|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Record-shattering numbers of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in Santa Clara County have prompted worried health leaders to issue new directives, the county health department announced on Saturday, Nov. 28. As the deadly virus continues to run rampant, nearby San Mateo County officials also announced their county has slipped into the state’s more restrictive “purple tier” and a nighttime curfew.
State health officials had already put Santa Clara County back into the purple tier effective Nov. 17 to try to curb rapidly escalating virus, but county health leaders are now taking further restrictive steps since the number of cases have continued to skyrocket.
As of Nov. 28, Santa Clara County had 760 new cases of COVID-19 and 239 COVID-related hospitalizations, 71 of which are in the intensive-care unit, county officials said in a press release. These numbers set new records for the highest single-day counts since the outset of the pandemic. To reduce the likelihood of a surge in hospitalizations that would exceed the capacity of hospitals within the county, Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody announced new mandatory directives that accompany her prior Risk Reduction Order.
The changes include a maximum 10% capacity indoors in many stores and facilities, prohibiting contact sports, and reducing the size of outdoor gatherings. The county is also issuing a mandatory directive on travel, which strongly discourages leisure and nonessential travel, and requires anyone entering the county to quarantine for 14 days after returning from the travel of more than 150 miles. The new mandatory directives begin Monday, Nov. 30 at 12:01 a.m. and will remain in effect until at least Dec. 21 at 5 p.m. unless they are extended.
“I am gravely concerned by the continuing surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations,” Cody said in a public statement. “The number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our county has doubled in just the past couple of weeks, and we are at risk of exceeding our hospital capacity very soon if current trends continue. During this critical time of surging COVID-19 transmission in our community, I urge every resident to exercise caution and to the greatest extent possible, minimize contact with anyone outside of your immediate household.”
The new orders include:
• Capacity limits for indoor facilities: Stores and other facilities open to the public will be limited to 10% capacity indoors. Grocery stores, drug stores, and pharmacies will be allowed to operate at 25% capacity indoors to ensure adequate access to food and medicine.
• All facilities open to the public must establish a “metering system” to ensure the capacity limits, such as by posting an employee at the facility entrance to track the number of people entering and exiting.
• Outdoor gatherings: Gatherings continue to be allowed only outdoors, with a maximum of 100 people. The state limits such gatherings, however, to First Amendment protected activities, such as religious services or protests.
• Professional, collegiate, and youth sports: All recreational activities involving physical contact or close proximity to people outside one’s household, including all contact sports, will be temporarily prohibited. People can continue to engage in outdoor athletics and recreation where social distancing can be maintained at all times.
• Cardrooms: Cardrooms are temporarily closed.
• Hotels and other lodging facilities: Hotels and other lodging facilities will be open only for essential travel and for use to aid isolation or quarantine.
• Quarantine post-travel: Leisure and nonessential travel are strongly discouraged, and a new mandatory directive on travel will require people to quarantine for 14 days upon return to the county after travel of more than 150 miles. Healthcare workers traveling into the county to provide care or patients traveling into the county to obtain treatment are exempted from this requirement.
San Mateo County has also moved back into the state’s “purple tier” on Saturday after previously maintaining in the less-restrictive “red tier” since late September. A statement issued by the San Mateo County Emergency Operations Center announced the new designation and a nighttime curfew, both to begin on Nov. 30.
All retail, including shopping malls, are restricted to 25% of capacity and indoor restaurant dining is prohibited. A full list of what’s regulated can be found here.
The county is also under a curfew order that begins at 10 p.m. through 5 a.m. San Mateo County has seen an 85% spike in COVID-19 cases between October and November, according to county health data.
“This is not unexpected considering the virus is surging across the state,” Supervisor David Canepa said in a separate statement. “That being said, we have doubled the rate we are testing and are now second in the state behind only San Francisco in the rate that we do test. We are well positioned to handle the surge considering the hospital capacity we have and resources needed to battle COVID. As the holidays approach, we must double down on the core behaviors of frequent hand washing, socially distancing, avoiding crowds and most importantly wearing our damn masks. It’s on us to take the personal responsibility to protect our families, friends and neighbors from this very deadly disease.”
Find comprehensive coverage on the Midpeninsula’s response to the new coronavirus by Palo Alto Online, the Mountain View Voice and the Almanac here.
