COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
I reviewed that study and posted my comments on this site. I said it seemed likely fraudulent. I was questioned with the who am I to question Lancet/NEJM the most prestigious journals, etc. How do you like me now? Politics has no place in science. None. I have never said HCQ works, in fact, I have often said not sure/have doubts. But I will not accept politicized bullshit science.
Last edited:
If it were about politics, surely they could've "cooked the books" more carefully - my guess is it's really about sloppy data collection/analysis, which is very bad, but not fraudulent. This also affects an ivermectin study and one on ACE inhibitors, both of which are off patent, just like HCQ, so unless the authors were going to make $$ off ivermectin (which had good results), there's probably no profit motive. Let's hope we find out what went wrong.
Keep in mind that "peer review" (I've both published peer reviewed journal articles and reviewed them, so I know a little about this) will almost never be able to discover "fraudulent" data, as reviewers don't go back to the raw data to confirm everything that was done. That's the job of other scientists if a scientific finding is considered worthy of verifying - lots of scientists repeat the work of others just to check that.
It's why we've had probably at least a dozen retrospective, observational analyses of HCQ/combos in COVID patients - this just happened to be the largest one - and given this style of study, which is never as good as a true randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded study, we're seeing most studies not showing efficacy and some showing efficacy (in hospitalized patients), which is what one might expect with an ineffective drug with multiple retrospective analyses.
I go back to the bigger point that roughly 60-80% of NYC patients in the JAMA/NJEM studies were on HCQ and reportedly most other hospitals in the US were also giving HCQ during the height of the outbreak - so if HCQ were a "gamechanger" one would not have expected case fatality rates to double in NY and the US from 4/1 to 5/1. That's Occam's Razor level analysis and I'm nearly certain it's correct.
I highly doubt it. Transmissibility is greatly reduced outdoors. Also consider how we were all living in mid March- concerts, sports, mass transit... a couple thousand protestors/rioters is a drop in the bucket compared to how we were living a few months ago. Also there's not many cases out there right now... you need a certain number of carriers in the crowds to have enough of an effect to cause a spike. Expect a mild increase that could just as easily be explained by the restrictions loosening.
+1
You are the clinical data expert in this thread. Many other "knowledgeable" posters were duped.
According to the autopsy,Floyd tested positive on April 3rd.He tested positive when he died 7-8 weeks later.Is this possible?
Maybe they can vaccinate us walking into the RU football games.....https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/ast...o-billion-doses-of-a-coronavirus-vaccine.html
Interestingly I was just talking about this with a nurse just yesterday.
But people are testing positive for up 90 days is what I was told. Not that they were sick during that entire time, but something about viral material.
The tests unfortunately are unable to distinguish.
Wow September? I don’t even think there have been any human trial results yet.
Moderna has completed their Phase 1 trial. Some criticism on how the results were represented but there may have been something there. I think Phase 2 is on now.
September sounds like a fantasy though.
Officials can no longer tell the public to social distance ourselves with a straight face
That edict ended last week
Open everything up starting now and let people decide if they want to leave their homes or not.
Freedom of choice
That edict ended last week
Open everything up starting now and let people decide if they want to leave their homes or not.
Freedom of choice
Yeah I know. Moderna starts Phase 3 beginning of July!
I was talking about the Oxford study though, which is what that article was about. Think they’ve only released data from apes so far.
It's not an either/or. If we're smart, people will be going back to work, school, and modified social situations where they continue to practice social distancing and wearing of masks. If everyone does that, transmissions will stay very low, like they have in many other countries with those practices - places like Seoul and Tokyo have subways full of people wearing masks and aren't seeing huge spikes - their spikes have been from nightclubs and such.
If we get partial compliance with that, which is my prediction, we'll have a "slow burn" of modest infection and death rates (maybe 500 deaths /day vs. the 3000/day we were up to at one point, but even 500/day is ~180K/year), but if we just "go back to normal" we'll go back to what happened in the first wave, especially in densely populated areas that weren't hit as hard as DC-Boston and a few other spots (places like Chicago, LA, Miami, Atl, Houston, Dallas, etc. didn't have anywhere near the % of unknown initial cases as NYC metro, for example, due to lack of testing and much higher numbers of infected travelers and higher pop/commuting density). It's in our hands.
There's simply no way a vaccine will be approved by September, even if they use the human challenge approach (exposing healthy vaccinated volunteers to the virus on purpose); it's fantastic that they're going to make the manufacturing doses at risk, so it's ready when approved, but I can't see approval before the end of the year and most think that's aggressive. I've said I thought we'll see approval of the first vaccine by the end of the year and have had friends call me nuts, so September would be double nuts, lol.
