Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro Tests Positive for Covid-19 After Months of Dismissing the Seriousness of the Virus (cnn.com) 206
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has tested positive for Covid-19, following months of downplaying the virus. From a report: Bolsonaro himself announced the result, speaking on Brazilian TV channels Tuesday. "Everyone knew that it would reach a considerable part of the population sooner or later. It was positive for me," he said, referring to the Covid-19 test he took Monday. "On Sunday, I wasn't feeling very well. On Monday, it got worse when I started feeling tired and some muscle pain. I also had a 38-degree [Celsius] fever. Given those symptoms, the presidential doctor said there was suspicion of Covid-19," Bolsonaro said, adding that he then went to hospital where scans of his lungs "came back clean."
Earlier on Tuesday, Bolsonaro told CNN affiliate CNN Brasil that he had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as he awaited the result of his fourth Covid-19 test in four months. Hydroxychloroquine, though enthusiastically boosted by both Bolsonaro and US President Donald Trump, has not been proven as an effective treatment for Covid-19. Bolsonaro nevertheless credited the controversial antimalarial drug for his well-being on Tuesday. "I am feeling very well. I believe that the way they administered the hydroxychloroquine on, the effect was immediate," he said.
Earlier on Tuesday, Bolsonaro told CNN affiliate CNN Brasil that he had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as he awaited the result of his fourth Covid-19 test in four months. Hydroxychloroquine, though enthusiastically boosted by both Bolsonaro and US President Donald Trump, has not been proven as an effective treatment for Covid-19. Bolsonaro nevertheless credited the controversial antimalarial drug for his well-being on Tuesday. "I am feeling very well. I believe that the way they administered the hydroxychloroquine on, the effect was immediate," he said.
Fucking Clown (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fucking Clown (Score:4, Insightful)
What's sad is that, much like in the US, this is a crisis of his own making.
Bolsonaro spent months downplaying the disease, making a point of showing up in public without masks and shaking hands with everyone. Remember that "we’re all going to die one day" statement?
Re: (Score:2)
What's sad is that, much like in the US, this is a crisis of his own making.
Bolsonaro spent months downplaying the disease, making a point of showing up in public without masks and shaking hands with everyone. Remember that "we’re all going to die one day" statement?
He's still downplaying it, he says he has "a little flu."
Re: (Score:3)
With a hint of luck, he may die before the rest of us.
Then at least the whole crap would have had ONE good outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm left now? Could you tell that to the Chinese bozo I have a discussion with in the Hong Kong thread? I guess he considers me a fascist.
But you're right in one thing, I'm not tolerant. I don't tolerate bullshit, and I don't tolerate bullshitting people.
I'm not left or right, I'm anti-populist. I don't think that bullshitting people is a good way to govern. Because, as we can plainly see here, these people are a danger to those around them.
Re: (Score:2)
He's probably given it to half his government, they were all together over the weekend, no social distancing, no masks.
But he'll probably pull through, like Boris did. Then he'll use that to downgrade the virus even further.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is nothing more than 500+ words of off-topic/flamebait bullshit.
Congratulations, you managed to beat his record by 488+ words.
Re:Fucking Clown (Score:5, Insightful)
He was not sick, people could approach; now that he is sick, people can not approach, lest they catch the virus. Is this sociopathic behavior? How so? Try not being such a goddamned retard next time you attack someone you don't like, present arguments that make sense.
Re:Fucking Clown (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently you've been living under a rock for the last seven months, people are contagious even before they show symptoms, and they can be asymptomatic but contagious for two weeks or possibly more. **THAT** is what makes this virus so problematic, this moron was not only infected but spreading the disease around for a least a week before he ever felt bad. Hopefully he and his entire cabinet die the same miserable death that they've condemned 66,000 of their countrymen to already, but unfortunately they're all grotesquely rich so that's not actually likely.
Re:Fucking Clown (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently you've been living under a rock for the last seven months, people are contagious even before they show symptoms, and they can be asymptomatic but contagious for two weeks or possibly more.
Peak infectiousness is two days before onset of symptoms. [sciencenews.org] Assuming it takes two weeks to show symptoms, I personally doubt an infected person is very contagious the first week. The second week they are extremely contagious though!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
that's exactly how social distancing works: you only practice it if you're demonstrably sick.
