Wait, so poorer countries are effective at reporting new cases but aren't effective at reporting deaths? Hmm, sounds like you're arbitrarily trusting or rejecting data to support a preconceived conclusion.
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
I'd think it would be S curve.
And I'd think say 50% would greatly slow the spread, but I'd doubt it would flat stop it.
The LTC concern would still be there as well, we know this thing can sneak through a crack and still wreak havoc in these places.
The specifics of 1.2 or 9.5 I'm out of my realm on that.
I think you are correct that a poor country, just as many wealthy countries have, would have a tough time keeping track of both cases and deaths, but a dead body does need to be processed, where as a mild case of Covid does not, and we can also calculate Covid deaths to an extent as the difference between current deaths and average deaths.
Who is this? He doesn't seem to understand the definition of rising.
Ok looked him up., Topher Spiro is from Center for American progress, in other words a leftist. He's just pushing his narrative.
It is amazing that some people still don't understand numbers, including which ones actually mean something, and are still more concerned about pushing narratives than finding the best path forward. More amazing is that others take cues from such people without any thought themselves.
This!! He looks like a utter fool to post that complete nonsense.
Considering who posted it...that surprises you??
Fingers crossed with Moderna. Dosing 30k people starting the beginning of July for Phase III
https://www.biospace.com/article/fa...se-iii-to-begin-in-july-with-30-000-patients/
https://www.biospace.com/article/fa...se-iii-to-begin-in-july-with-30-000-patients/
He’s a lefty so the numbers are fake!!! No lefties can ever tell the truth. So I guess we should ignore all numbers from righties too
Wow, great news from NY today, as the state tested 61,642 people and only 1045 positives making the positivity rate 1.7%. That bodes real well for reopening more and more outdoor venues . Caveat, as long as we do not see a surge of cases from the protests , which we will know about by June 10-12.
WHO says they haven't seen any meaningful mutational changes in COVID to see any sort of changes in either direction (more/less lethal and with regards to ease of transmission). For now seems relatively stable.
From the article:
The coronavirus has not mutated in any way that would meaningfully change how quickly it spreads or how severely it can harm humans, World Health Organization officials said Wednesday.
The WHO and its network of scientists and virologists continue to track the genetic sequence of the virus in various countries across the world to monitor for mutations, the WHO said. Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said scientists have observed “normal changes” in the virus, which were expected.
“All viruses evolve,” Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “They can evolve in one direction. They can evolve in the other direction.”
“To date, to my knowledge, we haven’t seen any particular signal in the virus’ behavior or in its sequence that would lead us to believe the virus is changing in its nature, has changed in its transmission dynamics, or changed in its lethality,” he added.
RNA viruses like the coronavirus mutate more quickly than some other viruses, Ryan said, because unlike human DNA, RNA viruses do not have “natural error checking,” meaning that the code of the virus cannot correct itself. That gives RNA viruses some advantages as well as disadvantages, he said.
“The disadvantage is they make many mistakes and many of the viruses don’t thrive or survive,” he told reporters. “Very occasionally, a mutation can lead to a virus becoming more effective in transmission or more virulent, or less effective.”
He added, however, that generally speaking, viruses “evolve to live with humans,” meaning they become less severe so the host can survive and allow the virus to spread more.
“It’s not in the virus’ interest to do too much damage to the host,” he said. “It wants to survive.”
For the time being, though, the virus is “relatively stable,” Van Kerkhove said. She added that the changes observed in the virus are “expected” and that it is not “mutating in a way that makes the virus more transmissible or more severe.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/who...ated-to-a-more-lethal-or-contagious-form.html
From the article:
The coronavirus has not mutated in any way that would meaningfully change how quickly it spreads or how severely it can harm humans, World Health Organization officials said Wednesday.
The WHO and its network of scientists and virologists continue to track the genetic sequence of the virus in various countries across the world to monitor for mutations, the WHO said. Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said scientists have observed “normal changes” in the virus, which were expected.
“All viruses evolve,” Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “They can evolve in one direction. They can evolve in the other direction.”
“To date, to my knowledge, we haven’t seen any particular signal in the virus’ behavior or in its sequence that would lead us to believe the virus is changing in its nature, has changed in its transmission dynamics, or changed in its lethality,” he added.
RNA viruses like the coronavirus mutate more quickly than some other viruses, Ryan said, because unlike human DNA, RNA viruses do not have “natural error checking,” meaning that the code of the virus cannot correct itself. That gives RNA viruses some advantages as well as disadvantages, he said.
“The disadvantage is they make many mistakes and many of the viruses don’t thrive or survive,” he told reporters. “Very occasionally, a mutation can lead to a virus becoming more effective in transmission or more virulent, or less effective.”
He added, however, that generally speaking, viruses “evolve to live with humans,” meaning they become less severe so the host can survive and allow the virus to spread more.
