Donald Trump doubled down on his decision to retweet a video of Houston doctor Stella Immanuel in which Ms Immanuel touts the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating patients of Covid-19 and dismisses masks as unnecessary in stopping its spread.
In the past, Ms Immanuel has made several dubious medical claims, including the harmful effects of having sexual relations with demons and witches while dreaming, the alleged use of alien DNA in various medicines, and the production of a vaccine to inoculate people against being religious.
"I can tell you this: She was on air, along with many other doctors —they were big fans of hydroxychloroquine, and I thought she was very impressive," Mr Trump told reporters of Ms Immanuel at a briefing on the coronavirus pandemic on Tuesday. ... In a speech on the steps of the Supreme Court that has gone viral in conservatives circles this week —racking up millions of views across several social media platforms, many of which have since sought to remove videos of it — Ms Immanuel urged people not to be afraid of Covid-19, which has killed nearly 150,000 Americans in less than half a year.
“Nobody needs to get sick,” Ms Immanuel said at a demonstration put on by Tea Party Patriots, a conservative political advocacy group supported by wealthy Republicans.
“This virus has a cure,” she said.
Health experts have warned against the potentially severe side effects of taking the drug, which Mr Trump has nevertheless continued to promote to treat the novel coronavirus, claiming to have taken it himself as a precautionary step. ...
"A man in his 40s arrived in New Zealand with Covid-19 symptoms, after travelling from the Philippines through Hong Kong.
He was one of two new cases of the disease reported by the Ministry of Health on Wednesday.
The man was taken straight to an Auckland quarantine facility, and a test taken on his arrival on Monday returned a positive result."
Why on earth was he allowed to travel by the airline!!!! Guess there might be a few more cases arising in isolation. His flight number was NZ080. Thanks Air New Zealand.
I agree but EVERYONE who travels here is a risk. Sniffles? Maybe you had to many beers in a cold wind. I hate cliches but it is what it is
The question is whether he had symptoms before he boarded the plane? IMO this is why people should be required to have one of these quick tests before boarding to at least filter these people out,. Once they arrive in NZ with the virus, it has a big cost in managing that one person that tests positive.
Are the quick tests accurate?
It doesnt have a big cost. Non infected is 14 days, infected is a bit more that we have space for. Look, I get what you are saying, but its lock the borders to Kiwis or we don't, and we don't.
The question is whether he had symptoms before he boarded the plane? IMO this is why people should be required to have one of these quick tests before boarding to at least filter these people out,. Once they arrive in NZ with the virus, it has a big cost in managing that one person that tests positive.
The quick serological tests for antibodies won't work because at that stage of infection, antibodies aren't present at detectable level. There's an article here on quick(er) PCR tests.
No. There is no quick RT-PCR tests. These are the super accurate, expensive and slow tests that they are doing now. Serological tests use blood to check for covid-19 antibodies. There is a third type. These are paper strips covered in antibodies that check for covid-19 antigens in spit.
It doesnt have a big cost. Non infected is 14 days, infected is a bit more that we have space for. Look, I get what you are saying, but its lock the borders to Kiwis or we don't, and we don't.
Yes and no. The quick antigen tests are accurate at the beginning of infection when people are infectious. However, they are no good for detecting the low levels of RNA present at later stages of infection. Since, they are no longer infectious i don't think that the false negatives are relevant.
It doesnt have a big cost. Non infected is 14 days, infected is a bit more that we have space for. Look, I get what you are saying, but its lock the borders to Kiwis or we don't, and we don't.
Yes and no. The quick antigen tests are accurate at the beginning of infection when people are infectious. However, they are no good for detecting the low levels of RNA present at later stages of infection. Since, they are no longer infectious i don't think that the false negatives are relevant.
So no. We cant invest in sometimes good. Bottom line is protect, then seek real tests
So no. We cant invest in sometimes good. Bottom line is protect, then seek real tests
Are you refering to RT-PCR tests? The trouble with using RT-PCR tests is that they are only being tested once or twice while in quarantine. If they started using antigen tests daily, then infected people would be detected as soon as they are contagious and thus can be properly quarantined. Waiting until a RT-PCR test is done means someone may be contagious for many, many days and leaves open the opportunity to infect people who are just about to leave quarantine.
It doesnt have a big cost. Non infected is 14 days, infected is a bit more that we have space for. Look, I get what you are saying, but its lock the borders to Kiwis or we don't, and we don't.
