Here We Go… Scottish Official Says Covid 19 “Quite Useful” In Culling Older People From National Health Service Ya know all that talk about death panels and health care rationing and whatnot? Well here we have a Scottish official talking how the coronavirus will be “quite useful” in taking bed blockers out of the system. Or in other words, she’s talking about how great it will be to get rid of older people who are taking up beds in hospitals. June Andrews is a professor in dementia studies, and served for years as the Director of the Centre for Change and Innovation for the Scottish government. She’s been praised in the past, winning awards and being recognized as one of the country’s foremost health experts. But now she’s stepped in it by saying “If you’re on the board of a care home company, a pandemic is one of things you think about as a potential damage to your business because of the number of older people it’s going to take out of the system. Curiously, ripping off the sticking plaster, in a hospital that has 92 delayed discharges, a pandemic would be quite useful because your hospital would work because these people would be taken out of the system.” Video of her actually saying this, courtesy of Daily Mail: As if that’s not enough, “Professor” Andrews has been doubling down on her sentiments, as the Telegraph reports: But Prof Andrews told BBC Radio Scotland her remarks were “not callous” but “actually truthful” and argued that NHS workers were “on their knees.” Although she said she was “really sorry this has upset people”, she insisted: “I am a friend to older people and have worked for their rights and to take care of them all my professional life.” “I was asking the question about what the politicians expect to happen. Do they expect the old people to just disappear? Instead they should work on a strategy to care for them as they deserve,” she said. But Brian Sloan, Age Scotland’s chief executive, said: “The sweeping suggestion that the deaths of vulnerable, older people would be convenient because it would make life easier for hospitals is breathtakingly callous. “It only serves to exploit the situation the nation faces with coronavirus outbreak and is wholly unwelcome.” He added: “These people’ she casts aside are mothers, brothers, grandparents and friends. Imagine if it was you or someone close to you in this position.” Scotland is part of the UK’s single payer National Health System that Bernie and other wacked out democrats have praised in the past. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ng-older-people-from-national-health-service/
Trump called it the 'Wuhan coronavirus' for a legal — and commonsensical — reason By Andrew C. McCarthy, opinion contributor — 03/17/20 The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...an-coronavirus-for-a-legal-and-commonsensical [Please click to view a related video.] Amid the truly weighty concerns attendant to the COVID-19 pandemic, the silly season, of course, broke out in Washington: A debate over whether the infectious disease in question should be referred to as the “Wuhan coronavirus” or whether doing so is, as the anti-Trump left and its media megaphone allege, emblematic of racism. The manufactured controversy is as transparently political as it is ill-conceived. The question of the pathogen’s source is being framed to imply Trumpist xenophobia. To the contrary, it is a relevant consideration in the federal government’s legal authority to respond. Early this year, as the outbreak became manifest in China and began its relentless march through Southeast Asia and into Europe, the American press itself alluded incessantly to the Wuhan coronavirus. The sudden case of talking-head amnesia over this is being greeted in conservative media by hilarious video montages featuring the same scolds, who now decry the term, matter-of-factly invoking it back then. Sensibly, it could not have been otherwise. Wuhan province was the epicenter of the outbreak. The major story at the start involved suppression by the authoritarian communist regime in Beijing of news and vital information about it. Nor was this just a typical case of our vainglorious commentariat flaunting its cosmopolitan cred. As my National Review colleague Rich Lowry has recounted, there is a long history of naming diseases after their country or region of apparent origin, everything from West Nile virus to German measles to MERS, which stands for “Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome.” But there is a Republican in the White House, so what was mundane yesterday is racist today. The politicized derangement of the media-Democrat complex is more damaging to the media than it is to President Trump. In electing him, ardent supporters took him as a showman given to self-absorption and exaggeration; while, for more tepid supporters, the Democrats’ howling about Donald Trump’s, shall we say, economical relationship with the truth was not very persuasive given that they had chosen to nominate Hillary Clinton. The president can prevaricate, but if his results are satisfactory, or at least preferable to the Democratic alternative, he could still convince the country to reelect him. By contrast, if the media loses its last vestiges of credibility, it has nothing to commend it. Case in point: This past weekend, the Washington Post ran an excellent report on why “social distancing,” especially when the effort is stepped up, is superior to attempted quarantines and other less effective ways of combating a viral outbreak. But how widely circulated was the report among the population it seeks to inform? The Post’s bread-and-butter is straight reporting, yet it has proudly become the vanguard of anti-Trump. Who is paying attention anymore? The fact that Wuhan province was the source of the virus was the dispositive factor in the president’s decision in late January to restrict entry into the United States by foreigners who had been in China the preceding 14 