Ive never seen Rignano before but i have seen many doctors come on Fox and tell how their patients quickly recovered by usi g the drug. Are they fakes too?
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
Numbers can't help himself. What is disappointing is the latitude the mods continue to allow him when he frequently posts a political jab under the guise of medical information. Lately, he has taken the approach of "i'll just post this political slant here and not comment on it." Too bad, because my wife and i are both nurses and my brother an MD and i happen to love his medical contributions.
Rutgers mouth swab testing approved by FDA. First such approval and the team even received congratulations from the White House over the weekend. Hopefully this is something that can get ranked up quickly.
That is good news. That can allow a huge increase in testing volume. It seems the test requires a specialized tube to spit in (possibly identical to tubes used for DNA tests). Let's hope there are millions of those tubes available, or they can be ramped up quickly.
https://kutv.com/news/local/spectru...ice-answers-critical-covid-19-testing-hurdles
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/4/7/21212383/saliva-covid-19-test-spectrum-usa-coronavirus
No, thought I was clear in saying that the general technology, in bold, had to be adapted to this specific new virus ("developing a virus-specific PCR test"). We don't know how long that took the Chinese, since they weren't sharing info with anyone in January, but once they shared the viral genome on 1/3, it didn't take more than a couple of weeks for a number of countries to develop their own RT-PCR tests. The linked article has a ton on this test in general and the problems we had in the US getting our own testing going.
https://www.wired.com/story/everything-you-need-to-know-about-coronavirus-testing/
Gotcha.
So I'm not surprised places (hopsitals, drs. offices., clinics, etc.) wouldn't have something on hand to test for a virus nobody had ever seen before.
Of course not - there's no way anyone would have had something available to test for the virus until approved tests were developed and deployed, although that occurred pretty quickly with WHO approval of a German-developed test on 1/20. Versions of this test were then in use around the world by early February, except not in the US, as we were stumbling with our CDC-developed test and never took the step of just using the WHO-approved test, which was available from a number of countries.
I have no problem with hope. I have a huge problem with a President actively touting a completely unproven medication, especially over the objections of his medical experts and when the combination is known to have significant side effects. If you can't see that his comments touting the use of the drug and telling people they "have nothing to lose" by taking it are inappropriate, then there's no more point in this discussion.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/06/trump-hydroxychloroquine-fact-check/
Also, the original article that this huckster Rigano called a "cure" and which became the basis for Trump touting the HCQ/AZ combo in the first place was recently deemed to "not meet the society's expected standard" by the he International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, which publishes the journal the original study was in.
https://www.isac.world/news-and-publications/official-isac-statement
It would be fantastic if the drug or its combos worked, but there's very little clinical evidence to that effect yet, despite it having become part of standard therapy in many places. And certainly, if it were truly a cure, one would have expected hospitalization and death rates to go down since the outbreak got really bad in mid/late March, but they've gone up, appreciably. Some hospitals in Sweden have even stopped providing HCQ after reports of adverse side effects.
https://www.newsweek.com/swedish-hospitals-chloroquine-covid-19-side-effects-1496368
Study had to be halted in Brazil due to cardiac impacts, especially at higher doses. I think they really need to be focusing on less severe cases, preventing them from progressing. Maybe lower doses would work there with less risk of cardiac issues.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html
I'm wondering how you can have a 67 page thread about a global pandemic and not touch upon politics?
It is almost impossible. We all have our political biases and so does RU#'s. But comparing the value he has brought to this board versus the very innocuous political jabs, people have to get a grip and not be such snowflakes.
It is almost impossible. We all have our political biases and so does RU#'s. But comparing the value he has brought to this board versus the very innocuous political jabs, people have to get a grip and not be such snowflakes.
I've done that a few times too - I've even posted the same exact thing a couple of times and noticed it and edited it before anyone quoted it, lol. I'm also posting on FB and 2 other message boards. It's getting to be a bit much, so I've backed off some, especially with the family situation, plus we're now more in the wait and see stage with the peak having passed us. And praying for massive antibody testing and some sort of medical breakthrough - I'm obsessively checking sources for results from the convalescent plasma-antibody therapy, even though they said they likely won't have results until late April (sometimes people spill the beans early).
I keep hoping someone will leak some positive results from a real controlled trial of something, but since I'm not seeing that I've also been backing off. Not following everything so closely on twitter, as most of what I see just makes me more anxious and pessimistic.