Although I think @Proud NJ Sports Fan is a bit early ,the idea isn't off the rails. At some point it will become an individual choice. Stay at home if you are scared or get back to normal and take the risk knowing who you might infect at home. The people that test positive for antibodies should be able to do anything they want.
Transmissibility is not inherently less outdoors. If people "go back to normal" and are outside in packed in conditions, like at a concert or outdoor bar or whatever and they're not wearing masks, transmission from person to person will be just as high as it is inside. UV radiation takes several minutes to deactivate the virus and it takes a second or less to transmit via sneeze, cough or even loud talking, which is why we still need social distancing and masks especially if SD isn't possible.
UV only helps reduce surface transmissions, via fast virus deactivation, but surface transmissions are only a tiny fraction of transmissions. If the virus is seasonal, like flu (not clear yet), then greater humidity could slow transmission indoors or outdoors as has been shown for humans with flu (more effective mucous membranes in higher humidity).
Agree on antibodies, despite experts not having said that yet (the concern is false positive antibody tests, which can be a moderate percentage), but disagree on the "choice" thing. If person X could only put person X at risk by not wearing a mask or social distancing I wouldn't give a f*** what they did, but since that person can be an aysmptomatic carrier and infect/kill me or my family, I don't think they should exercise that choice in public or at work. I like to think Americans would care enough about their neighbors, friends, family, and community to do that, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.
Since everyone makes a choice to expose themselves and social distancing I don't understand your issue. It is a ship show in stores. With all the requirements in place so many don't follow them. By law they have to wear a mask properly to enter but we can't do a damn thing after they enter. I believe it's the same in NJ
Yup, same in NJ. As I mentioned before, barely 10% of folks are wearing a mask while outside for any reason.
So you're telling me you'd go to an outdoor concert right now, without a mask, standing within 1-2 feet of several people you don't know, all screaming loudly? If you did, you'd actually be as dumb as you often project yourself to be. I don't wear a mask walking around the neighborhood, because density is so low it's easy to keep proper SD, but I sure as shit wear a mask if I'm going to a store and will be within 6 feet (or can't control everyone else) of others. And every store I've been in has >95% wearing masks.
Don’t bet against September. The whole world is working on it.
I will bet you any reasonable sum of money on this (with the money going to COVID research or something) - no way will there be an approved and commercially available vaccine in September, although I'd love to be wrong on that.
Yes it is. Virus fragments can still be present. The positive diagnostic tests can detect those particles. The thought is the virus is dead or may not be fit enough to grow, and therefore not fit enough to infect a new host.
Those antibodies last how long? You dont know and neither does anybody else at this point. So it isn't as simple as you say
Silly suggestion. The problem with nursing homes is not a lack of space. Most nursing homes are single room occupancy. The problem with nursing homes are:
a) They are inhabited by the sickest, oldest and poorest members of our society;
b) Nursing Homes are essentially real estate maintenance facilities, not healthcare facilities;
c) Nursing homes are run by low paid medically untrained personnel. Think more day care.
d) Nursing homes operate on razor thin profit margins and don't have the money or the resources to properly deal with a pandemic.
Here are some much better ways to deal with the nursing home issue.
a) Have the federal government fund personal protective equipment to both patients and personnel;
b) Have the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) create uniform standards for determining quality of care and life safety requirements;
c) Encourage/require hospitals to develop formal affiliation agreements with nearby hospitals so when hospital capacity for COVID patients go down, medical personnel can be shifted to nursing homes.
d) Have HUD who insures over 3,500 nursing homes and assisted living facilities issue temporary mortgage forbearences and use the funds for equipment and personnel.
Finally, there is a vast difference between nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Assisted living facilities (ALF's) are private pay (not Medicare/Medicaid) predominant pay. ALF's are for mostly healthy residences (55+) who need help with meals and don't want to have to deal with the cooking, cleaning and other things involved in living on their own.
Many assisted living facilities are nicer than places where most of us live in with gourmet meals, mini-theatres, libraries and cafes. The average monthly nut for an ALF is about $5,000 and most ALF's are part of a continuum of care which means when residents get sick they get moved to intermediate facilities and eventually to nursing homes. These are just some of the differences and why the mortality rate at ALF's are way different than that of nursing homes.
Please don't try lecturing about nursing home and assisted living facilities. Your "a" through "d" points are all wrong.
Regarding CDC. CDC did not suddenly become a failed agency. Every agency is filled with hundreds/thousands of employees who have worked under and through both Republican and Democratic administrations.