Is this the last restrictions order?
IDK.
But to see the only one orange county, six red counties, and the rest in purple is simply quite distressing and depressing. I HATE IT!
all counties are getting worse. I really hope we do have a vaccine coming that is PROVEN effective and safe because the FDA is going to have the Doctors and Nurses take the first doses. And if it turns out as little as 10% of them have serious side effects, or wind up not being protected, boy are we in a world of hurt.
In fact these advertised as being effecting only 9 out of 10 times by their own disclosure.
If we lose 10% of out Medical Staff, the disease will not be able to be treated anymore, it will burn out of control.
We will need multiple vaccines to be used at the same time on a single person to increase the protection factor. The COMBINATION of the vaccines could become disastrous as well.
Right now our only proven safe process is to continue our reduced interactions, which means we are going to continue to have either closed or greatly reduced mandated business.
We cannot gamble here, we need a “SURE THING”.
A vaccine being 90% effective does not mean that 10% die. It means that now only 10% are susceptible.
Please don’t spread such disinformation. That is very irresponsible.
What I find interesting is the lack of data showing people who have the flu. We have roughly 40,000 deaths a year related to the flu. It does not seem, being 5 weeks into the flu season, that no data is being reported from people who have the flu. Or are people with the flu just being lumped into the C-19 statistics.
In response to ConsiderReality you said:
“A vaccine being 90% effective does not mean that 10% die. It means that now only 10% are susceptible.”
That is EXACLTY what I said, I wrote:
“all counties are getting worse. I really hope we do have a vaccine coming that is PROVEN effective and safe because the FDA is going to have the Doctors and Nurses take the first doses. And if it turns out as little as 10% of them have serious side effects, OR WIND UP NOT BEING PROTECTED, boy are we in a world of hurt.”
I ddin’t say 10% are going to DIE. I said:
“If we lose 10% of out Medical Staff, the disease will not be able to be treated anymore, it will burn out of control.”
I was talking about that the Medical Staff shortage of 10% due to infection or side effects would leave us CRITICALLY short of Medical Care Providers. NOT DEATHS. When you said:
“Please don’t spread such disinformation. That is very irresponsible.”
I didn’t, what is irresponsible is people trying to change the words I wrote to make a false narrative. It is getting VERY annoying to have it occur all the time.
Who is not dealing with REALITY here?
ConsiderReality- welcome to the club.
Currently 100% are susceptible to Covid. With the vaccine 10% would be susceptible.
Why are you trying to frighten people into not taking the vaccine? That seems like a very irresponsible position.
If this isn’t the case, please just simply say, “I think everyone should get the vaccine”. That’s all you need do to show you aren’t trying to cause harm here.
In response to Mark you wrote:
“What I find interesting is the lack of data showing people who have the flu. We have roughly 40,000 deaths a year related to the flu.”
I agree, it could be because as you said it averages 40,000 per year, which means that number of deaths average per month is 3,333. The fact that we have that many deaths in just 3 days seems to be a BIT more important. You wrote:
“It does not seem, being 5 weeks into the flu season, that no data is being reported from people who have the flu.”
Again I agree. There does seem to be a CDC website dedicated to this information and it is seen here (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). The statistics for the period of September 27 to today are 122,615 tested specimens, 319 positive results or (0.3%). Influenza type A accounts for 161 or 50.5% of the cases and influenza type be are 158 or 49.5%. It appears that in 2019 to 2020 there were 195 recognized Flu deaths, and so far no reported deaths the five week period, the latest fatalities were reported week 20 of 2020.
I believe this establishes that both the Flu and COVID are being monitored at this time, and they are NOT being comingled as far as reported cases and deaths. You can rule out what you wrote here:
“Or are people with the flu just being lumped into the C-19 statistics.”
Consider reality- you should check out some of SG other comments about the vaccine, he attacks the FDA. Claims that HE wants proof that the vaccine works in the form of peer reviewed publications. He does not understand how vaccine approval,works. He claims that doctors and nurses will be guinea pigs since they will get the vaccine first. He fails to understand the 3 phases of vaccine testing in which study volunteers are the Guiana pigs.
Sounds like an anti-Vaxxer to me
In response to ConsiderReality you wrote:
“Currently 100% are susceptible to Covid. With the vaccine 10% would be susceptible.”
