Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[GoofGoof]

My point is, there is little to no oversight, and there is a HUGE bucket of money. If you don't think that greed and corruption will be a big part of that equation, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I started this conversation with a point that real world data from doctors is being banned on social media. This is not just POTUS. He retweeted a video that was about 30 doctors stating how hydroxychloroquine worked for them in real world cases. Not labs. Not research. Not university studies. They used it with COVID patients, and it worked effectively in hundreds of cases. This is backed up by my own experience of knowing someone who also has seen the effectiveness, and recommends it as a treatment. When there's a HUGE bucket of money on the line, I am going to question the motives of anyone who could profit in on way or another.

Do the social media sites that banned the data you talk about profit from hydroxychloroquine not being used? I get that there needs to be oversight of how the government funds are spent and I agree that without that oversight there’s a good chance of corruption, but I just don‘t follow the logic that it’s a big conspiracy that all these parties are in on. I also still have a hard time believing that doctors and public health officials who spent their whole lives getting advance degrees and doing research are just going to throw it all away to be part of a conspiracy that makes institutional investors and executives at pharmaceutical companies money, let alone letting patients just die who could have been saved by a miracle drug. Seems far fetched.

 

[October82]

Florida has required that their distance learning equal seat time for all students - Yep, even kindergarteners - so it’s happening in at least one state.

Distance learning can mean many things, not all of which are "lecturing via zoom". As someone having to manage the transition to online teaching myself, I know how badly we need more resources and research into how to do this well. It's a real concern, but the original claim that sparked this conversation was the idea that students will be missing an entire year. They won't be. Obviously we would all like to be back in classrooms, but the hyperbole around this doesn't help.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Distance learning can mean many things, not all of which are "lecturing via zoom". As someone having to manage the transition to online teaching myself, I know how badly we need more resources and research into how to do this well. It's a real concern, but the original claim that sparked this conversation was the idea that students will be missing an entire year. They won't be. Obviously we would all like to be back in classrooms, but the hyperbole around this doesn't help.

I was really impressed with the activities that my son's OT and PhysEd teachers came up with for them to do at home. They'd post the assignment on Monday, with the idea that it would be ready for Thursday's Google Meet. We did an activity mat, yoga, an obstacle course, exercises, etc. Each week was a different thing. The trickiest part of it was the camera aspect - three of the four kids were on laptops, rather than a phone, so positioning it so they could both see the screen and have them be seen doing their activity was tricky at times.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I question all the studies that say it isn't effective. My step-father is on a daily regimen for his rheumatoid arthritis. He has an existing heart condition (he had a quadruple bypass), and he has no problems taking it daily. My step-dad literally doesn't believe in germs and refuses to be careful even when he has a cold to avoid getting other people sick...I can't imagine him being super careful about hand-washing (my mom says he DOES wear a mask, but how careful he is in handling it, who knows). Long story short, if there was anyone I know personally who I thought would get infected, it would be him...but he hasn't been. I don't know the dose he takes, but maybe it's low enough that it's not causing him any issues.

HCQ doesn't automatically cause harm. It has other medical uses with *potential* bad side effects. But if someone doesn't get a side effect, then, it doesn't have a side effect for that person.

When HCQ is used to help those with serious complications from COVID, it turns out that it has no beneficial effect with regard to COVID.

There is no study, flawed or peer reviewed, that makes the claim that HCQ *prevents* COVID. All the studies were whether it could alleviate symptoms of someone seriously or critically ill.

Since it has no beneficial effect along with a *potential* negative side effect, then it shouldn't be used for COVID at all.

It's odd that one would question the studies that say it isn't effective, but trust the one flawed study that says it is. You wouldn't even know about HCQ to think it might be worthwhile if it wasn't for that first study. Why aren't you questioning that first outlier study?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

HCQ doesn't automatically cause harm. It has other medical uses with *potential* bad side effects. But if someone doesn't get a side effect, then, it doesn't have a side effect for that person.

When HCQ is used to help those with serious complications from COVID, it turns out that it has no beneficial effect with regard to COVID.

There is no study, flawed or peer reviewed, that makes the claim that HCQ *prevents* COVID. All the studies were whether it could alleviate symptoms of someone seriously or critically ill.