“It’s not in the virus’ interest to do too much damage to the host,” he said. “It wants to survive.”
For the time being, though, the virus is “relatively stable,” Van Kerkhove said. She added that the changes observed in the virus are “expected” and that it is not “mutating in a way that makes the virus more transmissible or more severe.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/who...ated-to-a-more-lethal-or-contagious-form.html
WHO has restarted its trial of HCQ.
1:10 p.m. ET — The World Health Organization says it will continue its trial looking at hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for the virus after examining safety data on the drug.
Last week, the agency announced it would halt its trial after a study published in medical journal The Lancet found that hospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with the drug had a higher risk of death than those who didn’t take it. However, the study is now being reexamined over concerns it contained fabricated data. —Berkeley Lovelace Jr.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/wor...hydroxychloroquine-after-safety-concerns.html
1:10 p.m. ET — The World Health Organization says it will continue its trial looking at hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for the virus after examining safety data on the drug.
Last week, the agency announced it would halt its trial after a study published in medical journal The Lancet found that hospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with the drug had a higher risk of death than those who didn’t take it. However, the study is now being reexamined over concerns it contained fabricated data. —Berkeley Lovelace Jr.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/wor...hydroxychloroquine-after-safety-concerns.html
https://www.studyfinds.org/blood-pl...fe-effective-76-of-patients-show-improvement/
50 of 74 critically ill patients at Huston hospital recovered after getting convalescent plasma
50 of 74 critically ill patients at Huston hospital recovered after getting convalescent plasma
First off I have never talked about politics in general but especially regarding this thread. So don't include me in with your political crap.
And you're still wrong about all the state's seeing a spike in numbers because you don't include the spike in testing in all those states at the same time. AZ was testing around 4k a day just 10 days ago. Monday testing was nearly 10k.
Give your crap a break. You haven't posted anything correct in this entire thread.
Uhhhm so he is speaking intelligently about data. Topher describes a plot showing a flat line as rising. Are you unable to see the difference?
it's literally a percentage of positives going up. Do you know how percentages work????? If the number of tests is going up, the percentage of positives should go down. The opposite is happening.
yes Nebraska's positive percentage is 3-4 points higher than a week ago, and 1-2 points higher than a couple of days ago. He didn't say it's at its highest.
too early most likely. I think they said 2-4 days after exposure is the earliest it can be detected. I'm sure there are always outliers.
I wish they provided more info on the 74 patients. The 19 of 25 patients improving was reported in the post below, based on a preprint of the paper and this article now includes a link to the final published peer-reviewed journal article, which is good to see.
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...ocial-distancing.191275/page-119#post-4565912
https://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002-9440(20)30257-1/fulltext
The report from Mayo Clinic from a few weeks ago on 5000 patients given plasma had a comment that 57% of ICU patients typically die from COVID, so if, worst case, 24 of 74 of these "critically ill" patients died (and no idea if they all died or some are still in the hospital), that's 32% vs. 57%, which would be a major improvement. Not 100% sure the comparison is valid though - very hard to find CP efficacy data, so far, which is a bit frustrating. The fact that, overall, almost 19,000 patients have now been treated with CP tells me someone thinks it's working.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.12.20099879v1.full.pdf
https://www.uscovidplasma.org/?_ga=2.39375079.517834492.1591214886-959364230.1589604020
From the article:
Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug as a preventive measure, according to researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School who conducted the trial. It showed that hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted by President Trump, was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19.
“As we say in Tennessee, ‘that dog won’t hunt’ — it didn’t work,” said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Schaffner, who was not involved in the trial, praised it as “rigorously done.”
Researchers launched the trial in mid-March. They enrolled more than 800 adults in the United States and Canada who were exposed to someone with covid-19 because of their jobs as health-care workers or first responders, or because they lived with someone with the disease. The study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and was double-blinded, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew what the participants received. Such a study is considered the gold standard for clinical trials.
The prevention trial released Wednesday showed 40 percent of the participants who took the drug developed side effects that were not serious — mostly nausea, upset stomach and diarrhea. The study found no serious side effects or cardiac complications, the researchers said.
Its findings reinforced those of previous studies showing the drug does not provide benefit against covid-19.
“It’s not surprising given that there has not been efficacy established for this drug in any meaningful way,” said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “It’s not a large study, but it extends the spectrum from the most severely ill patients to mildly ill and now preventive.”
David Boulware, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Minnesota and the study’s senior investigator, said he launched the trial because hydroxychloroquine had shown signs in a lab setting that it might be effective against the virus.
About two-thirds of the trial participants were health-care workers and the rest were a mix of other people exposed to someone with covid-19, he said. They were given hydroxychloroquine or a placebo for five days and then followed for two weeks to see who developed the disease.
Overall, about 12 percent given the drug developed covid-19, while 14 percent given the placebo also did — not a statistical difference. There was no benefit for people who also took zinc or vitamin C, the researchers said.