What PEER REVIEWED research do you have to PROVE that statistic? I am only representing the SCIENCE is not proving your opinion YET. That’s all you wrote:
“Why are you trying to frighten people into not taking the vaccine? That seems like a very irresponsible position.”
I am not frightening anyone, just reporting the SCIENTIFIC facts here. Please stop ASSUMING theat the Vaccines we are discussing even work? The statistics reported are in the numbers less than 400 cases which is not a significant sample size given we are discussing the possibility of administering the vaccine to 300 Million plus people. I am only being a person reporting the REALITY based on scientific FACTS which right now we have NOT ENOUGH of them. You wrote:
“If this isn’t the case, please just simply say, “I think everyone should get the vaccine”. That’s all you need do to show you aren’t trying to cause harm here.”
You are saying the ONLY way I can claim I am not trying to do any harm is promote a vaccine? WRONG , promotion of prevention and control of infection is preferred over treatment under the modern Hippocratic oath which clearly states:
“A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath
I WILL PREVENT DISEASE WHENEVER I CAN, FOR PREVENTION IS PREFERABLE TO CURE.”( https://www.medicinenet.com/hippocratic_oath/definition.htm)
Prevention not only keeps you from dying, but also from the impairment of recovery which is proving to be severe. Please tell me, would you rather gamble and lose or take the “sure bet”. Prevention is 100% effective versus a 90% effective claim of the vaccine.
The FDA will be meeting next week to discuss the Pfizer vaccine. They will go over the data that Pfizer has compiled regarding their vaccine. They will make a decision wether the vaccine will be approved for public use. They mask ask fo additional studies. However the process does not require “ peer reviewed research” be published.
I guess SG is like Donald trump- he believes if you say something enough times , it will become true,
Prevention isn’t 100%. Without the vaccine, we will all eventually get Covid, or, at least we’ll end up in herd immunity.
If you continue being anti-vaccine here, you will need to be reported.
In response to Victor Bishop you wrote:
“The FDA will be meeting next week to discuss the Pfizer vaccine.”
Yes they will, but their discussion will be focused on WHO gets the vaccines, PLURAL first, not the safety or effectiveness. That meeting is scheduled to start December 10th. You should have known that? You wrote:
“They will go over the data that Pfizer has compiled regarding their vaccine. They will make a decision wether the vaccine will be approved for public use.”
That is completely true, BUT that means NO ONE has determined the effectiveness or safety of the VACCINES yet. Isn’t that the SCIENTIIFC facts? You wrote:
“They MAY ask for additional studies. However the process does not require “ peer reviewed research” be published.”
BUT their SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS in reality should be EVEN HIGHER than a PEER REVIEWED test. Correct? They cannot approve a vaccine without at least a 95% reliability of both effectiveness and safety. I rely on there expertise and not yours’s because you don’t even identify who you are and what credentials you have in this field. You wrote:
“I guess SG is like Donald trump- he believes if you say something enough times , it will become true,”
I have only asked open ended questions, I am not making any conclusions, so in reality I cannot be wrong or false, any answer I receive from the FDA and recognized experts will be a good answer, whatever it comes out to be. I really do HOPE it will be a path back to normal.
In response to ConsiderReality you wrote:
“Prevention isn’t 100%.”
If you have prevented infection, it can only be 100%, because if you FAILED to prevent then it is NOT PREVENTION. You really don’t claim that prevention fails? You wrote:
“Without the vaccine, we will all eventually get Covid, or, at least we’ll end up in herd immunity.”
AGAIN, FALSE LOGIC, if you prevent infection it is 100% if you FAIL at prevention it is 100% FAILURE. If prevention is achieved no one gets COVID, unless people SABOTAGE THE PREVENTION like they have done all during this process. A Vaccine nor Herd Immunity is necessary upon successful PREVENTION.
And I am not an anti vaccine person. I always get my flu shots, pneumonia, my measles and tetanus boosts. I have been vaccinated against Hep B. And as soon as this one gets approved and as soon as I can I want it in my arm ASAP.
More false information from SG.
