Thanks for posting, although whenever I see the point made about "more cases" in the premise of that article without even the bare minimum of context (i.e., number of tests), it really makes me think the author/speaker is more interested in finding support for a preconceived viewpoint and not neutrally examining data. It becomes hard to put stock in anything else that person says.
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for posting, although whenever I see the point made about "more cases" in the premise of that article without even the bare minimum of context (i.e., number of tests), it really makes me think the author/speaker is more interested in finding support for a preconceived viewpoint and not neutrally examining data. It becomes hard to put stock in anything else that person says.
Some interesting stats for sure. Not sure if other viruses are like this, but it all seems so strange.
Mask messaging was badly done by WHO, CDC and others, although to be fair, we've never seen a viral infection with such a high percentage of asymptomatic, but infected and contagious carriers and that wasn't very well known until early March (there had been conflicting reports prior to that), but after that it still took weeks to recommend masks instead of doing so in early March when the oubreak was already silently raging across the US (since we had no testing in place) and masks could have really helped.
Unfortunately, with fast breaking pandemics with fast changing science (and conflicting, uncertain science at times), not every decision is going to be the right one. But having said that, why wouldn't you now at least believe that this has been reasonably well figured out and wear a mask?
The reason why many of the Asian countries quickly went to masks was that many of them had been hit by SARS/MERS, where mask wearing became expected even though there wasn't confirmation of the need for them during those outbreaks (both were far less contagious than CV2).
SIAP, but a very large HCQ study. Drug def doesn’t work if you’re already pretty sick. If you take it at the very start of any symptoms, maybe there is something there, but I dunno how that can be proved...
https://www.biospace.com/article/hu...ceiving-malaria-drugs-twice-as-likely-to-die/
https://www.biospace.com/article/hu...ceiving-malaria-drugs-twice-as-likely-to-die/
The Lancet just published what is, by far, the largest retrospective observational study on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (HCQ/CQ) with or without a macrolide (Azithromycin, for example), evaluating 96,032 patients (14.9K treated with HCQ/CQ and 81.4K patients in the control group). The data clearly show that HCQ treatment resulted in statistically significant higher mortality rates. This is the kind of data we've been looking for and as I've been saying for over a month, given how many people HCQ is being given to, if it had been a "cure" (or even moderately effective) we'd know by now. Now we know. It's not. I have no issue with continuing ongoing controlled clinical trials, but we should stop giving this drug alone or in combo to patients outside of those trials.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
Findings
96,032 patients (mean age 53.8 years, 46.3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14,888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81,144 patients were in the control group. 10,698 (11.1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9.3%), hydroxychloroquine (18.0%; hazard ratio 1.335, 95% CI 1.223–1.457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23.8%; 1.447, 1.368–1.531), chloroquine (16.4%; 1.365, 1.218–1.531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22.2%; 1.368, 1.273–1.469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0.3%), hydroxychloroquine (6.1%; 2.369, 1.935–2.900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8.1%; 5.106, 4.106–5.983), chloroquine (4.3%; 3.561, 2.760–4.596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·.%; 4.011, 3.344–4.812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation.
Read this earlier and was waiting to see someone's analysis of this before posting. Curious how that dude that NEVER stops posting about HCQ will respond to this?
You can always say, “well by the time you get to the hospital, it’s too late to take it”. But I mean, I find it hard to believe that it would help you if you took it a few days earlier, seems unrealistic.
10,000 over 40 year old police in Mumbai are offered hydroxychloroquine
5500 refuse - 4500 take it
There are 9 deaths - all among the refusers
"Toll climbs to 9, cops on HCQS spared the worst"
Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...cqs-spared-the-worst/articleshow/75845670.cms
5500 refuse - 4500 take it
There are 9 deaths - all among the refusers
"Toll climbs to 9, cops on HCQS spared the worst"
Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...cqs-spared-the-worst/articleshow/75845670.cms
This isn’t a “study.” It’s a politically-motivated collection of cherry-picked data in order to “prove” that HCQ doesn’t work. I’m a liberal by the way.
I’ll wait for a randomized, double blinded study of HCQ with Azithromycin and zinc where it’s given directly upon admission to the hospital.
It's a retrospective study that shows that there could be some problems with giving it to patients who are ill or very ill with Covid. So it's an important piece of analysis. But you also cannot extrapolate and call HCQ a bust until the clinical trials are in.
