woody's been far more eloquent about some of those than yours truly could hope to be so they won't be addressed here.

Seems to me, if an area/ region isn't having issues, it should be open but wary and ready to close at signs that the area is starting down the path of Milan, or NYC, or LA, or Phoenix, or Houston.  Also would really like to see more studies of what happened when the virus got under control in a particular area and why it came under control.  People are touting areas that the virus stopped ravishing as "successes." Would like to understand better how it came under control and why?  Would not be surprised if the answers are different in different areas.  Those that got pounded seem to have ~20% of the residents exposed and then the disease ebbs.  Afaict, we haven't seen an area have more than ~ 20% of the population exposed.  Is that the level that brings herd immunity, is the the point at which the best practices finally start winning the battle? (The latter seems counter intuitive, but it's not impossible.)  Are there areas seeing significantly more of the population exposed before the crisis wanes?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

We seem to get it under control earlier for places that aren't hit as hard.  Is that due to response & treatments, something innate in that local population, a combination, or other?   Will those areas get hit again?  Will the areas hit hard get hit again? All unknowns at present.

Regards.  ?