He states:
“Yes they will, but their discussion will be focused on WHO gets the vaccines, PLURAL first, not the safety or effectiveness. That meeting is scheduled to start December 10th. You should have known that? ”
The FDA will meet on the 10th to discuss approval of the Pfizer vaccine, as I originally stated. The CDC will meet this tuesday to discuss who will get the vaccine after authorization.
See links below
“ The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has scheduled a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Dec. 10 to discuss the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, Inc. in partnership with BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH.”
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-announces-advisory-committee-meeting-discuss-covid-19-vaccine
“ Advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have called an emergency meeting for Tuesday to vote on who they recommend should be the first to get a coronavirus vaccine once one is authorized.”
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/27/health/acip-coronavirus-emergency-meeting/index.html
In response to Victor Bishop you wrote:
“The FDA will meet on the 10th to discuss approval of the Pfizer vaccine, as I originally stated. The CDC will meet this tuesday to discuss who will get the vaccine after authorization.”
WRONG you wrote:
“The FDA will be meeting next week to discuss the Pfizer vaccine. They will go over the data that Pfizer has compiled regarding their vaccine. They will make a decision wether the vaccine will be approved for public use. They mask ask fo additional studies. However the process does not require “ peer reviewed research” be published.”
You simply make up stories don’t you. You are constantly changing your stories. This is what YOU wrote here. Next week they ARE NOT going over data that Pfizer compiled. They will NOT be reviewing whether the vaccine will be approved for public use. They WILL NOT ask for additional studies next week.
In effect you are just affirming my latest post, correct? Except you are trying to rewrite your history again. When will you stop making one statement one second and then trying to “cancel” your history. This is in effect a true “Trumpism” but luckily I have proof of your misleading comments.
SG- so I made a mistake and said that the FDA will meet next week instead of the week after. However I stated correctly what they will be meeting about.
However if you look at your previous comment you will see that you agreed with my comment:
“Yes they will, but their discussion will be focused on WHO gets the vaccines, PLURAL first, not the safety or effectiveness.”
Why are you so upset now??? Because i showed that your comments were wrong and you have mixed up your government organizations?
You just hate when someone calls you out on your false statements. Meanwhile you write long posts full of falsehoods. You dont even know the difference between the FDA and CDC.
It is sad that you behave like donald trump. So sad. So unemployable
In response to Victo Bishop you wrote:
“However if you look at your previous comment you will see that you agreed with my comment:
“Yes they will, but their discussion will be focused on WHO gets the vaccines, PLURAL first, not the safety or effectiveness.”
Why are you so upset now??? Because i showed that your comments were wrong and you have mixed up your government organizations?”
WHAT government organization? Oh you thought when I wrote WHO you read it as World Health Organization and not WHO as in WHO is on first? The use of the Pronoun THEY mean the appropriate group, in this case the FDA. You are making a very bad case here. If you read it correctly you could not claim it was a false statement so when you said:
“You just hate when someone calls you out on your false statements. Meanwhile you write long posts full of falsehoods. You dont even know the difference between the FDA and CDC.”
Was completely without any basis at all. As far as the rest, it was simply not worth a response.
SG- you do not know the difference between the FDA and the CDC
You stated (not that the first sentence is my comment):
““The FDA will be meeting next week to discuss the Pfizer vaccine.”
Yes they will, but their discussion will be focused on WHO gets the vaccines, PLURAL first, not the safety or effectiveness. That meeting is scheduled to start December 10th. You should have known that? You wrote:””
I provided links showing that the FDA will meet to discuss approving the vaccine. While the CDC will meet to discuss which people will get the vaccine first.
Clearly SG expects everyone to take what he says as the truth and not to question his falsehoods and misinformation.
Look how he loses control – posting responses full of rage. Sad
In response to Victo Bishop you wrote:
“You stated (not that the first sentence is my comment):
““The FDA will be meeting next week to discuss the Pfizer vaccine.”
Yes they will, but their discussion will be focused on WHO gets the vaccines, PLURAL first, not the safety or effectiveness. That meeting is scheduled to start December 10th. You should have known that? You wrote:””
Then YOU were in fact outright wrong in your comment, weren’t YOU? YOU try to rewrite YOUR own words NOW saying that it was the CDC that will meet next week. You clearly wrote that the FDA was holding the meeting RIGHT? In effect the term THEY could be applied to ALL agencies involved actually since it is a PLURAL pronoun. The term was not used with what is called a SINGULAR INDEFINITE ANTECEDENT nor a SINGULAR ANTECEDENT, or referring to a SINGLE PERSON.