Boulware said that the analysis tried to drill down on whether any subgroups, by race, occupation, age, or co-morbidities, had any hint of benefit. But they could not find any, he said.
One weakness of the trial, he added, is that because testing was not widely available during the time of the trial, their analysis used a combination of lab-confirmed positive covid-19 tests and symptoms to count someone as infected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/03/hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trial-results/
Unfortunately, HCQ in Boulware's randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, showed no efficacy in preventing people who had been exposed to the virus from getting the disease. Would like to see the full NEJM paper, which is supposed to be out today. Not surprised - and am still very skeptical of the reports out of India supposedly saying HCQ works as a prophylactic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/03/hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trial-results/
Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug as a preventive measure, according to researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School who conducted the trial. It showed that hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted by President Trump, was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19.
“As we say in Tennessee, ‘that dog won’t hunt’ — it didn’t work,” said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Schaffner, who was not involved in the trial, praised it as “rigorously done.”
The Indian study specifically stated that there was no effect unless the person had been on HCQ for 2 weeks or more. That distinction is important and could go a long way to explaining how India has fared so well in the pandemic overall. The theory being that many in India have taken HCQ for extended time to prevent malaria.
It does not seem like the UMN study tested that specific case.
It does not seem like the UMN study tested that specific case.
Let's get back to a little science. In light of Boulware's study not showing any HCQ efficacy in being a prophylactic in people exposed to COVID-19, what do you think of this study now?
I bit my tongue for a couple of days waiting for Boulware's results, but had posted my thoughts on FB and elsewhere. My opinion is that this "paper" contains some of the shoddiest science I've seen in quite some time (and yes, Dr. Boulware was skeptical of the early results released as the reported outcome of prophylaxis wasn't accompanied by data).
The "study" based HCQ dosing history on telephone interviews of patients weeks after they would've been dosed. At least all the other retrospective observational studies done on HCQ and other treatments, to date, usually had clear medical records of patient status at the start of a study and dosing regimen during the study and, of course, outcomes/observations.
Measures: A brief 20-item interview schedule was developed to elicit the information on key issues...a history of prophylactic HCQ intake with dosing details was also obtained.
And that dose response curve is something I would've laughed at if someone brought it to me to review. Connecting data points with a dotted line that aren't known to be linear segments and drawing a "trend line" through points that are all over the place? A few doses leading to a worse outcome, then a few more leading to a better outcome? This is 9th grade level data analysis. An MD friend of mine who conducts clinical research had this to say:
This isn't science... a 20 item interview???? Who developed this technique for sampling? Not to mention sample size. Who would release this to the scientific community? Are you sure that's a trend line? It looks like it belongs on another study. We can wait for all the rigorous studies we want, but this is a waste of time and resources. I would expect this to appear in one of Trump's briefings, with the "trend line" drawn in sharpie.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e26FOJfF4akP7-aMQjE_BGxTHBjrgo1e/view
You don't get it. The numbers aren't "lies" they just don't say what he asserts they say. End of story.
Shame about HCQ, I’m interested in what others have to say about the nitty gritty details but I don’t feel the need to go into them myself. #’s instincts were correct, sadly.
Here's the paper from Boulware in the NEJM. HCQ is not effective in hospitalized patients as per many, many studies and now it's not effective for post-exposure prophylaxis in a well-controlled trial. I suppose it's theoretically possible it would be effective in mildly symptomatic patients or could be a true prophylactic, but it's highly unlikely. I'd like to see us close the book on this failed experiment and start spending our precious clinical resources on treatments that might actually work.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_home
RESULTS
We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.
See my post below yours. That Indian study was beyond shoddy and there's no way more than a small % of 1.3 billion Indians are taking HCQ prophylactically. India's case and death rates are climbing and many fear they're going to explode now that their lockdown has ended. I fear greatly for India right now, as do a couple of my Indian expatriate friends and hope I am wrong.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corona...lockdown-moves-unlock-phase-today-2020-06-01/
So all those are "spikes, "states in real trouble" ...? Ha!! Why don't you take your nonsense to the CE Board with all your BS.
Even though the study used the gold standard methodology of conducting clinical research, outside researchers saw significant limitations. The study was conducted in an unusual way: over the internet, without patients being seen by study doctors. The fact that patients self-reported their data and that one in five did not take all their doses of the study drug, as well as the study’s small size, made him less than confident that the study could entirely rule out that hydroxychloroquine had some preventative effect While the initial infections had to be confirmed with a diagnostic test, the researchers also counted patients who had symptoms consistent with disease, in part because testing wasn’t available.
They only PCR tested a handful of patients and did everything by phone interview without any doctors involved. Sounds useful. Hey I still say I have no evidence if it works or not. But let us be honest. If the conclusion said it worked but with those same limitations you would be saying it was complete garbage. And you would probably be right.
- Status
Similar threads