Even the author of these study warn:
Our study has several limitations. The association of decreased survival with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment regimens should be interpreted cautiously. Due to the observational study design, we cannot exclude the possibility of unmeasured confounding factors, although we have reassuringly noted consistency between the primary analysis and the propensity score matched analyses. Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred. These data do not apply to the use of any treatment regimen used in the ambulatory, out-of-hospital setting. Randomised clinical trials will be required before any conclusion can be reached regarding benefit or harm of these agents in COVID-19 patients. We also note that although we evaluated the relationship of the drug treatment regimens with the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, we did not measure QT intervals, nor did we stratify the arrhythmia pattern (such as torsade de pointes). We also did not establish if the association of increased risk of in-hospital death with use of the drug regimens is linked directly to their cardiovascular risk, nor did we conduct a drug dose-response analysis of the observed risks. Even if these limitations suggest a conservative interpretation of the findings, we believe that the absence of any observed benefit could still represent a reasonable explanation.
You ever heard of tamiflu? Supposedly works to lessen the severity and duration of influenza (though only by about a day I think) but it MUST be given within the first 24-48 hours of symptoms, otherwise it doesn't do anything. Why is that? Because it works to inhibit viral replication or entry into cells (can't remember which). So if given early enough you can reduce the viral load and length/severity of illness compared to not taking it.
The reason it doesn't work after 48 hours is because by that time the immune system has kicked into action and is already reducing the viral load. The same thing might happen if HCQ is given very early in covid cases. The big problems though are (1) people are usually asymptomatic for a while early in the process, and (2) people have generally been told not to go to the doctor or hospital unless symptoms become severe. So the exact people that the treatment might help, never get the chance because they stay home during that period.
Supposedly there are studies ongoing looking at early treatment but with the way covid progresses, it may be very difficult to get to people early enough. That's why the pre or post exposure stuff is so interesting. A lot of anecdotal reports about it working as a preventive in other countries but that is very hard to prove (like in the Indian "study" with the police).
Tamiflu works after 48hrs, just to a lesser extent compared to taking it earlier.
The problem with HCQ is that it looks like it can actually be harmful if taken too late. May be harmful if you take it early too. Either way, does not sound like a great solution.
Show your work before lobbing out grenades like that. If you read the study, they essentially include everyone in a bunch of hospitals who was PCR-positive for COVID and started HCQ treatment within 48 hours of admission (so as not to bias the HCQ group with patients who were started later and potentially more seriously ill) and compared those people to all others who were admitted and not treated with HCQ. This also means it was a trial with at most moderate symptoms, since they all started treatment within 48 hours of admission, so it's not a case of HCQ doesn't work in severely ill patients.
Unlike many other retrospective trials it's basically everyone who was treated with HCQ vs. everyone who was not treated with HCQ, greatly reducing the chances of bias. This is the death knell for HCQ whether you like it or not. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we should probably stop any clinical trials using HCQ post-admission to a hospital, as we shouldn't be subjecting anyone to roughly a 1.3-1.5X greater mortality rate (adjusted) treatment. I'd only continue HCQ trials pre-hospitalization at this point.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200522113712.htm
Last edited:
The message battle has been lost. Very few people are wearing masks outside, even if "required".
https://theprint.in/health/hcq-brea...reventing-coronavirus-expands-its-use/427583/
Based on the findings of the studies, the government has decided to administer the drug as a ‘prophylaxis’ or preventive therapy to asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-Covid hospitals as well as non-Covid blocks of hospitals earmarked for Covid treatment.
Asymptomatic frontline workers, such as surveillance workers deployed in containment zones, as well as paramilitary and police personnel involved in Covid-related activities will be asked to pop HCQ pills.
Until now, only high-risk individuals, including asymptomatic healthcare workers involved in containment and treatment of Covid-19 patients, and asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases, were being administered the drug. They will continue to consume the drug.
However, in the final results of the studies (HCQ prophylaxis among 1,323 healthcare workers), the ICMR found mild adverse effects such as nausea in 8.9 per cent workers, abdominal pain in 7.3 per cent, vomiting in 1.5 per cent, low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia) in 1.7 per cent and cardio-vascular effects in 1.9 per cent.
Based on the findings of the studies, the government has decided to administer the drug as a ‘prophylaxis’ or preventive therapy to asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-Covid hospitals as well as non-Covid blocks of hospitals earmarked for Covid treatment.
Asymptomatic frontline workers, such as surveillance workers deployed in containment zones, as well as paramilitary and police personnel involved in Covid-related activities will be asked to pop HCQ pills.
Until now, only high-risk individuals, including asymptomatic healthcare workers involved in containment and treatment of Covid-19 patients, and asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases, were being administered the drug. They will continue to consume the drug.
However, in the final results of the studies (HCQ prophylaxis among 1,323 healthcare workers), the ICMR found mild adverse effects such as nausea in 8.9 per cent workers, abdominal pain in 7.3 per cent, vomiting in 1.5 per cent, low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia) in 1.7 per cent and cardio-vascular effects in 1.9 per cent.
Last edited:
+1
A retro analysis can just prove that HCPs are not using a drug correctly. This was the case with the VA.