I'm glad to see that frontline doctors are realizing that established treatment protocols for pneumonia and ARDS (especially regarding vents) aren't necessarily appropriate for covid cases, so they're trying to really hold off using a vent until the last possible moment. Unfortunately nothing else really seems to be working either. Bottom line is we need to find something, some way to prevent people from getting to that point.
And we keep hearing all this wonderful stuff about testing, including new antibody tests that will be available on a mass scale, saliva tests, etc. There have been a lot of promises about testing over the past couple of months but in our county you still cannot get a test except under very limited circumstances. So when that finally happens I'll feel like we're making some progress.
That study was with high doses of CHLOROQUINE which has been shown to be much more toxic than HCQ. This has been known for a long time and is basically like proving water is wet.
Since the outbreak started, roughly 95-98% of positive cases recover and about 80% of people hospitalized recover on their own. Those numbers haven't changed much since the US outbreak, despite HCQ being given to probably half of patients. Doesn't mean these doctors are lying, but it is possible those patients would have recovered anyway. Until we have results from a controlled clinical trial, we're all simply guessing about its safety/efficacy based on anecdotal, incomplete data.
And charlatans like Rigano don't help the situation by making shit up. Do you think it was ok for him to go on Fox and claim that "hydroxychloroquine used with azithromycin is the second 100% cure for a virus ever found." I understand people being initially excited, but the initial paper was highly flawed and the initial media blitz was essentially a hoax.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...omising-signs-as-future-coronavirus-treatment
A study on Drudge is reporting that obesity is the most important factor in the NY hospitalization cases.
So why are the gyms still shut down?
So why are the gyms still shut down?
According to the projection charts from this site that was talked about earlier, NJ has already peaked. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/new-jersey
Though Murphy says we haven't peaked yet. So who's right?
Though Murphy says we haven't peaked yet. So who's right?
Because catching the virus is a far more important factor in dying from the virus than obesity is. But I think you know that...
Those projections are still from 4/9; my post last night has data through yesterday on NJ daily cases, which have peaked and are declining, and deaths, which have peaked and plateaued and should start to decline soon (there's a lag between new cases and deaths).
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-66#post-4502169
First part is one of the best posts in this thread. Thanks for part 2, also.
The attached video postulates that there are three separate strains of the Coronavirus. I have no idea as to the veracity of this nor am I taking any kind of position, either way.
I am just putting it out there but mostly want to get the take of the medical and research folks on the board.
I am just putting it out there but mostly want to get the take of the medical and research folks on the board.
Riding by on a fast horse (meaning scrolling down quickly - lol) I saw a little Asia Carerra for a sec...
Great to see the UW projected deaths continue to go down, based on the updated data, as social distancing is really working. The latest shows a decrease in projected US deaths from 93K on 4/1 to 82K on 4/5 to 60K on 4/7 and also shows reductions in NY deaths from 16.2K to 13.3K from 4/5 to 4/7 and in NJ deaths from 9.6K to 5.2K. Very happy to see this reduction, especially for the US and this reduction is now much closer to my 40-50K prediction from the other day on US deaths, based on my comparison of the US death rates vs. Italy's death rates (link below).
Even 60K would be fantastic vs. the ~100K or so most were predicting a few weeks ago and even lower would be better obviously. This really shows the power of social distancing - and starting social distancing early enough to prevent an Italy/Spain style catastrophe, although starting it 1-2 weeks earlier would've likely put us into South Korea neighborhood, which would have translated to only a few thousand deaths (they're at 200 deaths now, which translates to ~1200 on a US population basis).
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-55#post-4491470
The NJ drop is so large because the 4/5 model placed a disproportionate amount of mathematical emphasis on the one big data point of high deaths. As a result they've altered their model projections to average in the last three runs, rather than just doing the run based on current data, since that averaging should "smooth" large fluctuations based on single day large fluctuations that may actually reflect reporting anomalies and not "real" data - their notes explain this below.
One more tidbit: chatter from NYC hospitals is that the true number of infected people may be 20-30% in densely populated areas like NYC Metro based on preliminary health care worker antibody testing (discussed the theorized high numbers a couple of days ago, based on ILI, or influenza-like-illnesses being way high in Feb/March, implying "flu" cases were COVID; the Kinsa internet fever data also implied very high infection rates at this time). Let's wait for the actual data before celebrating, but that would be huge if true (would mean 20-30% with immunity, so any future outbreaks should be much smaller).