Merriam Webster’s dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they) defines the word THEY as meaning: “—used to refer to people in a general way or to a group of people who are not specified” So when you wrote:
“I provided links showing that the FDA will meet to discuss approving the vaccine. While the CDC will meet to discuss which people will get the vaccine first.”
This is an attempt to rewrite YOUR own writing. Maybe you should stop trying to change YOUR stories.
Maybe you should have someone proofread your writing BEFORE you post them?
SG- I love when I trigger SG into having an uncontrolled rant.
I have admitted previously that I made a mistake as to the date of the FDA meeting. But it looks like all SG wants to rage about is the mistake I made regarding the FDA meeting. He is upset because i pointed out that he does not know what the FDA and CDC do. Listen to him yell and scream about antecedents!!!!!!!!
I have posted this before, but here it is again regarding the FDA and CDC meetings and what they will be discussing:
“ The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has scheduled a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Dec. 10 to discuss the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, Inc. in partnership with BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH.”
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-announces-advisory-committee-meeting-discuss-covid-19-vaccine
“ Advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have called an emergency meeting for Tuesday to vote on who they recommend should be the first to get a coronavirus vaccine once one is authorized.”
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/27/health/acip-coronavirus-emergency-meeting/index.html
Rather than focusing on the important news that there may be approval of the vaccine and decisions about who the recipients will be, SG is losing control over how to twist my words to make him look like he is right.
I think after all this time most readers have figured out that SG is to not be taken seriously. So sad
In response to Victor Bishop you wrote:
“Rather than focusing on the important news that there MAY BE APPROVAL of the vaccine and decisions about who the recipients will be, SG is losing control over how to twist my words to make him look like he is right.”
I don’t go to the bank saying to them I want to buy a house and I MAY BE APPROVED to get money to pay for it, can you?
I prefer to wait until the SCIENCE is verified. I prefer to not get my hopes up based on what MAY BE APPROVED. Until the SCIENCE establishes the situation, this is all marketing and fluff. Your trying to get people to walk across a ravine on a bridge that MAY BE BUILT, RIGHT?
People be safe and don’t take unnecessary risk to yourselves, your family and friends, or all of us.
“I prefer to wait until the SCIENCE is verified.”
you can do whatever you want. However the FDA will be meeting on the 10th to discuss approval of the Pfizer vaccine.
What is sad is that you seem to want the vaccine to not work. Why shouldn’t people have their hopes up about what could be a game changer for the virus and the public. Sad that a person with absolutely no expertise in science is expressing negative comments about a process that he clearly does not understand. So sad that someone wants people to continue to get sick– of course that person also loved having the fires in the arae because he loved the smoke.
In response to Victor Bishop who wrote:
“What is sad is that you seem to want the vaccine to not work. Why shouldn’t people have their hopes up about what could be a game changer for the virus and the public.”
What we WANT and our HOPES are completely irrelevant here. Either SCIENTIFICALLY it works or it doesn’t. Neither have any effect on if these vaccines work or not. You wrote:
“Sad that a person with absolutely no expertise in science is expressing negative comments about a process that he clearly does not understand.”
Actually, you are completely wrong. I worked during 1985-86 as a medical instrument technician at the Harvard School of Public health on some very important research projects.
My father a Dr. in Chemistry (Dr. Jack Goldstein) designed and has patents on the equipment called spectrophotometers, equipment that detects the chemicals of samples via optical spectral analysis. I did this as a teenager still in High School working in some VERY scary labs. As far as you wrote:
“ So sad that someone wants people to continue to get sick– of course that person also loved having the fires in the arae because he loved the smoke.”
That is not worth commenting on.
Victor Bishop,
And if you want proof of the patent here it is (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7491546B2/zh)
He also had me work on projects for the Department of Defense, NASA, the EPA and for the approval of the first microprocessor controlled EPA approved ambient air toxic gas analyzers for Pollution Research and Control Corp. (http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~anhai/wisc-si-archive/data/company_profiles/yahoo/instances/company-index/Technology/Scientific_Technical_Instr./instances/http:%5E%5Ebiz.yahoo.com%5Ep%5Ep%5Eprcc.html) a part of Dasibi Environmental Corp.