Since it has no beneficial effect along with a *potential* negative side effect, then it shouldn't be used for COVID at all.

It's odd that one would question the studies that say it isn't effective, but trust the one flawed study that says it is. You wouldn't even know about HCQ to think it might be worthwhile if it wasn't for that first study. Why aren't you questioning that first outlier study?

I question all of them to be honest...poor wording on my part. And part of why I question them all is for multiple reasons - including that many of these studies are in the pre-print phase. I even question whether making them available to the public before they're actually printed is the best choice. Then there's the MSM and how they handle the studies and either promote or downplay them...they aren't exactly very trustworthy these days.

 

[GoofGoof]

HCQ doesn't automatically cause harm. It has other medical uses with *potential* bad side effects. But if someone doesn't get a side effect, then, it doesn't have a side effect for that person.

When HCQ is used to help those with serious complications from COVID, it turns out that it has no beneficial effect with regard to COVID.

There is no study, flawed or peer reviewed, that makes the claim that HCQ *prevents* COVID. All the studies were whether it could alleviate symptoms of someone seriously or critically ill.

Since it has no beneficial effect along with a *potential* negative side effect, then it shouldn't be used for COVID at all.

It's odd that one would question the studies that say it isn't effective, but trust the one flawed study that says it is. You wouldn't even know about HCQ to think it might be worthwhile if it wasn't for that first study. Why aren't you questioning that first outlier study?

In the beginning when we all wanted this and several other drugs to be a big part of treatment for the virus it was never even suggested it could prevent the virus. It was always supposed to be a treatment to reduce symptoms once infected (like Tamiflu for the flu). I don’t know where or how it transformed into a preventative and a cure. I guess maybe the talking heads came up with that. It does make for a better story.

 

[October82]

My point is, there is little to no oversight, and there is a HUGE bucket of money. If you don't think that greed and corruption will be a big part of that equation, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I started this conversation with a point that real world data from doctors is being banned on social media. This is not just POTUS. He retweeted a video that was about 30 doctors stating how hydroxychloroquine worked for them in real world cases. Not labs. Not research. Not university studies. They used it with COVID patients, and it worked effectively in hundreds of cases. This is backed up by my own experience of knowing someone who also has seen the effectiveness, and recommends it as a treatment. When there's a HUGE bucket of money on the line, I am going to question the motives of anyone who could profit in on way or another.

I don't mean this to be flippant, but the basic problem is not knowing what scientific research actually is. There is no comparison between stories that you read on social media, or videos put out by politicians, and scientific research. To get a sense for this, let's use the example study posted by @hopemax

The steps of the scientific method are often simplified to:
1. Ask a question
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis.

In the abstract for the linked paper, the authors write that:

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited.

This is the authors commenting that doctors had (anecdotally) seen that these drugs seemed effective. That's steps 1 and 2. Then they write down what we call a scientific hypothesis, which is how we test to see if a claim is true or discover the answer to a question. The question they asked was of the form "if this drug is effective, what would we expect to to see?" This is step 3.

Step 4 is to design and conduct an experiment. The authors write:

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days.

This is called a randomized controlled trial. Randomization is a simple step that makes reduces both conscious and unconscious bias from effecting the results of a study.

Step 5 is to Analyze data and draw conclusions. The authors of this paper do the following analysis:

The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed.

And in the paper, you can see how they did this in terms of technical-mathemaical details that you can check yourself. The results of that analysis are:

A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P=1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P=1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent.

Finally, the results are:

Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.

(bold mine)

The scientists in question then followed the last step of the scientific method by 6. communicating results.

Rather than post on social media or put out a video, the researchers here submitted their paper for peer-review. Because of the importance of transparency, the authors also disclosed their funding sources, noting that while drugs were provided by a pharmaceutical company to help conduct the trial, "EMS Pharma had no role in the conduct of the trial, the analysis, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The trial was overseen by an independent international data and safety monitoring committee. The executive committee vouches for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol (available at NEJM.org)."

In addition to going through peer review (typically multiple reviewers criticize a paper for several rounds before a paper is accepted), because it is important that science is reproducible, the authors also state that "A data sharing statement provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org." where they state they will provide their data to other scientific researchers.

