Of all the things that has been solid about this virus from day 1 is exactly that. The sun's rays seem to squash it within seconds. Now we just need some sun.
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
+1
Sun kills the virus within seconds. Go to the beach on a sunny day. :)
Same here, so we should both be fine - however your post didn't specify any of what you just said...
Were these studies randomized? Was zinc included? As I said I’ll wait for a double blinded study of HCQ with Azithromycin and zinc, given in the early stages of infection. Happy to admit HCQ has no benefit once that study is conducted and shows no benefit. I hope you’ll be able to admit you’re wrong, if and when you are.
Somewhat unlikely. He will likely point to a post from weeks ago where he said maybe it works and then take credit for being right.
1)Pretty sure it's a thing that outdoor transmission of the virus has been shown to be significantly less. Especially in the sun, especially if over 76 degrees(read that was a magic # of sorts). Sunny and 76+ is pretty much prerequisite for large crowds at the beach. 76 degrees is actually very low for a packed beach day.
2)I think it is much easier to maintain a proper social distance at the beach as opposed to a store. Many of the pictures I've seen of people at the beach which have drawn criticism are a) deceiving because they are shot with a long lens which condenses the figures in the picture, b)not that crazy.
Reading all this stuff on HCQ I'm coming to the conclusion that it helps a little.
So not worthy of the hype from the pres, and not worthy of the condemnation from the left.
So not worthy of the hype from the pres, and not worthy of the condemnation from the left.
Grew up in Lavallette. In my entire life I sat on the beach for a sun tan is less than 10 days. F-ing boring. Now fishing, surfing, body surfing, and sailing a Hobie Cat is a completely different story. Mostly just fish and surf now so social distancing is not an issue.
there was a new study out that showed better outcomes than other treatments but it didn't save close to everyone or anything.
Wrong and wrong. Takes almost 7 minutes to deactivate 90% of SARS-CoV-2 with simulated summer soltice 40N sunlight (best case), meaning almost none of it would be deactivated in the 1-2 seconds it takes virus-laden droplets to go from person A to person B. Does anybody here actually look anything up? I could spend all day just correcting misinformation...
https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa274/5841129
Previous studies have demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is stable on surfaces for extended periods under indoor conditions. In the present study, simulated sunlight rapidly inactivated SARS-CoV-2 suspended in either simulated saliva or culture media and dried on stainless steel coupons. Ninety percent of infectious virus was inactivated every 6.8 minutes in simulated saliva and every 14.3 minutes in culture media when exposed to simulated sunlight representative of the summer solstice at 40oN latitude at sea level on a clear day.
I vote we haul him off to the vet and have him put out of our misery.
You are talking about saliva. I'm talking about normal breathing. Big difference.
Do you ever post something informative? Or are you the Official A-Hole on this board?
We're not talking about early stages of infection, as you just said you think the Lancet study was essentially forged and the Lancet study was post hospital admission (within 48 hours, which are generally not "severe" cases but moderate ones). You can't "randomize" a retrospective study, per se, but a 90,000 patient study is probably impossible to fake (and this wasn't some guy in his garage - it was done by some of the most respected people in medical science) and the evidence is simply overwhelming. There would have to be monumental bias to even to move the needle from "HCQ kills 30-45% more patients than non-HCQ" to "HCQ is about the same as non-HCQ."
I'm still open-minded, but very skeptical of HCQ used as a prophylactic/post-exposure prophylactic or very mildly ill (not hospitalized) patients, mostly because it's going to take huge numbers of patients to detect what is likely to be a tiny difference, given that the vast majority (80-85%) of infected people get better on their own. I'm already not wrong on HCQ for hospitalized and worse patients - that's blindingly obvious now. And I highly doubt I'll be wrong on mildly ill patients. But if I am, I'll own up to it.
Sunlight is not going to be more than marginally faster at deactivating viruses in breath vs. larger droplets, plus droplets are the biggest fear, since they come from coughs/sneezes, which we know have far higher viral loads in them vs. breath. People likely are reading about how fast UVC radiation is at deactivating viruses (and it's much faster than simulated surface sunlight) and misapplying that to sunlight, which has all of its UVC radiation absorbed by the ozone layer, such that none of it reaches the earth's surface.
Same here - I hate sitting on the beach, partly because I burn easily and hate putting on sunscreen, so I mostly go before 10 am or after 4 pm. When I do go, it's mostly to body surf, which my son and I really enjoy. I'll gladly put sunscreen on to play golf, though, lol...
Aren't droplets much larger than airborne particles by a huge percentage?? I mean by a lot.
Frankly I am tired of your schtick. I am not reaching, I read the study and see they failed to include data to assess disease severity. You read DL's blog.