That's what we call "a quarantine", NOT social distancing.
Re:Fucking Clown (Score:5, Informative)
> Since there is no such thing as asymptomatic spread, yes.
Uh... yes, yes there is. It is 100% possible to show no symptoms and still be contagious. COVID-19 can be spread by both asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals.
This is especially important since you can be contagious with COVID-19 several days before you start feeling sick, i.e. presymptomatic, which is plenty of time to infect several other people.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-symptomatic cases are thought to be highly infections just before they become symptomatic. The problem being that even if you are about to become symptomatic you don't know it yet so it's just the same as asymptomatic (and in fact, if you check early articles, pre-symptomatic was originally also being called asymptomatic).
The story that asymptomatic people are safe comes from dividing pre-symptomatic from asymptomatic and isn't actually that much of a useful way of thinking for normal people. It is i
Re: (Score:2)
There was a redaction in response to that meeting; Part of the problem is identifying and differentiating people who are truly asymptomatic in the full duration of their illness, whereas people who go to develop symptoms. People who go on to develop some symptoms even mild are very contagious during the initial phases before they show symptoms. What they were saying is they don't have much data from contact tracing on people who carry the virus(test positive with the PCR test).
“The WHO created confus
Re: (Score:2)
Since there is no such thing as asymptomatic spread, yes.
Have you been living under a rock, or are you just a total and complete piece of shit? Because there's no third way; you can have symptoms for weeks (literally) and still spread the virus.
He's a news bulletin for you: many symptoms of various illnesses only appear when your immune system shows up to fight them. Once that happens, your illnesses are actually less communicable because of your immune response. That's why for example a person with yellow or green mucus is actually less contagious than a person
Re: (Score:2)
Since there is no such thing as asymptomatic spread, yes.
Have you been living under a rock, or are you just a total and complete piece of shit?
I was also curious, so I glanced at his comment history. ROFL
It can definitely be both.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most people who catch COVID survive without noticeable injuries, and only a small proportion die. This could be an interesting case for the bookies, though.
Re: (Score:2)
AaaaahahahahaHAHAHA! Karma, Baby! (Score:4, Funny)
EOM
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time before the virus finds another world leader who called it a "hoax" and still refuses to wear a mask.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . and they'll survive too?
Validates his message (Score:3)
His message has been this is just another disease and those who get infected will isolate themselves and take their chances but its not worth shtting down the economy to prevent infections. More people will die from the economic damage than from the virus.
So now he is infected, he will isolate himself, will recover (99% of folks survive this) and then come back to work. He would have avoided shutting down the govt and taken his chances just like he has asked others to.
How is this a negative for his message?
Re: Validates his message (Score:2)
God this is stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:God this is stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people, many people, who say the entirety of covid-19 is a hoax. Even friends of nurses are saying it's a hoax [nytimes.com]. Needless to say, con artist supporters are the largest proponents [politicususa.com] of those who claim covid-19 doesn't exist and no one is dying from it.
In fact, only two months ago, a major newspaper was calling the shutdown situation a hoax [washingtontimes.com], that covid-19 wouldn't even measure up to the previous year's flu deaths. At that time there were just over 56,000 dead. Two months later and we have well over twice that amount.
So yes, there are people who are arguing it's not highly transmittable because they don't believe it even exists [reddit.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least that WT article is saying the media coverage is the hoax, not that they believe it doesn't exist.
Not that I think the coverage is a hoax, nor do I think covid is a hoax, but you could at least try and be accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Washington Times has a print circulation of 58,000 (2013), which is 1/4 of the nation's 10th largest paper, the Boston Globe. USA Today is 1.6 million, The Wall Street Journal 1.0 million. The next 4 are well known for their bias, New York Times at 483,000, New York Post at 423,000, The Los Angeles Times at 417,000, and the Washington Post at 254,000.
So whether it's a major newspaper or not is debatable.
There are many newspapers named the "Times", and the Washington Times is historically the 3rd paper with
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, only two months ago, a major newspaper was calling the shutdown situation a hoax [washingtontimes.com], that covid-19 wouldn't even measure up to the previous year's flu deaths. At that time there were just over 56,000 dead. Two months later and we have well over twice that amount.