I may not have the degree’s but my work created successful devices that are still in use today, believe it or not.
“What we WANT and our HOPES are completely irrelevant here. Either SCIENTIFICALLY it works or it doesn’t. Neither have any effect on if these vaccines work or not. ”
and that is what the FDA will be discussing on the 10th. So stop spinning your wheels and get some control of your emotions.
“And if you want proof of the patent here it is (Web Link)”
What i see is a patent issued to a Ivars Jaunukais and a reference citation to a patent document for Goldstein et al
Victor,
Thanks for the correction. I am going to have to get back to you on this.
I just realized that his patent is so old that it hasn’t been scanned yet.
I am going to have to contact the U.S. Patent office because it was issued before 1976, and the online search doesn’t go back that far.
However, here is some other work my Father did It was found here (https://www.science.gov/topicpages/p/phase+derivative+spectrophotometry):
“Study of Biological Pigments by Single Specimen Derivative Spectrophotometry
PubMed Central
Goldstein, Jack M.
1970-01-01
The single specimen derivative (SSD) method provides an absolute absorption spectrum of a substance in the absence of a suitable reference. Both a reference and a measuring monochromatic beam pass through a single sample, and the specimen itself acts as its own reference. The two monochromatic beams maintain a fixed wavelength difference upon scanning, and the difference in absorbance of the two beams is determined. Thus, the resulting spectrum represents the first derivative of the conventional type absorption spectrum. Tissues and cell fractions have been examined at room and liquid N2 temperature and chromophoric molecules such as the mitochondrial cytochromes and blood pigments have been detectable in low concentrations. In the case of isolated cellular components, the observed effects of substrates and inhibitors confirm similar studies by conventional spectrophotometry. The extension of the SSD concept to the microscopic level has permitted the study of the tissue compartmentalization and function of cytochromes and other pigments within layered tissue. PMID:4392452
His thesis was titled” Instrumental Studies of Porphyrin Compounds Obtained From Pyrrole Aldehyde Compensations, Degree date 1959 the research was done in the University of Penn.
He designed the spectrofluorometer specifically for this research. So his design was recognized and scientifically validated during his thesis. It would be required to have it scientifically verified as a certified device for his thesis to be even considered. Since this work goes all the way back to 1958 it is not easy to get a digital copy of it. I have a copy of his thesis from the UMI Dissertation Services printed in 1995.
His equipment (It was his design as Vice President Research and Development and CERTIFIED by the EPA) is still used by the California Air Resources Board even though it was sold to it in 1984 its operations manual was digitized for reference by the board on this website (https://arb.ca.gov/airwebmanual/amwmn.php?c=9&t=sop) and specifically found here (https://arb.ca.gov/airwebmanual/aqsbdocs1/v2apxa.pdf).
So I need some time to get his Patent, since that information is PRE-DIGITAL ARCHIVES. Sorry.
And just understand, I was working on this kind of equipment when I was in High School.
I said, I am patient, but your attempts to “manipulate” reality simply don’t work.
No one should anticipate approval, given the lack of information we have. Remember the false hopes of hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir? The latest research from the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report” (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764) simply indicated it was better than NOTHING at all. That didn’t prove it was a good treatment.
In fact the recent study’s done by the WHO showed it was not actually effective seen in the report in SCIENCE magazine titled “Remdesivir and interferon fall flat in WHO’s megastudy of COVID-19 treatments” found here (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/remdesivir-and-interferon-fall-flat-who-s-megastudy-covid-19-treatments).
The only country that authorized use of Remdesivir for COVID is the U.S.
We can’t afford FALSE hope, and we shouldn’t give any at this time Victor.
WAIT until the science is finished or the FDA gives approval, prior to that we all must practice SAFE living.
Just read this:
The assumption is that if you traveled you ARE infected by Dr. Birx The story is titled “Birx urges Thanksgiving travelers to get tested: ‘You have to assume that you were exposed and you became infected’)
Here is the story (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html).
Sorry, maybe the practice of anyone arriving in an airport after flying more than 150 miles will be quarantined? At least at San Jose International?
This is NORMAL, unless you are proven safe, should you be allowed to enter the county