I wanted to go through this because I don't think non-scientists appreciate the vast difference in how reliable academic research is as compared to other forms of research that you might do, including listening to videos put out by physicians about their experiences and perceptions.

 

[Andrew C]

Florida has required that their distance learning equal seat time as if they were in school for all students - Yep, even kindergarteners - so it’s happening in at least one state. The log in at 8:45 and log out at 3:00 (or whatever their respective school time is)

My district did this in the spring for the first week they went distance learning. They quickly realized it was too much screen time for the kids and adjusted accordingly the following week. After the adjustment they had zoom classes with their teachers from 8am to around 12:30pm. And then kids were required to spend an hour after that doing solo work based on a number of provides options. And Wednesday’s were changed to completely independent work with a teacher check in in the morning. Different grades had something similar but not exactly the same. They adjusted by age.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Do the social media sites that banned the data you talk about profit from hydroxychloroquine not being used? I get that there needs to be oversight of how the government funds are spent and I agree that without that oversight there’s a good chance of corruption, but I just don‘t follow the logic that it’s a big conspiracy that all these parties are in on. I also still have a hard time believing that doctors and public health officials who spent their whole lives getting advance degrees and doing research are just going to throw it all away to be part of a conspiracy that makes institutional investors and executives at pharmaceutical companies money, let alone letting patients just die who could have been saved by a miracle drug. Seems far fetched.

To piggyback off of the conspiracy that so many people need to be involved in, it’s impossible. You would need not only everyone conspiring to do it but you would also need thousands upon thousands of people that work with all these doctors and health officials to keep quiet if they found out about it. Come on everyone, aren’t we smarter then that? It’s a political agenda being pushed and that’s it. We all are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts. These people have spent years upon years of schooling and hard research to what, pull the wool over people’s eyes?
The new trending word is Big Tech, not allowing the truth to be told. I never thought we would go so low.

 

[celluloid]

To piggyback off of the conspiracy that so many people need to be involved in, it’s impossible. You would need not only everyone conspiring to do it but you would also need thousands upon thousands of people that work with all these doctors and health officials to keep quiet if they found out about it. Come on everyone, aren’t we smarter then that? It’s a political agenda being pushed and that’s it. We all are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts. These people have spent years upon years of schooling and hard research to what, pull the wool over people’s eyes?
The new trending word is Big Tech, not allowing the truth to be told. I never thought we would go so low.

It is like the Blackfish people claiming that all of Marine Biologists in the field of conservation are lying to help Sea World, Zoos and Aquariums. We have seen so much "Have you seen this documentary?" count for education the last decade.

 

[October82]

To piggyback off of the conspiracy that so many people need to be involved in, it’s impossible. You would need not only everyone conspiring to do it but you would also need thousands upon thousands of people that work with all these doctors and health officials to keep quiet if they found out about it. Come on everyone, aren’t we smarter then that? It’s a political agenda being pushed and that’s it. We all are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts. These people have spent years upon years of schooling and hard research to what, pull the wool over people’s eyes?

This is another place where I think people largely don't understand what it actually takes to become a scientist/researcher.

1. 4 years as an undergraduate in a math/science heavy degree program (~22)
2. 1-2 years to a Masters degree in your field. (~23-24)
3. 4-6 more years to a PhD, doing research under the supervision of a professor at a university or a researcher at a national laboratory. (~27-30)
4. 3-9 years as a post-doctoral scholar continuing to do research under the supervision of senior researchers. (~33-39)

And in contrast to professional degrees (an MD or a JD), scientists (postdocs and above) do not make salaries significantly beyond the average for people with comparable years of experience. Since most of this time is spent as a "student", they also do not make more than a students wages for the first ~10-12 years.

No one does this with the intent of participating in conspiracies to conceal the truth.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

This is another place where I think people largely don't understand what it actually takes to become a scientist/researcher.

1. 4 years as an undergraduate in a math/science heavy degree program
2. 1-2 years to a Masters degree in your field.
3. 4-6 more years to a PhD, doing research under the supervision of a professor at a university or a researcher at a national laboratory.
4. 3-9 years as a post-doctoral scholar continuing to do research under the supervision of senior researchers.