I don’t know about that. I was at Home Depot this morning and just about everyone had a mask on. Anyone who is outside in a place where they are around other people without a mask is a moron.
I said "outside", not inside (which is mandated, for now). Check out the photos from the NJ shore last weekend.
They were all wearing them outside waiting on line as well and those people down the shore are idiots.
No, it's a study of moderately ill patients, at worst, as it excludes people who started HCQ treatment more than 48 hours after admission, with most started right after admission and the "limitations" of the study are nowhere near enough to somehow HCQ being found to be benefiicial. It's a bust for anyone sick enough to be in a hospital. Book it. And out of the ~15K patients receiving HCQ/CQ, we probably had an extra 500 people die in this "experiment" than would have died if we weren't needlessly giving it to thousands of patients without any proof it worked.
You seriously think people are going to the beach, keeping their distance are going to wear a mask?? In the sun? In the summer??
Yeah, waiting on line to go to the store were it is mandated. Look around at parks and neighborhoods. Barely any masks.
This whole "we need to social distance still - 2nd wave in the fall... ..but.....I still need to get some sun on MDW" is baffling.
I put on a mask to spend 10 seconds inside Dunkin getting a pre-ordered coffee but people can sit and walk on the beach all day with no mask?
Yes with proper distancing. I wear masks 8-10 hours a day indoors. You want a hero's badge to wear one for 10 seconds. What a sacrifice for humanity.
Don't want a hero's badge at all.
Dont mind putting on a mask to benefit others and doing my part (which is very easy and takes minimal effort).
I'm certainly not doing anything extraordinary.
Just not understanding how beaches are open and people allowed to lay around/walk near each other for hours on end with no mask "mandate" or requirements.
1) Where does it say moderately ill? I searched and could not find that statement.
2) Where are the IL-6, CRP, etc numbers? We know that typically patients who are worse off are given hail mary's with HCQ, etc. Where are the numbers that suggest the typical condition of each group? They are completely missing.
This is just more junk science to fit a narrative as @RU23 mentioned. Just read there own admitted limitations.
OTH, the Indian govt did a clinical evaluation of HCQ prophylaxsis and found it to significantly reduce the risk of healthcare workers. They have decided to treat HC workers prophylactically with HCQ.
Is it mandated anywhere outside in NJ if you are social distancing??
Yeah, I'll take the Indian government's word without any paper associated with it over the Lancet's analysis of ~15K HCQ/CQ patients (vs. 80K non-HCQ/CQ patients), who all started treatment within 48 hours of admission to the hospital. Stop looking for needles in haystacks and pay attention to the big picture here.
Don't think so.
But can you really social distance at the beach?
People walking all over - back and forth from the water.
Plus people out all day in the same area.
If you can "social distance" at the beach then I don't see how you can't "social distance" at a Rutgers football game too.
Hope this works. I believe the October date. It just doesn’t take that long to test in this type of environment. Yeah I guess you want to follow it for a year, but with a vaccine like that, the risk is so low.
Cherry picked? They picked all the data, essentially. Everyone who was given HCQ/CQ within 48 hours of admission (to exclude more severely ill patients who had been in hospital longer, as well as excluding anyone whose HCQ/CQ treatment began while on a ventilator) vs. almost everybody else who was admitted. Hard to be biased when you're not excluding a bunch of patients (and they did exclude remdesivir from the "control" group to make sure that didn't bias that group). This is 15K patients treated vs. 80K patients not treated - this ain't a 20 person anecdotal retrospective study.
And if you think it's cherry picked the burden of proof is on you. Show your work. Tell us what you've figured out that nobody else has. Pretty sure you can't. It's over. HCQ is not only ineffective, it's dangerous in a hospital setting with higher mortality rates. It doesn't get much worse than the summary below from the authors. Maybe there will be some prophylactic miracle, but I highly doubt that either, given its track record, so far.
In summary, this multinational, observational, real-world study of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation found that the use of a regimen containing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (with or without a macrolide) was associated with no evidence of benefit, but instead was associated with an increase in the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and a greater hazard for in-hospital death with COVID-19. These findings suggest that these drug regimens should not be used outside of clinical trials and urgent confirmation from randomised clinical trials is needed.
Only if you're not within 6 feet of others. The sun's UV rays will not instantly deactivate virus particles coming from another person's sneeze/cough/breath in the second or two it takes for them to reach you, assuming they're close by.
We're all rooting for you.
I don't suppose you own anything worth having. Ya know... when you're gone.
I don’t do the beach where I am closer than 6ft to someone I’m not related to.
But that’s me.
It depends on the beach and time of day. Some beaches are much wider than others. Like with everything, be thoughtful. No need for a mask outside in the vast majority of situations.
- Status
Similar threads