Based on the now multiple iterations of our COVID-19 death model, we have noticed that, for at least some US states, there are massive fluctuations in the number of COVID-19 deaths reported each day. These substantial day-to-day vacillations are more likely due to an artefact in how statewide deaths are being compiled and then reported each day than actual fluctuations in COVID-19 deaths. As a result, our reported predictions – that you can view and download from the online visualization tool – are now based on averaging the last three rounds of predictions. In other words, what is shown today (April 7) is the average of model predictions from reported COVID-19 death data up to April 4 (model 1), data up to April 5 (model 2), and data up to April 7 (model 3). We view this as an important refinement that helps to strengthen model stability and buffer predictions from data fluctuations less related to observed epidemic patterns and more driven by variable data collection or reporting practices.
Projected US Deaths
Projected NY Deaths
Projected NJ Deaths
Latest (4/13) projections are out from the U of Washington/IHME. The latest shows a bit of an increase in projected US deaths from 93K on 4/1 to 82K on 4/5 to 60K on 4/7 and now back up to 69K on 4/13. Given that NY's projection is only up slightly and NJ's is down slightly, this implies that the increased deaths are coming from other hotspots. The NY deaths projected from 16.2K to 13.3K from 4/5 to 4/7 and are now at 14.5K and in NJ deaths went from 9.6K to 5.2K from 4/5 to 4/7 and are now projected to be 4.4K. These are fairly small changes, relatively speaking and I'm still hoping my 40-50K prediction from last week on US deaths, based mostly on my comparison of the US death rates vs. Italy's death rates and the shape of the US curve, to be correct (at least vs. 69K).
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/new-york
Edit: Also, found it interesting that the U of Sydney Center for Translational Data Science published a paper basically saying the UW/IHME projected death models from 3/30 to 4/2 were not verifying well (and I agree) and in parallel with them writing the paper, the IHME folks overhauled their models completely for the 4/7 model run forward, going with averaging the last 3 projections instead of making a new projection every time, since data fluctuations in the most recent data were likely dominating the outcomes and causing wide variability.
Their projections are much improved to me, as projected US deaths went from 93K on 4/1 to 82K on 4/5 to 60K on 4/7 (after they changed the model, which is much closer to my 40-50K projection I made on 4/5) and now back up to 69K on 4/13. Always thought they were too high; hoping I'm still right for obvious reasons.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/data-science/
http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects/COVID/Estimation_updates_040720.pdf
Last edited:
Do you realize that most even speed readers don’t read every article you repost ...there are not enough hours in the day ... this is a compulsion for you though you mean well... BTW sorry about your mother no matter how old she is... cancer is no joke and this definitely isn’t either.
Concerning the bolded part, are these the same tests that have a relatively high level of false negatives? Considering the snafu that is WHO, you have to wonder.
On an interesting note, I was pointed to this study of the use of chloroquine for SARS-CoV (a different corona virus) that was done in 2005.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
As you can see from this article, the testing program in New Jersey is an absolute mess.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/...&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=New York
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/...&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=New York
yep open up to soon without a vaccine and the outbreak will be worse than it is now
From that article the key hindrance appears to be a lack of in state labs which can run tests.
I don't know, I wonder if you maintain a lot of the protocols, such as social distancing, such as masks, such as frequent sanitizing, that you can keep a lid on this even after we open businesses up.
Unfortunately, all of the PT-PCR viral tests suffer from a fairly high level of false negatives (30% or more), partly due to sensitivity issues, partly due to procedural technique, and partly because viral levels can often be very low in the early stages of the infection (and late) - and that the influenza PCR test has similar issues, i.e., fairly high false negative levels. Unfortunately, for COVID, false negatives are far worse than false positives, as the negatives can lead to asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic, but infected, people walking around infecting others without knowing if. Below is an excerpt from research on infections and viral tests over the course of the infection in some health care workers who became infected.
Over the four days of infection prior to the typical time of symptom onset (day 5) the probability of a false negative test in an infected individual falls from 100% on day one (95% CI 69-100%) to 61% on day four (95% CI 18-98%), though there is considerable uncertainty in these numbers. On the day of symptom onset, the median false negative rate was 39% (95% CI 16-77%). This decreased to 26% (95% CI 18-34%) on day 8 (3 days after symptom onset), then began to rise again, from 27% (95% CI 20-34%) on day 9 to 61% (95% CI 54-67%) on day 21.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20051474v1
https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-testing-false-negatives.html
Oh I know that, lol, which is why I've backed off a bit. Thanks for the kind words, too.
I think that’s what it has to be once infection rates are way down. Open things up a little while trying to keep some social distancing in place, and also cleaning/washing your hands to death.
- Status
Similar threads