days. If you had been consuming only the media coverage over the past week, you’d think that was just common sense. But because media coverage prioritizes political spin over information, the first reports conveyed caterwauling about Trump’s purported xenophobia, his knee-jerk overreaction based on a supposedly deep-seated hostility to non-white populations. Today, Trump’s decision seems prescient. Indeed, it may even have been insufficiently swift and expansive. (Many other nations since have been included, and now are imposing their own border restrictions.) In any event, the president will not get credit for sound decisiveness. To be sure, some of this is because he is fairly accused of squandering much of the benefit by pooh-poohing the virus in his rhetoric. Mostly, though, it is because the political tide has changed. The Democratic narrative is now that Trump is ill-informed and unsuited to manage a health emergency. Ultimately, the president will be judged by how effectively his administration deals with the crisis — not by his banter about how well in hand things are, nor by the counter-portrait of ineptitude his opposition is sketching. On that score, this weekend Trump formally declared a national emergency under the Stafford Act. This 1988 statute empowers the executive, when a catastrophe strikes, to take robust measures in support of the response by overwhelmed state and municipal governments. This includes immediately making available about $50 billion in federal disaster relief funding. This is extraordinary authority. The president is not a king. The chief executive may not willy-nilly conjure up an “emergency” as a pretext for issuing orders that could undermine state sovereignty, and for doling out federal dollars that Congress should be allocating. So, when is the invocation of emergency powers permissible? Congress has vested the president with this authority when a threat to the security and public health of any part of the United States is sufficiently grave to warrant a federal response. In our constitutional system, there are certain situations and categories of activity that automatically trigger federal authority. Most prominent among these are foreign relations, foreign incursions, border security, and matters related to foreign commerce, as well as commerce between the states — which, obviously, may be impacted by foreign commerce. Consequently, the origination of the virus in China and its transcontinental spread across the globe are highly relevant. They rationalize the president’s authority to address the emergency with Washington’s awesome resources. As President Trump put it in his letter this weekend: “Only the Federal Government can provide the necessary coordination to address a pandemic of this national size and scope caused by a pathogen introduced into our country. It is the preeminent responsibility of the Federal Government to take action to stem a nationwide pandemic that has its origins abroad, which implicates its authority to regulate matters related to interstate matters and foreign commerce and to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.” Moreover, the president’s letter elaborates, Congress has explicitly authorized the chief executive, in an emergency, “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” Not only did history and common sense justify the administration (among others) in noting the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus. Doing so was a legal necessity if the imperative of federal support for beleaguered state governments was to be fulfilled. We’re in a crisis, folks. What do you say if, in the American spirit of every crisis from the Revolutionary War to 9/11, we take it as a given that officials, including the president, are acting with the best interests of the nation in mind? There will be plenty of occasions in this national election year to judge their performance. For now, let’s assume their good faith. Edited to add summary:
etoa, Do you know what happened to Dr. Fauci today, he was not at this press conference, tmk? Laura Ingraham had Fauci on with her on last night and she questioned him about Chloroquine and hydoChloroquine and he wrote if off, imo. I wonder now if Fauci has been told to take a bit of a back seat? He also spoke out about not going to restaurants at all a few days ago, I believe no takeout or delivery or nothing. Maybe he is a bit of a loose cannon or extremely conservative, idk. I watched the whole press conference today and the FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn appears to be great, imo. I also watched NY Governor Andrew Cuomo's press conference that immediately preceded the president's press conference and he was very good, much to my surprise. He even called out a reporter for "fake news". He did a lot to calm the nerves of the people watching imo. My daughter who lives in NYC has not been well for the past few days. She thinks it is bronchitis but we are a little worried. I was also concerned about a lockdown for NYC and I have been asking her to come live with us until this all passes. Since I am high risk if I get this virus she is very concerned about exposing me to it. She can't be tested because she does not match the criteria to be tested. So, she is adamant about staying in NYC at the moment. I am thankful that I saw Cuomo speak about all of this, he explained what sheltering in place really means for SF and basically stated that NYC is doing most of that already. He also stated that the words that some people are using are confusing and upsetting to many people like "sheltering in place". I would appreciate a prayer for my daughter to regain her good health and just in general since she is in Manhattan. Thank you all in advance and there is no need to respond, I thank you all always. I will post a followup report. +
You got it Carol. Prayers tonight. I can just imagine your concern for her. But there is a lot of bronchitis going around too.