The difference is the management and operation of these facilities at the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary levels. Trump has put in place at every major agency people who do not believe in government. People whose job is to hollow out the very agencies they run by forcing competent folks who are in a position to either resign or retire.
CDC, like NIH, like Justice, like State, like HHS is filled with competent senior level staff that suddenly did not become incompetent. There is certainly an argument to be made for reducing the federal workforce and weeding out the incompetent and the lazy. HUD for instance has 9,300 employees and the standard response/joke to...............How many people work at HUD?..............is about half of them..................is pretty close to the truth. So I am not for government reform.
But what the Trump administration is doing is something very different. He is forcing the most talented and competent folks out and is at the same time muzzling the competent folks left.
The difference is the management and operation of these facilities at the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary levels. Trump has put in place at every major agency people who do not believe in government. People whose job is to hollow out the very agencies they run by forcing competent folks who are in a position to either resign or retire.
CDC, like NIH, like Justice, like State, like HHS is filled with competent senior level staff that suddenly did not become incompetent. There is certainly an argument to be made for reducing the federal workforce and weeding out the incompetent and the lazy. HUD for instance has 9,300 employees and the standard response/joke to...............How many people work at HUD?..............is about half of them..................is pretty close to the truth. So I am not for government reform.
But what the Trump administration is doing is something very different. He is forcing the most talented and competent folks out and is at the same time muzzling the competent folks left.
Well let's see. You are a liquor salesman and I just retired form managing a portfolio of over 200 nursing homes and assisted living facilities at HUD.
So, let's let the board determine who knows what they are talking about or not.
Behold, the power of states opening up:
Dow rallies 1,000 points for the first time since early April amid historic jobs surge
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html
The recovery from the coronavirus sure looks V-shaped, going by these charts
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/the...ure-looks-v-shaped-going-by-these-charts.html
Dow rallies 1,000 points for the first time since early April amid historic jobs surge
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html
The recovery from the coronavirus sure looks V-shaped, going by these charts
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/the...ure-looks-v-shaped-going-by-these-charts.html
What are your thoughts about the handling of LTC facilities by Cuomo (NY), Murphy(NJ), Wolf (PA) and Whitmer (MI)?
Excellent post. Nursing homes are very different from assisted living facilities. Have had close relatives in each and it's night and day. My father-in-law's ALF was like a country club, whereas my wife's grandmother's nursing home was a sad, depressing place where people essentially were warehoused until they died. The difference in staff competence was huge, too.
OK so you acknowledged one difference between being inside and outside...UV radiation...but what about a simple 3mph breeze? You're telling me two people speaking to one another inside vs. outside, the risk of transmission is the same? No way.
Is it reasonable to assume that since the CV testing debacle in Jan occurred at the Atlanta lab, it was the responsibility of senior level staff in charge at the lab?
So you are talking about government ones only? Because my dad was in a nursing home after assited living for 6 years in a private facility where 100% of your points are not true.
Last edited:
The UV radiation is a trivial difference, since fomite transmission is a very minor route - most transmissions are from person to person. With regard to outdoors, the big risks are, just like indoors, when people are pretty close together, i.e., less than 3 feet, like at a concert, sporting event, crowded bar, etc.
And no, a 3 mph breeze will likely have little effect on a 100 mph sneeze or 50 mph cough, at least within 2-3 feet (yes that velocity will slow greatly as the sneeze/cough diffuses, but it will still be >3 mph 2-3 feet away). A 10-20 mph breeze? Yeah, that's probably where it starts to make a difference. For loud talking, sure, probably a ~5 mph breeze makes a difference for someone 3 feet away, but probably not in a loud environment, where the loud talker is likely <1 foot from the other person.
My point is that the similarities of close (3 feet or less), crowded conditions with respect to sneeze/cough/loud talking transmissions indoors vs. outdoors very likely outweigh the minor differences of location. Close, crowded conditions (especially if over more than minutes) are the worst case and that applies to indoors and outdoors. Also, outdoors likely has no benefit in reducing transmission from touching, such as high-fiving and then a person touching his eyes/nose/mouth.
The science says a mask is likely unnecessary anywhere that one can keep >6 feet away (indoors and especially outdoors with any breeze), but where SD isn't possible, like in the close, crowded scenarios above, masks will greatly reduce person-to-person transmissions indoors and outdoors.
You're painting scenarios that would make being outdoors still risky. I'm saying if all other factors are control and the only variable is indoor vs.outdoor, there will be less transmission outside.
- Status
Similar threads
