COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
Agree- why is it ok for 10,000 folks to protest but not 10,000 folks to attend a baseball or football game?
not even going that far
but here is one for you that did effect me personally...had to limit number of people at funeral but you can have mass memorials across the country, is it justified because a cop murdered a black man but yet all the other lives lost in the past few months, some of them only had a handful of people to mourn them, we were lucky that we were able to have pretty much most family and small group of friends at my moms funeral but some others didnt.
how can they justify this...well they can because it fits their needs.
people need to open their eyes and question things, it doesnt mean you calling coronavirus a hoax but just realize that they are flying by their seat of their pants and trying to control and instill fear in you when it suits them
WHO changes guidelines and says people should wear masks in public where social distancing not possible.
From the article:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has changed its advice on face masks, saying they should be worn in public where social distancing is not possible to help stop the spread of coronavirus.
The global body said new information showed they could provide "a barrier for potentially infectious droplets".
Some countries already recommend or mandate face coverings in public.
The WHO had previously argued there was not enough evidence to say that healthy people should wear masks.
However, WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Friday that "in light of evolving evidence, the WHO advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments".
The organisation had always advised that medical face masks should be worn by people who are sick and by those caring for them.
The organisation said its new guidance had been prompted by studies over recent weeks.
Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO's technical lead expert on Covid-19, told Reuters news agency the recommendation was for people to wear a "fabric mask - that is, a non-medical mask".
Fabric masks should consist of "at least three layers of different material" in order to be effective, the WHO says.
However, those aged over-60 and with underlying health risks should wear medical masks in areas where there is community transmission.
At the same time, the WHO stressed that face masks were just one of a range of tools that could be used to reduce the risk of transmission - and that they should not give people a false sense of protection.
"Masks on their own will not protect you from Covid-19," Dr Tedros said.
This is a big shift in the WHO's guidance on when the public should cover their faces. For months, the organisation's experts stuck to the line that masks would encourage a false sense of security and would deprive medical professionals of badly needed protective equipment.
Those arguments have not gone away but at the same time the WHO acknowledges that new evidence has emerged on the risks of transmission.
It points to recent research that people can be highly infectious in the few days before they show symptoms and that some people catch the virus but never show symptoms at all, as I reported last weekend.
So where distancing is not possible, such as on public transport and in locations as varied as shops and refugee camps, it is suggested that faces are covered with homemade masks to avoid passing on the infection.
Over 60s with underlying health conditions should go further, the WHO said, and wear medical-grade masks to give themselves better protection.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52945210
From the article:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has changed its advice on face masks, saying they should be worn in public where social distancing is not possible to help stop the spread of coronavirus.
The global body said new information showed they could provide "a barrier for potentially infectious droplets".
Some countries already recommend or mandate face coverings in public.
The WHO had previously argued there was not enough evidence to say that healthy people should wear masks.
However, WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Friday that "in light of evolving evidence, the WHO advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments".
The organisation had always advised that medical face masks should be worn by people who are sick and by those caring for them.
The organisation said its new guidance had been prompted by studies over recent weeks.
Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO's technical lead expert on Covid-19, told Reuters news agency the recommendation was for people to wear a "fabric mask - that is, a non-medical mask".
Fabric masks should consist of "at least three layers of different material" in order to be effective, the WHO says.
However, those aged over-60 and with underlying health risks should wear medical masks in areas where there is community transmission.
At the same time, the WHO stressed that face masks were just one of a range of tools that could be used to reduce the risk of transmission - and that they should not give people a false sense of protection.
"Masks on their own will not protect you from Covid-19," Dr Tedros said.
This is a big shift in the WHO's guidance on when the public should cover their faces. For months, the organisation's experts stuck to the line that masks would encourage a false sense of security and would deprive medical professionals of badly needed protective equipment.
Those arguments have not gone away but at the same time the WHO acknowledges that new evidence has emerged on the risks of transmission.
It points to recent research that people can be highly infectious in the few days before they show symptoms and that some people catch the virus but never show symptoms at all, as I reported last weekend.
So where distancing is not possible, such as on public transport and in locations as varied as shops and refugee camps, it is suggested that faces are covered with homemade masks to avoid passing on the infection.
Over 60s with underlying health conditions should go further, the WHO said, and wear medical-grade masks to give themselves better protection.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52945210
from the now-deleted thread...
The CE board is gone because of liberal whining and you talk about whining.
This from a guy who started his own CoVid thread on the football board because his political motivations could not be questioned there.
The CE board is gone because of liberal whining and you talk about whining.
You haven't given this up yet? I think we all know your stance by now.