I agree with the point you're making, but for our international audience, The Washington Times - The Right Opinion is a right wing tabloid. It's like the print version of One America News, or maybe they're the TV version of WT, who cares.
You can read about their history here - https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com]
Oh, is that an empty page? A truly unspinnably bad story of how a young right wing media company got started, I am shocked!
Re: (Score:2)
The deaths are listed as died WITH COVID. That doesn't mean they died because of COVID. We will probably never know the real numbers.
But we know. It's very simple statistics.
The number of people dying in the last three months unrelated to COVID is small (in percentage of the whole population). The number of people having COVID in the last three months is also small (in percentage of the whole population). Therefore the percentage of people dying, with COVID, but not because of it, is miniscule.
Re: (Score:3)
They even say in the article his lung scans came back clean.
To be clear the article said that the official statement from the government was that his lungs were clean. There was a time when I placed far more trust in the USA government than the Brazilian government but you can bet both your testicles if Trump got the virus he'd be declared the healthiest and quickest to ever overcome it even if we don't see him or get tweets from him for weeks.
That's just what governments are now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But Johnson DID recover so the question comes down to whether it was more of a damage for him to be out of action for a month than it would have been to shut everything down for millions of people? The answer to that question is not clear.
This is a highly transmittable disease - more infectious than Flu so the numbers will be high but it doesnt seem to be a very deadly disease. Latest numbers are a 1% fatality rate.
Many things kill more than 1% of the world population every year. This would kill 1% over 3 y
Re: (Score:3)
Many things combined kill less than 1% of the population every year, at least in the US where the total death rate is about 0.8% to 0.9% each year from all causes.
Delicious Irony (Score:2)
Someone is driving the Karma around at high speed right now. Best to try and stay outta the way before you become covid-kill.
First thought isn't the right one (Score:3)
I was going to say that I hope it's just a "little flu" for his sake, but it'd probably do the world some good if he suffered through a terrible bout and was truly humbled by his suffering. It will help all of us to remember to listen to science - not populist leaders.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Populist Leaders, seem to have a part of their brain that doesn't connect cause and effect for their action. They just know if they say what a good group of people may be thinking, then they get the votes.
The real problem with Populist thinking, is it is often your knee-jerk reaction to a problem. Vs a fully well thought out problem.
As much as I would like to see the people who disagree me punished for their mindsets. I know that it isn't a practical solution to the problem, and will create a lot of peop
Indeed (Score:3)
> punishing people who disagree with me, will not change their minds, it would probably reassert their idea that I myself am a cruel person
Indeed. As I've gotten older, I've started to learn that to change people's mind about contentious issues I have to do some things that I often don't really enjoy doing:
Ask questions about what they want to accomplish ans actually listen.
Let them know I was listening and heard them by asking clarifying questions and/or asking "am I understanding you correctly that yo
Re: (Score:3)
Populist? Lula was a populist, this guy is just another corrupt oligarch who got his position by massive voting fraud.
Voting fraud is the least of it (Score:2)
They literally imprisoned Lulu to not let him run in the election against Bolsanaro as everyone knew if Lulu ran he would win
Re: (Score:2)
True enough, but I've always felt that an elected "populist" would have been elected by a majority of the voters to be labeled as such, while Bolsonaro was put in office mostly by blatant voting fraud. Of course it's also likely that Rump has his position by the same method, but at least in his case it wasn't quite so obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Leaders are not the problems but symptoms of the problem. Until people figure that out, those like Jair are here to stay, even if it is just by a different name and different political lean.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, Brazilians are dumb!
Or can we only say that about Americans here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First thought isn't the right one (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like the flu. The flu doesn't cause anything near what people are experiencing. Loss of balance, loss of mobility, partial paralysis, a persistent dry cough, fatigue, problems with digestion, memory issues, and so on.
Richard Quest just put out an article [cnn.com] on what he's going through after contracting covid-19 back in April. He thought everything was done and over with it. He thought wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Having much bologna sandwich?
CNN has an article (Score:4, Interesting)
TL;DR you'll still have symptoms sometimes weeks or months after having it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude it was months ago, what is he going to get tested for now?