If you can't see the flaws in that paper then you are blind. Patients spanning back to last December when they did not even know what they were treating or how to treat. Up until 6 weeks ago we were killing patients with an incorrect ventilation approach. 48 hrs after hospitalization is roughly 15 days of disease course which is no different then almost every other retrospective study that shows little benefit. Also, hospitalization by definition means the course was severe. Mild are those who are either symptomless or nearly so. Moderate is I can tough it at home. Hospitalization is the 3% who can't breath and are in serious trouble.
They used qSOFA to determine severity LOLOLOLOL.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7167215/
We anticipate that the qSOFA is not appropriate to identify Covid-19 patient to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis.
Also, where is the min, max, mean of SPO? If you have two groups of 1000 and both have 50% with patients below 94%. Are they equivalent populations if one has min, max, mean of 50, 96 and 71 and the other 88, 98, 91?
That is how you manipulate data to say what you want it too. Please remember what I have been doing for 20 years. I see it all the time.
However, since all you can do is read DL blog, I will help you understand the data a little better with a free insight:
The ICU stay was almost twice as long for treated patients vs the control and that was extremely significant. The treated patients needed mechanical ventilation at a rate of 3X the amount in the control. Again an EXTREMELY significant difference between treated and control. Conclusion, the treated patients were worse off. Which is what has happened in every retrospective study so far. Logically, it makes sense. If someone's IL-6 and CRP indicate extreme situation naturally doctors start trying hail mary's. I would bet you any sum of money the IL-6, CRP, etc of the treated group was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the control.
The Indian Govt did a study on several thousand workers and made decisions that impact many thousands of lives directly based on the results. Just because they have not shared that data does not mean anything other than they are not sharing it. The Lancet paper is retrospective with no data on disease severity and itself admits its limitations "Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred."
Last edited:
The Chinese CanSino vaccine released the Phase I trial results today. Seems to be mostly positive, but some mixed results. Wonder if the results are good enough for Trump to throw some cash at.
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-adenovirus-china.html
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-adenovirus-china.html
is someone coughing up a lung in large concentration, how would you catch it if just a tiny tiny amount, you want to argue the a small point rather than the bottom line
because outside is the safest place to be, pretty much common sense, you dont need a mask walking in the outdoors, but continue to do you
It's funny and at the time same lucky. I rarely used sunscreen most of my life. Of Irish descent and once you get that first burn and peeling than you tan. Once it gets nice out I spend all my time in the sun constantly. Especially my days playing golf and on the range from sun up to sun down. Or bike riding for hours on end. Today I lotion up a lot except fishing. Fish don't bite if you are wearing Coppertone. They can smell that. No issues so far
It's not the left, it's science. C'mon. But agree it was never worth any hype - nothing really is without controlled trials, outside of certain observational trials that have overwhelmingly positive or negative results - this can sometimes be seen in very binary trials like antbiotics where often either it works or doesn't and "works" is fairly easy to measure.
+1Frankly I am tired of your schtick. I am not reaching, I read the study and see they failed to include data to assess disease severity. You read DL's blog.
If you can't see the flaws in that paper then you are blind. Patients spanning back to last December when they did not even know what they were treating or how to treat. Up until 6 weeks ago we were killing patients with an incorrect ventilation approach. 48 hrs after hospitalization is roughly 15 days of disease course which is no different then almost every other retrospective study that shows little benefit. Also, hospitalization by definition means the course was severe. Mild are those who are either symptomless or nearly so. Moderate is I can tough it at home. Hospitalization is the 3% who can't breath and are in serious trouble.
They used qSOFA to determine severity LOLOLOLOL.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7167215/
We anticipate that the qSOFA is not appropriate to identify Covid-19 patient to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis. Also, where is the min, max, mean of SPO? If you have two groups of 1000 and both have 50% with patients below 94%. Are they equivalent populations if one has min, max, mean of 50, 96 and 71 and the other 88, 98, 91?
That is how you manipulate data to say what you want it too. Please remember what I have been doing for 20 years. I see it all the time.
However, since all you can do is read DL blog, I will help you understand the data a little better with a free insight:
The ICU stay was twice as long for treated patients vs the control and that was extremely significant. The treated patients needed mechanical ventilation at a rate of 3X the amount in the control. Again an EXTREMELY significant difference between treated and control. Conclusion, the treated patients were worse off. Which is what has happened in every retrospective study so far. Logically, it makes sense. If someone's IL-6 and CRP indicate extreme situation naturally doctors start trying hail mary's. I would bet you any sum of money the IL-6, CRP, etc of the treated group was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the control.
The Indian Govt did a study on several thousand workers and made decisions that impact many thousands of lives directly based on the results. Just because they have not shared that data does not mean anything other than they are not sharing it. The Lancet paper is retrospective with no data on disease severity and itself admits its limitations "Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred."