Yes and no. The quick antigen tests are (not) accurate at the beginning of infection when people are infectious. However, they are no good for detecting the low levels of RNA present at later stages of infection (they don't detect RNA - they detect antigens - with variable accuracy). Since, they are no longer infectious i don't think that the false negatives are relevant. (False negatives are going to be an issue even if "fast" RNA tests are available - as people can be infected but not shedding virus where it's sampled - ie could be in lungs - but not in the back of their nose, yet)
That's not correct. (my comments in bold)
There as yet aren't any approved "quick" RNA tests that have any practical use for screening airline passengers. I believe that some countries offer 3 hour turnaround for PCR tests - at a cost to passengers (~US$300 in Israel IIRC).
So no. We cant invest in sometimes good. Bottom line is protect, then seek real tests
Are you refering to RT-PCR tests? The trouble with using RT-PCR tests is that they are only being tested once or twice while in quarantine. If they started using antigen tests daily, (then infected people would be detected as soon as they are contagious) and thus can be properly quarantined. Waiting until a RT-PCR test is done means someone may be contagious for many, many days and leaves open the opportunity to infect people who are just about to leave quarantine.
Again - highlighted in bold - that's just not correct. The antigen tests are not fit for purpose (passenger screening).
"" TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Hong Kong's secretary for food and health bureau, Sophia Chan (陳肇始), admitted Tuesday (July 28) that the recent surge in COVID-19 cases in the city is due to a policy of not testing every arrival.
A mandatory 14-day quarantine and coronavirus test is currently required for most who enter Hong Kong, but these were waived for those who frequently travel back and forth between the region and the rest of China, such as truck drivers, members of ship crews, and certain business people. "" Hmmm I suppose among those not tested were the 300 or more security officers that arrived from China to run the new security office ? Yeh Nah,
In a statement late on Tuesday, Ms Lam warned the city was on the "verge of a large-scale community outbreak, which may lead to a collapse of our hospital system and cost lives, especially of the elderly". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53575875 "" From Wednesday, dining in restaurants is banned, and only two people from different households can meet, under the toughest rules Hong Kong has adopted so far. ""
Negotiating with the virus. Its like leaning over that precipice taking a selfie. Arguing with fate , I deserve the ultimate selfie, I'll be OoooooooooooooKaaaaaaaay.
concordnz: @dejadeadnz - No need for the personal attack at me, A simple 'yes I made a mistake' would' have been appropriate.
When you hold yourself out to be "the authority" - it's important that what you post is accurate. What you posted (because of your mistake) was wildly inaccurate. - without correction it was very misleading to people.
Very poor form to launch a personal attack, when someone points out an error.
It's not a personal attack when you decide to launch some stupid rant off an obviously unintentional misplacement of one word when, in context, it was blatantly obvious what I was meaning, i.e. the legitimacy of people being able to go to the courts when they allege, in good faith, that the powers-that-be acted beyond their powers. If you want to talk about good form, don't go off and launch a stupid lecture on the back on an unintentional error on a matter on which you clearly have no understanding, whilst acting like you are in some position of authority, and then getting things like the role of the courts wrong. Courts offer "opinions"? Were you paying attention during social studies at school? And no matter how many times you deny otherwise, judges do make law in some circumstances. We have a common law system of law for a reason.
And for context, this is not exactly the first time you have been ranting and raving about the law. Remember your "contributions" in this thread? Again, stick to what you understand.
Yes and no. The quick antigen tests are ( 1- not) accurate at the beginning of infection when people are infectious. However, they are no good for detecting the low levels of RNA present at later stages of infection (2 - they don't detect RNA - they detect antigens - with variable accuracy). Since, they are no longer infectious i don't think that the false negatives are relevant. (3- False negatives are going to be an issue even if "fast" RNA tests are available - as people can be infected but not shedding virus where it's sampled - ie could be in lungs - but not in the back of their nose, yet)
That's not correct. (my comments in bold)
There as yet aren't any approved "quick" RNA tests that have any practical use for screening airline passengers. I believe that some countries offer 3 hour turnaround for PCR tests - at a cost to passengers (~US$300 in Israel IIRC).
I was comparing antigen testing to RT-PCR test.
1- The viral load at the beginning of infection is increasing exponentially. So a RT-PCR test is only more accurate at the beginning of infection for only a few hours until the viral load is so large that an antigen test can pick it up. In practice, this only means the time of day when the test is done. Since the antigen test can be done daily, then if it is the test is negative on the first day, then it will be positive on the second day.
2-ops. I should have said virus instead of DNA. My mistake.
3-Yours points on the virus not shedding are indeed valid but also equally apply to RT-PCR. So why chose an expensive test that needs a lab and trained techs when it suffers from the same flaw you just mentioned?
There's no point suggesting use of a test which isn't very good, then there's the added problem that countries are somewhat less motivated to test departing travellers than arriving ones.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