And in contrast to professional degrees (an MD or a JD), scientists (postdocs and above) do not make salaries significantly beyond the average for people with comparable years of experience. Since most of this time is spent as a "student", they also do not make more than a students wages for the first ~10-12 years.

No one does this with the intent of participating in grand conspiracies to conceal the truth.

Exactly. If we would all do a little homework, instead of taking a big headline from Twitter or Facebook, it would help things greatly. As in that video that was talked about. Just do a little homework on the white coat doctors in it and there’s no question everyone would have a different opinion I would hope.

 

[Kevin_W]

And in contrast to professional degrees (an MD or a JD), scientists (postdocs and above) do not make salaries significantly beyond the average for people with comparable years of experience. Since most of this time is spent as a "student", they also do not make more than a students wages for the first ~10-12 years.

No one does this with the intent of participating in conspiracies to conceal the truth.

Yep. One of the smartest guys I knew in high school went to Harvard and double majored in Chemistry and Physics. Then after a little bit went and got an MBA and became a super-wealthy banker, because big money in the sciences is rare.

 

[seabreezept813]

I basically timed enrolling really, REALLY badly...my youngest was 4 months old when I enrolled...so not entirely the university's fault. HOWEVER...the schedule for the classes that count towards your majors was BRUTAL relative to the amount of reading and research you had to do every week. I do blame them 100% for that because most of their students were working parents, and you might as well have been working 2 jobs AND trying to be a parent. Not a recipe for good health.

I did my Master’s in 2 years while working full time and with side jobs. At one point I ended up in the ER with migraines that mimic strokes. Took me weeks to get back to normal. Only had my stepdaughter at the time but was also doing my husband’s immigration at the time. It is sooo tough! Once I had my daughter and transitioned to a better paying school, I stopped all side jobs and it was a lifesaver. Although I did just get promoted to department head, and what a year for it.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I did my Master’s in 2 years while working full time and with side jobs. At one point I ended up in the ER with migraines that mimic strokes. Took me weeks to get back to normal. Only had my stepdaughter at the time but was also doing my husband’s immigration at the time. It is sooo tough! Once I had my daughter and transitioned to a better paying school, I stopped all side jobs and it was a lifesaver. Although I did just get promoted to department head, and what a year for it.

It's brutal. When people ask me about it, I'm honest - it's not for the faint of heart.

 

[seabreezept813]

Florida has required that their distance learning equal seat time as if they were in school for all students - Yep, even kindergarteners - so it’s happening in at least one state. The log in at 8:45 and log out at 3:00 (or whatever their respective school time is

That just doesn’t work. There are distractions at home that you don’t have at school. Or sometimes the opposite, kids are so distracting in class you can get more done quickly on your own. It’s so funny in education we have a mantra, “meet the kid where they are at” meaning work and help them grow whether they are behind, advanced, etc. You would think during a pandemic, we could give that a shot and work towards educating and helping kids, while recognizing a traditional school schedule might not be the right solution for them.

 

[oceanbreeze77]

 

[oceanbreeze77]

Just finished my masters and honestly, I'm grateful for this little quarantine break of having to do nothing.
Kudos to all of you for getting it done. Any level of school is hard, especially if you work full time or have a family to juggle.

 

[natatomic]

That just doesn’t work. There are distractions at home that you don’t have at school. Or sometimes the opposite, kids are so distracting in class you can get more done quickly on your own. It’s so funny in education we have a mantra, “meet the kid where they are at” meaning work and help them grow whether they are behind, advanced, etc. You would think during a pandemic, we could give that a shot and work towards educating and helping kids, while recognizing a traditional school schedule might not be the right solution for them.

I wholeheartedly agree. That’s why I’m fighting to homeschool my son, though my ex is fighting to make me use the virtual program. It’s been a fun discussion, I’m sure you can imagine.

 

[seabreezept813]

I wholeheartedly agree. That’s why I’m fighting to homeschool my son, though my ex is fighting to make me use the virtual program. It’s been a fun discussion, I’m sure you can imagine.

100% just had the choice option convo with my stepdaughter. Who knows what her mother will end up piping in with..let’s just say she’s been sending me to parent conferences since the 3rd grade and she lives 5 mins from the school and we live 45. My stepdaughter’s 16 now, so I think I’ve earned the right to make calls about school.