Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Fleccas Talks"
channel.
-
68
-
15
-
5
-
5
-
3
-
@E_Ten
Which brings me to this point. Covid was a brand new disease. No vaccine. No treatment. Nothing was known about it. A couple of studies said that HCQ worked, most known the study in France. One question I have is this. Why would anyone just pick HCQ out of a hat to use as a treatment for Covid? Why that particular drug? Was there something in the symptoms and pathology of Covid that suggested that it was a logical drug to investigate? I'd say there must have been. A doctor just wouldn't choose it over so many other drugs to choose from. There had to be a reason.
Which brings me to the safety question. It's been used for over 50 years as a treatment for malaria. It's known that malaria causes respiratory distress and I'd say that this was the connection that prompted doctors to try it on Covid. With over 200 million cases a year, the dangers of HCQ would be reliably documented.
It would seem to me that in April, when nothing was known about the disease and I mean nothing, why wouldn't you prescribe it? It's been quite safely used and like any other drug, you don't prescribe it to those who have conditions that are known to react badly with it. There are all kinds of drugs like that. We can get aspirin over the counter, yet I know people with allergies that this aspirin will kill. I can buy peanuts at the 7/11, which is deadly for some people, but, for some reason, when you have a deadly disease, you're not even allowed to try HCQ. I find the logic baffling. At the time there was no known treatment but, if contracted, a doctor isn't allowed to even try it, in some places, just wait it out and hope that it doesn't get worse. Yet, if you had rheumatoid arthritis, a terrible disease but not nearly as immediately deadly as Covid, not a problem.
Maybe it wasn't going to work but it seems that a drug that has such widespread use shouldn't be as controversial as it has been. That, to me, is baffling. It's like it was better to do nothing, than to use a drug who's side effects are well known. Then we'd have data, REAL data, instead of a political football.
3
-
@E_Ten
When there's 140,000 dead, we KNOW what the harmful effects of Covid is. In January, 6 months ago, we didn't know. HCQ was deemed safe for use, just like aspirin and aspirin has killed people in allergic reactions, yet I can take aspirin for Covid, but not HCQ.
Of course it hasn't been tested on Covid before. How could it have been? I find it rather ironic that if I have rheumatoid arthritis and I have HCQ in my medicine cabinet, I could take it if I'm diagnosed with it. I try it too. I'm 68 and it could kill me within a week, and I'm not ready to go yet and if I've used it all along, I'll use it now. However, my neighbour doesn't even have the opportunity to try it, if he can't find a doctor who will prescribed it, off label, or like in Michigan where the governor refused to allow its use. In fact, there was a politician, in Michigan who was quite ill with Covid and had taken HCQ for Lyme disease, in the past, got her doctor to prescribe it because he felt it perfectly safe. She was vilified by the state governor when she said it helped her almost immediately.
I realise that it may be coincidental that she recovered but the point is, why is aspirin, with it's record ok but HCQ not ok. That's what is baffling to me and why it's become political. Had people been allowed to use it, since its safety is understood, we'd know by now whether it would be a waste of time or not. But we won't know because the politics of it clouds everything. It's beyond ridiculous, to the point of being a tragedy more than anything. Worse, the media has conflated untested for Covid with untested for safety which is being quite disingenuous.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Asher JM Leask
Yet, it's conservative types that travelled to Baltimore and joined with more conservatives in Baltimore to clean up the city. Democrats, the "liberals" are accusing them of....I'm not really sure of what they're accusing them of.
Al Sharpton he travelled to Baltimore, too. However, that Democrat showed up in a 3 piece suit and complained about those who were out there doing the work. If that man really cared, he'd be in coveralls, wearing work gloves and picking up trash. Not him, though. That mess doesn't concern him in the least. Neither does the crime. Try to stop the crime by policing the area and as soon as the first miss step by a police officer, he'll show up complaining about police brutality and guess what? Individual officers are afraid to engage aggressive black criminals because it could mean their job, their reputation, their future and maybe even their safety.
So the crime goes on. The garbage keeps piling up. Property values keep deteriorating and Sharpton goes back to New York and picks out another fancy 3 piece suit.
Causation does equal correlation if you're the one that causes nothing to be done. The end result will be west end Baltimore. One causes the other.
If you don't do the dishes and the dishes will pile up. (This is a metaphor. If you don't know what metaphor means, google it).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roderickmills5398
Who gets to decide who's an idiot and who isn't? What would be the criteria? Not academics. Look at some of the clowns teaching in our universities right now. Do you go back to the monarchy? That was a terrible idea.
Yes....democracy is slow and cumbersome. I said it myself. However, until someone, that includes you, comes up with a better idea, it's still the best we have. I know this because the best countries in the world to live in for the last 100 years have all been democracies, all with Constitutions to mitigate the actions of mob rule. That's what has protected us, to a certain degree, from the leftist agenda to get rid of the idea of free speech and freedom of the press. That's mob rule in action and the Constitution has, so far, been the check that has held them off. It's a democracy under checks and balances that tries to hold off the negative effects of the mob.