Crazy theory - what if the Chinese KNOW this virus was made in a lab by the Americans? And they KNOW, because they stole it from an American lab “fair and square”!!!
LOL. I think we call that poetic justice. They are always pirating our intellectual property after all.
Here's Mike Pence's take on people's concern about Dr. Fauci's no show for today's conference: Mike Pence—who is in charge of the task force—put out a statement after the press conference on Thursday saying: “Dr. Fauci participated in today’s Task Force meeting in the Situation Room. He has a full media schedule today including PBS, Facebook Live, CNN Town Hall, and NBC News in addition to his important work at the National Institute of Health. Dr. Fauci will be back at the press briefing tomorrow.” But I have a feeling that he, like Dr.Hahn, want only to represent things that have been fully tried w/ larger data for this particular use while Trump was apparently impressed with successes, like in France, at least for faster recovery or lessening symptoms, and the fact that's already out there and FDA approved for other things w/ no harm done apparently might help things during the long wait for a proven vaccine. Meanwhile, prayers for your daughter.....yes, I'd be concerned for those in the NY arena. A friend's son just returned to PA from school on LI....afraid of a curfew being put in place and he couldn't get out. The family is originally from LI so still other relatives there....like a sister, not in good health at all but a PhD nurse practitioner working a bit on the front lines in Manhattan.
It won't act as a "vaccine". Vaccines are modified germs and viruses that cause the body to generate antibodies to fight off the disease without actually getting the disease. It MAY act as a prophylactic, to minimize the chances of someone who is at risk for exposure to the virus (such as nurses) from coming down with the illness. The drug in the US is available only by prescription, since long-term use can result in liver damage.
I always want to share a really great homily. This visiting priest, a Benedictine, gave such an inspiring homily that I wanted to grab St. Joseph and enthrone him in our house right alongside of Jesus and Mary. Great insights that I had not pondered before and all done with a wonderful sense of humor. If you are short of time, the homily starts around the 20 minute mark. Happy St. Joseph's Feast Day!
My doc, who goes by the book as far as necessary data for proof goes, said there is no data for it as a prophylactic and stated that it is not for prophylaxis. After today's move to allow it w/ prescription he said he could write a prescription but to only take it after symptoms appear. It appears to lessen symptoms and kinda blocks cells from sucking in the virus. The limited tests show it to reduce the testing negative again time to maybe 6 days while lessening or preventing the worst effects. Time will tell I suppose.
Thank you for doing the research etoa. I think that you are right, Dr Fauci is taking the very conservative road. *** I am glad that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke out and I know that President Trump spoke out about this too along with many others: Pompeo warns China against spreading 'outlandish rumors' about coronavirus By Laura Kelly - 03/16/20 - https://thehill.com/policy/internat...spreading-outlandish-rumors-about-coronavirus *** And HRC has been very busy beating on President Trump for anything related to this virus. And there is this one: PS - Since Biden committed to a female running mate during the past debate, I can't help but wonder if the plan is to have HRC run with him. She still wants to be president sooooooo badly.
The evidence of it as a prophylactic comes from South Korea and Japan where they first started using this drug to treat COVID-19. Italy declined to use the drug after being informed by South Korea and Japan of a possible treatment because the drugs where not approved by WHO for treating COVID. Don't think they're using it still.
It can be used to treat symptoms, and lessen them and thus time to recover but it can't be used as a prophylaxis that would prevent the spread like a vaccine does or even isolation/space/hand washing....why the only reason to use this in the meantime while waiting for a vaccine to pass all the testing, etc. is such measures for treatment. "Preliminary results suggest the CQ is superior to control for shortening disease severity, inhibiting exacerbation of pneumonia, improving imaging findings, and improving virus-negative conversion." Like you can't take it and totally expect it to prevent getting the virus when exposing oneself to it. That's why docs don't want people to think that one doesn't have to take all preventive measures to reduce exposure by simply taking this treatment. Perhaps there is a different take on the word, "prophylaxis"!
