Originally Posted by BillSWPA
If HCQ was so effective why wasn't president Trump given it?
If HCQ was so effective why wasn't president Trump given it?
I liked your post because you make some really good points. I will, however, dispute the point about "making population-level decisions and being held responsible for outcomes.
Who is being held responsible for hundreds of thousands of businesses destroyed or tens of millions of jobs lost?
Who is being held responsible for anyone who did not get a routine screening at a particularly unfortunate time not to have that screening, and a life threatening condition was missed (estimated to be about 150,000 last spring)?
I do not see anyone making population level decisions who is being held responsible for those decisions. The doctors known to me and my family, some of whom see COVID patients, have very little respect for the doctors advising population-level decisions.
I will concede that if we are talking about single, large events, the balance of harms is different.
Utah.
Doctors disagree all the time. It is normal. When I was questioning my org's decision for mandatory masks and other measures, I asked for their supporting info. I got an article with bunch of studies. One of them showed an inverse distance relationship. Meaning there was a group of doctors that published that closer to covid19 source was safer.
The disagreement is a source of a progress. Even when wrong side of argument is refuted, it serves a purpose of confirming the other opinion. 100% agreement is rarely possible, especially with new and emerging pathogens. The standard of practice, the legal standard, and a moral standard is and has been "what a reasonable doctor would do". Such standard is established by what majority of practitioners are doing in such situations, which in turn is based on quality of available evidence, and that's what's used for standards of care and policy making. 1 doc believing in HCQ falls under "duly noted" when 12 others independently came to the opposite conclusion. We don't set policies on minority opinions, and it falls onto minority to prove other are wrong.
I would welcome somebody to put a pressure on me not to use a treatment that I myself had found effective. If it was a single person, weeding them out would feel great. If it was an organization, that would likely mean a decent settlement and early retirement.
Last edited by YVK; 11-09-2020 at 11:20 PM.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Agree. However it’s not one doc, it’s multitudes.
We are unlikely to reach agreement on this. The big difference is I’m less interested in forcing people to adopt my idea than many others are for the nation to adopt their idea of what to do.
It also bothers me that most of these discussion center around covid and not the victims of the lock down.
You probably have more courage than most. Also that pressure can come from misinformation. My family doctor is awesome, but he’s not perfect. I disagree with him on some of the corona virus things, but I still respect him.
Me neither, actually. Except that you and I are not charged with making nationwide and statewide decisions. If we were, you'd be interested in people adopting your ideas, and I mine.
That's because mandates, enforcements and regulations don't equal lockdowns. I don't think anyone disagrees that lockdowns are terrible, and we have all experienced that. I have not advocated for them in this thread. What I've shared with you and everyone is an experience we're having after the lockdown was lifted in a state that adopted as much anti-lockdown stance and personal decisions reliance as possible, short of South Dakota.
It is not a courage. I base my decisions on explicit clinical reasoning, verbalized in front of my patients. If I deemed a treatment effective, there is a data behind it. If I give a treatment that has little or no data, the patient is fully aware and we're also fully adherent to "do no harm" principle first. I am always open to a professional advice and critique. Somebody might be able to convince me that I am wrong but pressuring me into not giving a treatment without medical evidence, that would be some fireworks.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
My family was directly affected by a mandatory shutdown. My partner lost her business. Gone.
But you know what?
When you ask her, she says that pales in comparison to people getting this. It’s not even a question. How can you weigh life against “victims of the lockdown?” This is like the spoiled brats here that scream “but muh rights!” when they’re told they have to wear masks to enter a store.
People disgust me.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Do I disgust you? Because I disagree with your partner. Did she lose all her money, her ability to pay rent? Did she suffer isolation ?
I bet more people, who lost their business and jobs over the lockdown, disagree with your partner than agree with her.
Your mocking take on the “muh rights” people can be directed right back at you.
Decisions to shatter the businesses and jobs lies with the country leaders, as are the solutions to offset the damages. They volunteered for the jobs and sometimes it is not all glamour. It is not the docs' jobs and I totally agree with you that docs who advice for that are shielded from being held accountable in a very direct way. But the same goes for the leaders who ultimately make such decisions. Fauci has lost as much reputation over covid response in some circles as Trump in others, and neither will be held liable in any way other than public opinion. As it has been said, no governmental employee regardless of party affiliation lost their jobs to covid.
That said, I would like to clarify my statement that you quoted. Everyone at the top of public health chain made their call and recommended for the lockdown. They put they reputation, legacy, possibly leadership positions (Trump saying he would've fired Fauci if not for damage control) on line. The opposing opinion group is doing it from the sidelines, except for the Swedish guy. It is very easy to sit in my office and criticize Fauci as I think he has screwed up a couple of times but I would've not wanted to be in his place when the call had to be made. Criticizing public health officials in retrospect is pretty much a Monday morning quarterbacking to me. The end point is below and I don't think it is a great outcome
A review by the Kaiser Health News service and The Associated Press finds at least 49 state and local public health leaders have resigned, retired or been fired since April across 23 states. The list has grown by more than 20 people since the AP and KHN started keeping track in June.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Actually, on this topic you do. People with your mindset hold direct responsibility for the current surge, and blood will be on your hands.
I’m done with you.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Fair enough.
You didn’t answer most of my questions.
Those of us who advocate fully opening up do have blood on our hands, as do those like you who advocate locking down. The question is which does less damage and hurts the least amount of people.
While I think your opinions are based on fear, and not clarity of thought, I do believe you have good intentions. Plus I could be wrong, and it could be my thinking that is off.
Remember they are trying to suppress one side of the discussion. That should at least give you some pause.