Antibodies, and antibody titer, to see if he had it and thus needn't worry as much about avoiding it (and also a hint at whether he has an ongoing infection).
Also virus production during the recurrent symptoms, to see if he is an infectious carrier and needs to take ongoing precautions to avoid spreading it.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone I've known with "that story" has ended up testing negative for covid and then later antibodies. Might be nice to know for certain.
A month or two after, easily can be tested for antibodies.
We tested positive for both, without the tests, I definitely wouldn't walk around sure I'd already had it.
No need to worry (Score:2)
Probably won't change anything (Score:2)
This will probably go something like it would go if Trump got COVID...since most people are asymptomatic or get mildly ill, the probability is high that they'll be fine. Unfortunately, both would probably use it as an opportunity to double down on their denial of the problem. They'd either say, "Look what a great, strong, superior immune system I have!" or denounce it as a political tool.
Thanks, Corona (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Its original purpose in the drug combination was to combat the bacterial pneumonia that was killing people, but now it's become just another fad drug. Very soon we're going to need an entirely new way to combat bacteria.
Re: (Score:3)
While this macrolide antibiotic works wonders on many bacteria, it cannot do anything to a virus.
That's a rule-of-thumb, propagated to keep people from overusing antibiotics for viral illnesses and developing resistant strains of bacteria.
It's also not strictly true. Some antibiotics DO act against some viruses, to various degrees. (Any given antibiotic is a funny-shaped molecule. It might happen to do one thing that poisons some bacteria and another thing - maybe well, maybe just a little - that subver
aawwww (Score:2)
Finally some good news (Score:2)
Let's now hope that the bozo croaks and that he doesn't take anyone with him.
Re: (Score:2)
Call it 'Evolution in Action' (Score:2)
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:5, Insightful)
There's still the matter of all the Brazilian voters that put him there. What's the cure for that level of stupidity? It's not like people didn't know what kind of man he was before the last presidential election.
People who want disruption for disruption's sake, who seem to believe that chaos can lead to a new order, should take note. The chaos candidates do not bring order, because fundamentally they lack any real ability to know what order is. It's all really reactionaryism; a political sentiment rather than a coherent platform. It's like electing the loudest village idiot mayor and somehow expecting that he can do anything other than be a loudmouthed idiot.
In the hands of a skilled strategist, such populist sentiments can indeed be put to work, but none of the men I list above are strategists. They seem to go from their gut, but it's not instinct born out of any kind of cultivated wisdom or experience, but rather just layers of bias of every kind, along with the willingness to promise anything to anyone who they think they can help them get elected.
The problem is that the universe itself isn't really amenable to bravado and fist thumping. Viruses don't care how loudly you shout, how much of the mob's passion you can capture. Nature functions precisely as it does, with absolutely no regard to how someone feels about it. Canute was wise enough to know that he couldn't stop the tide, and demonstrated that ably enough, but this new breed of populist, adrift from any kind of coherent ethos, actually seem to believe the words that come out of their mouths, or at least believe that if they say them, then somehow those words will become true.
It's not the Bolonaros' or Trumps' that need the lesson. It's the fools that vote for them. We are not special, we are not unique, or minds can't warp the laws of physics or somehow melt the lipid layers of a viral particle. We are not magicians. We are wrought of the same damned stuff those viruses are, and they have played havoc with us in the past, and will do so in the future, and there's only one way to deal with a pandemic, and we've known what that was long before we even knew what the hell caused them; stop mass gatherings, shutter any business or facility that can't somehow be proofed against close contact, and quarantine the sick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the cure for that level of stupidity?
The cure is to listen to "them". To take their concerns to heart and not just assign a label and ostracize. Their concerns stem from real impacts on their lives. Some may be putting blame where it doesn't belong and some may be oblivious to their role in the situations they helped create. And some may just have a good point that's worth hearing. This goes for everyone. If everyone were to do this, I think we would find we have a lot more in common than it appears.
You must be (Score:2)
new around here.
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is many don't have legit concerns (Score:2)
This leaves them open to all sorts of nastiness and manipulation, and when you have political systems that lend themselves to the "Tyranny of the Minority" that's a recipe for fascism.