The issue with Boulware's study is the subgroups Day1 thru 4 are underpowered to determine interactions between HCQ on Days 1-4. Especially Day 1After Exposure with only 77 evals. I did a hypothetical evaluation where I added 46 obs to Day 1 HCQ with 3 positives to have 8/123 instead of 5/77 same IR 6.5. The interaction analysis is significant to 95%. Which means their is a significant effect between when treatment started. If the subgroups were sufficiently powered it might have actually proved early HCQ worked as post-exposure prophylactic.For anyone interested:
I ran an analysis on Boulware's study and compared DAY 1/DAY 2 HCQ vs PLACEBO DAY 1/2 and here is what I got.
HCQ 17/177 (9.6%)
Placebo 26/169 (15.4%)
Difference between means -5.8% (95% CL -12.8, 0.01)
Odds Ratio = 0.62
p-value = 0.1039 which is 90% significance level.
I also ran Day 1 HCQ versus all placebo since it does not matter what day you got placebo.
HCQ 5/77 (6.5%)
Placebo 58/407 (14.3%)
Difference between means -7.8% (95% CL -16, 0.0)
Odds ratio 0.45
p-value 0.0629 which is 94% significance level.
By the way I also performed a regression analysis on the HCQ data versus Days After Exposure. R2 0f 0.84 and an intercept of about 5% meaning if they took HCQ the day they were exposed you might potentially see a 60% reduction in cases. If you took it before exposure .... seems to align nicely with the data from India. In fact, I would love the Day HCQ data showing infected criteria, etc.
To summarize their data hints at a significant effect between when treatment started but was not sufficiently powered to detect significance. If the subgroups were sufficiently powered it might have actually proved early HCQ worked as post-exposure prophylactic if given 1 day or less after exposure.
I posted these many of these thoughts on twitter yesterday. Look what I found: An article suggesting similar conclusions. Go to link and click view on AMP Mobile link to get details similar to mine.
https://t.co/LtkOssIWkS?amp=1
Boulware's conclusion is debatable and most definitely not categorical. In fact his data hints to a possible effect of early HCQ in post-exposure prophylaxis.
Last edited:
Anecdotally, what has worked and what has not worked?
Cases up in some states but hospitalization rates down. What does that tell you? It’s possible Covid19 is losing some potency? Correlation is there between new case increases but lower hospitalizations. It happen with SARS, it might be happening with Covid19.
or maybe younger people are getting it more than old people because young people are out and about and the old are being more careful.
+1
It is rapidly mutating into a weaker form in Italy/EU already. It will happen here as well.
Way too late, but not a surprise to those of us with basic scientific common sense.
You won’t hear it on MSM news but there are doctor’s reporting the same in New York ... it is possible at least according to NYU Langone.
Last edited:
Can't it be both? The restrictions got us to where we are today and it's past due to open things up quicker. I've questioned Murphy's comment about the science dictating what opens. I still don't understand what science said Walmart could remain open with restrictions but Kohls couldn't stay open with the same restrictions. Many other states have opened quicker without dire consequences.
Allow these restaurants to open to customers with restrictions. I've eaten at some places with a lot of space and it would be easy to allow some indoor seating along with outdoor. This could be the difference between saving a business or letting it fold. For those who aren't comfortable, simply don't go but adults can make the decision instead of Murphy.
How does this make any sense?
If that's real, it makes no sense and is more proof that many of these decisions are political.How does this make any sense?
#privilege
That's why. It's the new virus.
So once again, the WHO pivots two weeks too late. What good is a global advisory board if the Federal governments cannot look to it for timely, accurate guidance?
Swarms of people packed like sardines will descend upon DC and other cities today
No outcry nor lecturing by public health officials nor state or local politicians.
That must mean that CV is longer a public health threat.
If it were, you would have these officials screaming at the top of their lungs to stay home.
You really have no idea what this thread is about do you? It was started to try to have a largely scientific, fact-based discussion of the coronavirus for people on the football board, while keeping politics to a minimum (having no politics in a thread on a pandemic involving very important political decisions wasn't realistic, but I kept 95% of my political posts on the CE board,as did others presumably), in an attempt to keep the thread from devolving into a typical CE-style emotional shouting match filled with namecalling, which would have resulted in it being moved to that board, where it would have died, like happened to almost all of the other COVID threads.
Early on the usual suspects tried to pollute this thread with that nonsense to get it moved to the CE board and it was even temporarily locked here, but I appealed to Richie to unlock it and he did and it remained a pretty useful, informative thread for longer than I thought it would. However, with the demise of the CE board, I imagine this thread might spiral downward into petty squabbling (from people on both sides of the aisle) and be locked or worse and that would be disappointing. I hope that doesn't happen and would ask you to consider posting constructively in this thread, as you often bring good insights and info. Thanks.
