I'll ask this just for kicks.

Are any of you guys familiar with "Novartis" or who they gave large amounts of $$$ to or what they make or who bought 2million$$ worth of their stock this February?

Just wondering in a general kind of way.

Novartis makes hydroxychloroquine
They gave Michael Cohen $1.0 million plus after Trump was elected for "Consulting" fees - means access to POTUS
Ole Rudy G. bought the stock in February and the Trump family also has a stake in the drug.

As always (especially with Trump) - follow the money [/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. They may have been looking for influence, but a plug for hydroxychloroquine wouldn't be of much value to them. Hydroxychloroquine is a generic drug. Anyone can make it, and many do, Novartis being one of many. As a result, it is a low margin drug. I doubt Novartis, or anyone else, is making much off of it. If hydroxychloroquine turns out to be effective, it will be great that covid19 can be treated with such an inexpensive generic drug, rather than some expensive prescription drug, such as remdesivir, which is also being tested.

So, is Novartis raking in profits from it? They just donated 130 million doses of it:
https://www.novartis.com/news/media-releases/novartis-com...

If you want to be cynical, and say that "well, the donated it because the value of the goodwill is worth more than the value of the drug itself", fine.



What do you mean by "took action?" As this article clearly states Ohio started taking actions as early as March 3. Heck on this site, as late as March 10th, long time posters were saying that "over reactions and cancellations are bullshit."

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/timeline-of-coronav...

And this article from March 13 shows that 12 states had announced closures of their schools at that time.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/schools-in-kentucky-marylan...

And finally, there is certainly some cause and effect relationship between the message from national leadership and loyal party response at the state level. As late as March 10th, trump still had not truly expressed the seriousness of the event. He did do that in no uncertain terms on March 11 much to his credit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/opinion/trump-coronavi...

https://www.kron4.com/health/coronavirus/california-scien... / Apparently, beaches can spread the virus far quicker than a normal park. Think of the waves as being a big cough dispersing water droplets in the air. Food for thought anyway.

Always working to defend the indefensible. Though a generic form, the government can enter into an exclusive or preferred provider of said generic drug. But hey, Trump or his cronies would never do a deal that would benefit themselves or their cronies.

I do feel sorry for the poor people in New York and Michigan who needlessly died because the governors of those states initially prohibited their doctors from prescribing it to patients. Some of them might still be here, had their governors not politicized this, and had instead allowed their doctors to give their patients the best available care.

Do you really believe this LC? There is NO clinical evidence this drug has an effect. What we do know though is the President has a financial interest in this drug he keeps pushing.

I decided to take a look at the performance of the states with official stay at home orders versus the eight other states.

42 states with stay at home orders: 239987 on 4/2, 459860 4/9, up 9.7% a day
8 states without stay at home orders: 4480 cases on 4/2, 8259 on 4/9, up 9.4% a day

There isn't much difference in the result.

How does the population density of those states compare to each other? Wouldn't we expect results in states with large, dense cities to be worse?

Good question, so I collected more data. I also added data for the week prior:
1. 42 states with stay at home orders: 239987 on 4/2, 459860 4/9, up 9.7% a day, up 16.2% the week prior
2. 8 states without stay at home orders: 4480 cases on 4/2, 8259 on 4/9, up 9.4% a day, up 16.5% the week prior
3. 8 large states (NY, NJ, MI, CA, PN, TX, FL, OH): 164269 on 4/2, 306316 on 4/9, up 9.3% a day, up 15.7% a day the week prior
4. 8 states similar to the ones without shelter orders, some midwest/plains, some west, some SE (WV, NV, MS, OK, KY, MN, KA, NM): 5655 on 4/2, 10614 on 4/9, up 9.4% a day, 16.4% the week prior

So, putting it in a table:
Group 1: 16.2% to 9.7% (all states with shelter at home orders)
Group 2: 16.5% to 9.4% (all states without shelter at home orders)
Group 3: 15.7% to 9.3% (very populous states)
Group 4: 16.4% to 9.4% (8 states similar to the ones with stay at home orders)

There doesn't appear to be any significant difference. Various people have different theories for why that is. Mine is that the states without official "shelter at home" orders have enacted substantially similar policies, and basically the same businesses are required to be closed. Other people have a different theory, that the slowing is not being caused by the stay at home orders, but because the virus is slowing on it's own, and that the stay at home policies are destroying the economy for no reason. Personally, I think that's very unlikely, but it is true that it seems to be decelerating in all countries of the world, so I can't say for sure.


It's certainly possible that it's a factor, yet there are other states with a lot of cases that have much lower death rates than Michigan and New York. Here are the states with the most cases/million people, and their death rate so far:

New York 8282/million, 4.4%
New Jersey 5733/million, 3.3%
Louisiana 3932/million, 3.8%
Mass 2745/million, 2.7%
Conn 2741/million, 3.9%
Michigan 2150/million, 5.0%
DC 2145/million, 2.1%
Rhode Island 1629/million, 2.5%
Penn 1449/million, 1.9%
Illinois 1293/million, 3.2%

Is it a coincidence that of the top ten, only two states banned the use of hydroxychloroquinone for Covid19, and those two have the highest death rate? Perhaps. Both states are now allowing it again. We shall see if they improve. If it has a statistically significant benefit, they should.


My political ideology is libertarianism. I am neither Republican or Democrat. As such, I couldn't care less about the political aspects of this. My ideology is that is a healthcare issue, and not a political issue. My goal is for the least possible people to die, with the least possible damage to the economy and the incomes of millions of Americans.

As a result:
1. I couldn't care less if Trump endorsed hyroxychloroquinone
2. Since there are no medically approved treatments for Covid19, I think doctors should be able to prescribe whatever they believe benefits their patients the most
3. I don't believe any doctor would prescribe something based on a recommendation of any politician
4. I think it is completely outrageous that any governors would prohibit something solely for political reasons. Politics should play no role here. Lives are at stake.
5. Lives come before economic damage, and if states are foolishly avoiding shelter at home orders to save their economy, that would be wrong. The evidence thus far, however, shows no substantial difference.

I'm going to be a lot harsher here than I normally would because I strongly believe that this is a healthcare problem, and should not be politicized. If you want to find someone posting things that reflect political ideology, rather than facts, try looking in the mirror. I'll change my opinions on what the best course of action is when the fact change. Will you? For example, if the states without stay at home orders flatten out, and stop showing improvement, while those that have them continue to improve, I'll support the other states following them. If larger studies come out, and don't support the use of hydroxychloroquinone, I'll stop supporting it's use. If studies come out showing that remdesivir works better, I'll support that.