Any democratic political system that plans to survive needs to take into account a certain level of stupidity and ra
Re: (Score:2)
I will just say that it is incumbent on the more intelligent/enlightened of us to make the effort to help others by showing them an example of how to be an effective listener. When the opportunities arise, learn what their concerns are and you be the one to find common ground that you both can stand behind. Then get them to engage in their own ideas on an intellectual level and hopefully once they know how, they will do the same for others.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, listen to them when they say they like the ACA but Obamacare must go (they're the same thing). In the US, rarely do diehard Trump supporters have real fixed policy positions that they actually understand. They will make things up or repeat nonsensical things from Fox news to support their cult. Or say things that are the opposite of Trump's position without realizing it but then completely ignore that conflict. My deepest forays with Trump supporters ended with "Islam is not a religion" (1984-lev
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everyone I refuse to listen to is a racist I know for a fact they are racist because I refuse to talk to them"
Will you ever realize that you're the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there's good that comes from listening, even to racists. First, you might find out that some people that you thought were racist aren't who you thought they were. And the ones who are who you thought they were can be more effectively challenged if you know how they perceive their own views.
Re: Fingers crossed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cure (listening) isn't for them, it's for you. It's for all of us as individuals to consciously keep doing, but it works on a collective level. It's impossible to win over every individual, but we don't need to and shouldn't try beyond reasoned discussion. As long as most of us are willing to listen and work collaboratively most of the time to come up with better ideas, beliefs that no longer stand up to scrutiny will eventually fade away as those few who refuse to listen eventually die off. Alterna
Re: (Score:2)
You can thank the PT for Bolsonaro.
The fools that voted in (Score:2)
Modi, Orban, Johnson, Duterte, and yes, even Lopez-Obrador. Those voters are fools, every last one of them.
But with so many fools in the world, maybe a person thinks about why they are popular, aside, from the simplistic answer, that so many voters are foolish persons?
Re: (Score:2)
>It's not the Bolonaros' or Trumps' that need the lesson. It's the fools that vote for them.
The problem is the other choices are worse do you really think these guys would have been elected if there was a better choice and if there was the actions of the previous people in those parties have tainted the peoples opinion of that better choice in that the parties have failed the people on both sides that's why "Drain the Swamp" resonated at the last US election and why countless firings by Trump boosted his popularity until COVID he was doing well Democrats couldn't have had better luck they weren't
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there usually are better choices, but those choices often aren't the ones that pet our fur in the pleasant direction. For instance, take coal. In the 2016 election voters in Pennsylvania. Clinton had it right that coal wasn't coming back, and her commitment was to try to facilitate an economic transformation; job retraining, infrastructure programs and the like. Then Trump declared he was going to make coal as big as it was.
There were two clear choices. One was to admit that a major industry was dying, and try to diversify the economies of those communities most affected by coal's steady and inevitable decline. The other just made up a promise that sounded good to a group of people who couldn't stand the hard truths embedded in Clinton's message.
I'm not going to defend Clinton on every point. She wasn't a good candidate. She was a shitty campaigner, and while some of her defeat came down to pretty bad luck, some of it was just simply that she was less appealing. But this is where democracy can run into a problem, because a campaign is effectively a popularity contest, and where voters basically surrender their intellectual powers, and give in fully to their emotional powers, they will almost always pick the more emotionally pleasing candidate. If Clinton had been more charismatic, and hell, maybe just outright lied about coal's future, who knows, maybe she would have took Pennsylvania. If she'd done the same in the Rust Belt, maybe she would have won there too, and maybe she'd be President right now.
At some point I have to shift away from the inadequacy of leaders, not because some leaders have demonstrated themselves to be inadequate, or outright inept, and I have to look at the voters. At the end of the day, they put people like Johnson, Bolsonaro and Trump into power. They go for the guy that has all the answers that match up with their wishes (delusional or otherwise), but again, none of these men's pasts and faults are secrets. It wasn't like any of them pretended to be something else, and their stupidity and arrogance was a post-election discovery. The voters literally shut down their prefrontal cortexes and made their decision amygdals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that the election was fair and honest.
That is generally not a safe assumption in countries with chickenshit governments like Brazil's. Shit, it's not safe in "first world" nations, why would you assume it there?