I've already said my piece on the CE board - it was a mess, but it was our mess, and I'm sad to see it go, as I have a strong libertarian streak where I think people ought to be able to say what they think and dislike strong moderation/censorship. However, I completely understand the business decision to do so as it had gotten pretty bad.
1882 today. Net change is -100 last two days. Forbidding restaurants, retail, wineries, other outdoor businesses from earning revenue next weekend if they can do it safely is state mandated theft at this point.
Last edited:
No, but there is absolute proof that T is a troll. This article should be required reading for folks who say the virus is weakening. Of course it could happen, but there's no evidence to that effect yet, especially given a much slower mutation rate than the flu, for example, and perfectly good explanations to observations like decreased death rates (since worldwide case rates are up), as per the excerpt below.
I would also amplify on the treatment part: convalescent plasma (20,000 infused now with "promising" results), remdesivir and tocilizumab have shown effectiveness and doctors have learned a lot about how to prevent some of the worst outcomes procedurally - those are likely reducing death rates.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-peak-lull-in-cases-doesn-t-mean-weaker-virus
If the virus isn’t shifting into a milder form, what else can explain why it doesn’t seem as bad in some places? The fact is, many other things could be at work. The virus may well appear weaker in areas on the other side of a peak because expanded testing and surveillance are catching people earlier in the course of their illness, as opposed to months ago when most were only tested if they got sick enough to brave a packed hospital. Clinicians also know more about how to treat people, and are no longer as overwhelmed.
A solid portion of those most vulnerable due to a weakened immune system or other factors have likely already been infected, especially in hard-hit areas in Italy. Those that haven't are better protected by public health measures, a lower level of community spread, possible temporary seasonal effects, and at least some degree of acquired immunity in the population.
Given all that, the most prudent path for a long time to come is to treat Covid-19 as the deadly threat it was in Italy a short few weeks ago and continues to be around the world.
SIAP, but thought this was an interesting article updating the US's "Warp Speed" vaccine development program. As I said a month ago, love the enthusiasm, scientific firepower and financial support involved with the project, but have concerns over a few things, as per the article.
Specifically, the apparent lack of coordination with BARDA, the government’s Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority and more importantly, the fact that we're not including even one vaccine candidate featuring the tried and true weakened or inactivated virus approach (used in many/most vaccines). And, of course, safety is going to be a major issue for any vaccine developed over such a short timeframe - it can certainly be done safely, but speed and safety usually don't go together.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...te-house-selection-covid-19-vaccine-shortlist
Inactivated, whole SARS-CoV-2 is the basis of four of the 10 vaccines that have advanced to human trials around the world, including one that worked well in a monkey study. But all four are made in China. As Science revealed earlier, Warp Speed explicitly would not consider any vaccines made in China.
Please become a scientist and run your own study. Your obsession with hcq is bizzare
Are any of the leading vaccines using a the weakened form of the virus approach?
Yes, China has several such candidates and we're apparently not going to pursue any. I'd at least want to have one "old school" vaccine candidate, as we know that approach should work. Imagine the hue and cry if our "modern" vaccine approaches fail and China's succeeds...
Did you know that sometimes you can have sex without a condom and not get the woman pregnant.
I'm on the other side of the fence on the covid topic, but I agree with your point here.
Such comments are counter productive, but not uncommon in political talk, and I hate to see it spill over into the scientific communtiy.
Well we don't know if the numbers would have dipped this low if Murphy had opened up earlier. So maybe it could be both, but maybe not, we can't say, we do know that with restrictions in place the #'s came way down.
As per Walmart vs Kohl's, Walmart sells food, and I assume other essential goods thus they were considered essential. It's a unfortunate loophole which then allowed them to sell other goods. And this was why the Michigan governor tried to restrict sales like paint in stores like Home Depot. Kind of made sense, but she was roundly criticized by the right.
I don't think it was just people on the right criticizing her. Many people wanted to do home improvement projects since they were being told by our politicians they had to stay home. I didn't hear of any other state allowing a store to be open but then restricting what part of the store could be patronized and this goes back to my earlier comments about what science says rules like this would help "flatten the curve".
During this entire event, the only place I've spent money is Shop Rite, Lowes Home Improvement and liquor stores until the restaurants started opening up for takeout. I think Murphy went a little overboard with some of his rules but even he didn't try to limit what I could buy at Lowes.
- Status
Similar threads