You hit the nail on the head.....once again. Thanks for posting the real story.
I would say 75% of people I see in public are wearing masks (outside establishments).
You might be too “tough” to wear a mask, but stop making $hit up.
You’re a terrible troll.
Copper fit masks?
Copper does have virus killing properties right?
Does copper kill it fast enough, and is there enough copper in it to make a difference?
Both funny and interesting imo.
Copper does have virus killing properties right?
Does copper kill it fast enough, and is there enough copper in it to make a difference?
Both funny and interesting imo.
Full results of the Remdesivir trial. Pretty much confirms the early results that were released weeks ago. Doesn’t do anything for intubated patients, but they should def use this on everyone before that stage.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/22...ent-with-remdesivir-and-also-its-limitations/
https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/22...ent-with-remdesivir-and-also-its-limitations/
The virus doesn't change size depending on how it's expelled. A virus particle is a virus particle. Large droplets may contain considerably more virus particles, but not bigger particles. If it takes 7 mins to deactivate 1 particle, it takes 7 min. Spit or breath, doesn't matter.
Yeah no. That is the dumbest post on this 200+ page thread.
Frankly I am tired of your schtick. I am not reaching, I read the study and see they failed to include data to assess disease severity. You read DL's blog.
If you can't see the flaws in that paper then you are blind. 48 hrs after hospitalization is roughly 15 days of disease course which is no different then almost every other retrospective study that shows little benefit. Also, hospitalization by definition means the course was severe. Mild are those who are either symptomless or nearly so. Moderate is I can tough it at home. Hospitalization is the 3% who can't breath and are in serious trouble.
They used qSOFA to determine severity LOLOLOLOL.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7167215/
We anticipate that the qSOFA is not appropriate to identify Covid-19 patient to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis.
However, since all you can do is read DL blog, I will help you understand the data a little better with a free insight:
The ICU stay was twice as long for treated patients vs the control and that was extremely significant. The treated patients needed mechanical ventilation at a rate of 3X the amount in the control. Again an EXTREMELY significant difference between treated and control. Conclusion, the treated patients were worse off. Which is what has happened in every retrospective study so far. Logically, it makes sense. If someone's IL-6 and CRP indicate extreme situation naturally doctors start trying hail mary's. I would bet you any sum of money the IL-6, CRP, etc of the treated group was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the control.
The Indian Govt did a study on several thousand workers and made decisions that impact many thousands of lives directly based on the results. Just because they have not shared that data does not mean anything other than they are not sharing it. The Lancet paper is retrospective with no data on disease severity and itself admits its limitations "Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred."
Same here, very tired of your schtick. I have 95% of medical science on my side and you have the discredited Didier Raoult, Elon Musk and Dr. Trump on your side. HCQ is simply not effective and is actually dangerous for hospitalized COVID patients. You simply can't see the forest for the trees and keep looking for minor differences that don't really mean anything when all you have to look at is that the HCQ and comparators were matched pretty damn closely and the mortality rate was significantly greater for the HCQ patients. For a huge sample size of 15K/80K.
Don't you think that if HCQ had any efficacy at all there would have at least been some signal in a huge dataset like that? And maybe the ICU stays were longer and ventilation needs were greater for the HCQ patients because HCQ was actually worse for patients than the control - hence the eventual greater mortality rate as an outcome.
And yes, I misspoke on moderate - should have simply said less severe vs. more severe, as they did exclude the most severe patients (intubated) at start of HCQ treatment from the HCQ data, but you're correct that it's generally at least severe to be admitted to the hospital. By the way about 20% of COVID cases end up in the hospital, not 3%. And I didn't even bring Lowe's blog up today, although since you asked, he savaged HCQ in it today and rightly so.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-enough-already
From Lowe's Blog: But I’m going to leave it at this. There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these treatment regimes. There was significant evidence of harm. Here’s how it works: when something is real, you continue to see a real signal as you collect more and better data. When something is not real, it disappears. Tell me again why anyone should be advocating such treatments. But your reasons had better stand up to 14,888 patients versus 81,144 comparators. Make it good.
At this point, there's probably not much more productive from continuing this conversation. Let's see what happens with the prophylactic and mild symptom studies, although I'm surprised you're simply going to buy the reports from India on this without a scientific paper/description behind it. The only published data I've seen so far on prevention of getting COVID has been from lupus patients on HCQ, who are significantly more likely to get COVID than RA patients. Granted they're not "typical" patients, but that's certainly not a good sign for prevention.
75% is a fantasy. Be honest and get real. Let's keep this thread about the facts. 10% at most. Look at recent photos from NJ beaches and parks.
+1
I don't understand why posters here are denying the simple facts. Very strange.
- Status
Similar threads