Re: (Score:2)
No, really it's not canceled out. They just deny reality. But reality has, historically, had this very nasty habit of chewing up and spitting out those that didn't recognize hubris.
I'd be surprised if he dies (Score:4, Insightful)
I wold not even say it's implausible he's faking this. And if he does have it, statistically, anyone otherwise healthy and with mild symptoms, caught early, and able to have good healthcare and rest, this disease isn't likely to be fatal or even desperate.
THe problem then is after he emerges from it, it's unlikely hell be chasened but rather the reverse, even more prone to minimize it and be able to lord his own case history over any political opponent saying he's minimizing it too much.
It's not a good thing. It's why I hope Donald Tump does not get it.
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:5, Funny)
This disease might not kill the young and strong as often, but it fucks them up for life. It is a blood vessel disease, and because of that, it can screw over all your major organs.
For example, some guys have to get their dick amputated after blood clots cause days-long erections. Do you know what a necrotic dick smells like?
Good thing you're a dickless wonder, eh AC?
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually pretty rare. Some people get "Covid toes", a few people have had pancreatic damage. The really bad cases have had lung scarring.
Re: (Score:2)
That is more an effect of wrong treatment. Scores of people who did not need ventilators were put on ventilators and sedated. Which means they could not advocate for themselves ans report on problems early enough. Nurses were over worked and put people on ventilators so they would stop bothering them. Family was excluded so there was noone to advocate for them.
People treated at home by faimily are having better survival rates than those treated in the hospitals.
America's hospitals are all about earning mone
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have cause and effect mixed up. People treated at home have better outcomes because they aren't ill enough to be admitted in a hospital. Only serious cases are admitted and, obviously, the survival rate of seriously ill people is way lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about selection bias!
Yes, it's true (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
"This will not stick" he says. Not "I didn't do it."
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:4, Insightful)
On a planet with an average of 70 coronavirus deaths per million Brazil is sitting at 311/million already and doing its best to catch up to the US's current 407/million. If this moron had done what most other rational countries in the world did 51,000 people of their current 66,000 death toll would be alive today. Of course his economic policies have brought in a death toll much larger, but that's harder to quantify.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wondering about your sig. There is a clear definition of treason, and since the US currently has no official enemies it's kind of hard to figure out what you're claiming.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.... [house.gov]
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has he killed many people? Care to elaborate exactly how?
What the left hates is that his cops shoot carjackers and muggers. What they would like instead is for Rio and São Paulo to be declared UNESCO Crime Preserves, like Naples, where they could thrive unmolested and feed on tourists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note, just to feed the morons here: apparently Bolsonaro has been taking HCQ for a good while now.
The claim for HCQ was not that it prevented the disease.
The claim was that, started early enough (and perhaps in combination with azithromycin and/or with zinc) it may reduce the severity, probability of going into the severe form of the disease, and/or of dying from it.
It's known to have antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. But that doesn't necessarily translate into improved patient outc
Re: (Score:2)
keep your opinions to yourself. This is slashdot not facebook
Slashdot is and always has been explicitly not a news aggregator, but a discussion site. This site exists solely to share opinions, and argue about them, creating content which creates page views which creates revenue.
If msmash posts something and it makes you angry and you comment about it, mission accomplished. By writing that comment, you guaranteed that there will be more of the same. Congratulations.
*I* sure as hell care. (Score:2)
Sweet baby Jesus, no one gives a flying fuck man. Get over it.
I sure as hell care. My wife and I are both of ages, and with pre-existing conditions, that make us vary likely to die if/when we get this bug.
If taking a couple cheap generic drugs cuts our risk of death by a factor of 3 or better, we don't want to have it withheld just because YOU don't give an F-F about it, or the treatment isn't politically correct because Trump once mentioned it.
Tell us about mild in another three weeks. (Score:2)
"Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro Tests Positive for Covid-19 After Months of Dismissing the Seriousness of the Virus" and he apparently had a mild case.
Covid-19 almost always starts out as "a mild case". Then a couple weeks in it sometimes becomes a severe and probably fatal case.
Tell us about whether it's mild in another three weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, there's still hope, don't say it that way.