If you can come up with a better system, I'd like to hear it. I've not heard one yet. Constitutions are a way of telling us that our freedoms to choose are still bound by the rule of law and that even the mob is bound by it. Show me the perfect system and I'll adopt that but until you can show me that system, it's the best of all the horrible ideas. The only ones, thus far, that believe in other systems are autocrats, people that want absolute power. They've always been far worse than democracies.
1
-
@roderickmills5398
"Time to recreate a genuine federalist system and that means local hierarchies."
That still leaves us with a basic question. How do you settle on the local hierarchy. Who gets to be at the top of the hierarchy, the ones who actually make the decisions that are the best for your local entity. Should it be a monarchy type system? That was a disaster. Maybe something like what the Chinese have now, a system that grew out of the Politburo system of Stalin and Mao? A miniaturised sized version that would suit a local government. That hasn't been that great, either and the people in China don't have near the freedoms that we have in the west and we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't become a city state system where a few get to run their vassals below them.
We're still may be back to a localised democracy, where the individual gets to vote on who gets to enact policy on a limited time basis.
That's still a democracy.
All I'm hearing is a plea for greater state rights, something the left would hate. It has also been the biggest struggle of American politics. In fact, it was State's rights that was the big issue of the Civil War.....not slavery, as many would make it. It's also state's rights that have made Oregon such a leftist paradise. They've actually relaxed laws to an extent that aren't there of a Federal level. Sanctuary cities and states are another example. It's the loony left that using state and municipal laws in an effort to get federal control. It's why these states hate Trump. He stands in their way of seizing complete control, the control that allows them to break Federal immigration laws. Yet, in California, a sanctuary state, they have municipalities that have opted out of this state legislated sanctuary status. They did it because local politics, the people, voiced their opinion, through the power of localised democratic process.
The same corruption that you see on a federal level can and does happen on the local level. Citizens in Seattle went to their town council, democrats all, and complained about the homeless and crime issues in that city, and they were basically laughed at. I guarantee that had they went to the Whitehouse, Trump wouldn't have laughed at them.
1
-
1
-
@roderickmills5398
The US is a amalgamation of states which all adhere to the Constitution of the whole. The right to vote is a central part of that Constitution and if a state abandons the right to vote for all its citizens, it has contravened the Constitution, the very ideals of the entire country. In essence, it's a step to secession.
From your comments, it would seem that your problem isn't with democracy or the right to vote, it's with the size of government. That the further away a person gets from a localised government, the value of that individual person's voice carries less weight. Now, that's an excellent point and I would say that there is a very important discussion to be had on that topic. Take, as an example, what is happening in the EU. Too many Europeans feel as if they've given away control of their lives and countries to an overblown association of European nations who pass edicts without any consideration to the lives of those in different regions. A huge central government that is incredibly distant from the ordinary person who feels they've lost any voice in the country they live in. That's a travesty and that, in a lot of ways, is what I'm hearing from you. I'm saying this because you've yet to respond to the question of a better way to build a government, even on a localised level. All you talk about is federal over reach and that's a different topic.
It's one of the reasons why Trump won. Those people living in the fly over states feel helpless as the big states, the populated areas, dictate how those in the rural landscape should live. That is something that I could agree with you on but I can't agree with a state or local process that doesn't include the power of the individual as participants in government decisions. That means a vote, a say in how it should be done. They're not always going to be the right decisions because people are notorious for making mistakes but it's still the best for everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@E_Ten
So it takes 50+ years to determine whether it's safe or not? They've used it for malaria, arthritis, Lupus and Lyme disease....millions upon millions of doses around the world and they don't even know if it's safe or what the long term effects are? I'm 68. If I contract Covid, I could die within a week or 2. Do I care about long term effects? Maybe in 15 years, when I'm 83, I'll have breathing problems. Maybe not. I'll never know it Covid kills me, will I.
Covid kills the elderly. My dad is now 88. I haven't seen him in 5 months because of Covid and I'm finally visiting him tomorrow. If he gets Covid, what does he care about long term effects? He's in excellent health but he knows that he's going soon and he treats it with humour. A friend phones him at 9 every morning and he answers "Yup...I'm still alive!!!". However, he doesn't want to die this week, either and if he does get Covid and he feels HCQ is his best option, who cares about long term effects? He doesn't. Long term effects are meaningless when you don't have a long term. I could still have another 20 years but I don't know that. So many of the people that I've known for all my life are gone already. 70 was the lifespan when I was a kid. I'm basically there.
It's the elderly that we're trying to save and you don't want to give them a drug due to long term effects when most don't have a long term ahead of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1