COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

[Big boy stan]

No pro or anti China bias here but why do you think the case count and death per case from China is intentionally fudged. According to reports they had 88K cases and a death rate of 4% per case. Considering the testing issue that the US have had from early on, I can imagine that the China numbers are inaccurate since they were the first to deal with it and had to develop test as well as get it rolled out. I can also imagine that the death rate would be high considering the same.

Compared with SK's numbers, they should have 3 times more cases but considering the draconian response that was eventually taken in Wuhan, it is possible that their actions diminished the transmission faster then SK's response.

I don't see what value there is for China (political or otherwise) in underreporting the numbers after they were large to begin with. Who would care if China "only" had 88K cases and not 250K.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

How are today's NJ numbers?

Social distancing working at all?

 

[albanyknight]

A bit of a change of pace but Chris Martenson who I have been posting his COVID-19 videos, talks about the effects of COVID-19 on the economy.

 

[Wolv RU]

I have diamonds on the soles of my shoes.

Cuz... ya know... that's one way to ease those walkin' blues.

Diamonds on the soles of my shoes.

FWIW, I now know 2 people who have died of C-19.

So I think the comparisons to the flu are about shot.

Didn't you say in the other thread that you don't know anyone who makes under $250k? Not meaning to be short, as you are right, but basing conclusions on this does not provide a complete picture.

It certainly doesn't provide a picture to the part of the U.S. that is not NY/NJ.

No pro or anti China bias here but why do you think the case count and death per case from China is intentionally fudged. According to reports they had 88K cases and a death rate of 4% per case. Considering the testing issue that the US have had from early on, I can imagine that the China numbers are inaccurate since they were the first to deal with it and had to develop test as well as get it rolled out. I can also imagine that the death rate would be high considering the same.

Compared with SK's numbers, they should have 3 times more cases but considering the draconian response that was eventually taken in Wuhan, it is possible that their actions diminished the transmission faster then SK's response.

I don't see what value there is for China (political or otherwise) in underreporting the numbers after they were large to begin with. Who would care if China "only" had 88K cases and not 250K.

The easy answer is they didn't want to show weakness to the rest of the world. They didn't know how bad it would get elsewhere. Even now, they can claim that their mitigation measures were effective. Likely, they were imposed much later than even in NYC.

Not to mention, their government's "success" is used to keep their own people under control.

So the one word answer to your question is they did it for "power."

 

[Upstream]

No pro or anti China bias here but why do you think the case count and death per case from China is intentionally fudged. According to reports they had 88K cases and a death rate of 4% per case. Considering the testing issue that the US have had from early on, I can imagine that the China numbers are inaccurate since they were the first to deal with it and had to develop test as well as get it rolled out. I can also imagine that the death rate would be high considering the same.

Compared with SK's numbers, they should have 3 times more cases but considering the draconian response that was eventually taken in Wuhan, it is possible that their actions diminished the transmission faster then SK's response.

I don't see what value there is for China (political or otherwise) in underreporting the numbers after they were large to begin with. Who would care if China "only" had 88K cases and not 250K.

I doubt the numbers out of China because this virus was running rampant in Wuhan for 1-2 months before any type of mitigation program was put in place. Wuhan is a city of 11 million people, and the capital of Hubei, a province of 58 million people. But the entire province only reported 68,000 cases and 4800 deaths. And if you look at the infection and death curves for Hubei, they don't follow the exponential growth curves that you see consistently everywhere else (with the exception of a few places like South Korea, which instituted broad testing and contact tracing at the very beginning -- something that wasn't possible in Wuhan because they didn't even know what they were dealing with for several weeks).

I just don't see how it is possible that the official data reported from Wuhan could be true, based on what we know about the virus now, and the fact that the virus was spreading uncontrolled for a long time in Wuhan before any mitigation was put in place.

 

[RU5781]

A bit of a change of pace but Chris Martenson who I have been posting his COVID-19 videos, talks about the effects of COVID-19 on the economy.

View embedded media

No politics here.

 

[RUBOB72]

No politics here.

Unfortunately I have a strange feeling much more is going to come out soon as to how and why China manipulated death tolls and how covid19 actually escaped that lab... to believe China is laughable and has been since the beginning...

 

[Leonard23]

Another example of how much of a joke testing is in NJ:

https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridge...county-coronavirus-testing-site-has-91-tested

The new Somerset/Hunterdon county drive-thru testing site at RVCC tested 91 people on day 1...

"A total of 150 residents from Somerset and Hunterdon counties were scheduled to be screened. Of those registered, 91 patients were tested and 10 others were turned away, either because they didn't have an appointment or a doctor's order. Test results, which are expected within two to three days, will be sent to the patient's physician.
* * *
Testing will continue on Friday and Monday with 105 residents scheduled for testing on Friday."

 

[RUevolution36]

Another example of how much of a joke testing is in NJ:

https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridge...county-coronavirus-testing-site-has-91-tested

The new Somerset/Hunterdon county drive-thru testing site at RVCC tested 91 people on day 1...

"A total of 150 residents from Somerset and Hunterdon counties were scheduled to be screened. Of those registered, 91 patients were tested and 10 others were turned away, either because they didn't have an appointment or a doctor's order. Test results, which are expected within two to three days, will be sent to the patient's physician.
* * *
Testing will continue on Friday and Monday with 105 residents scheduled for testing on Friday."

and just think...testing in NJ is much more prevalent than most states.

 

[bethlehemfan]

To believe anything out of China is the epitome of naïveté.

 

[Leonard23]

and just think...testing in NJ is much more prevalent than most states.

Yeah, this testing of hundreds of people is absurd. 2 sites covering 3 counties with a combined population of ~1.3M tested under 300 people in those 2 days. And the RVCC site seems to only plan to test under 400 in 3 days.

 

[RUevolution36]

Yeah, this testing of hundreds of people is absurd. 2 sites covering 3 counties with a combined population of ~1.3M tested under 300 people in those 2 days. And the RVCC site seems to only plan to test under 400 in 3 days.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...reak-out-control-test-positivity-rate/610132/

Basically, the growth in cases per day is flat because the number of tests administered is flat.

 

[RU-05]

Fauci still backing a non lab jump from bat to human theory.

Something about evolution, sequencing and consistency

 

[RUBOB72]

But Fauci never actually answered the reporters question... he circumvented and did an end around... he knows there is more to this story which will come out someday.

 

[bac2therac]

he didnt answer the question, he answered a different question

 

[RU848789]

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

Latest (4/17) projections are out from the U of Washington/IHME; bulleted highlights and graphics below.

• The model shows a dip in projected US deaths vs. the 4/13 run, from 68.8K to 60.3K.
• The progression of total projected US deaths for each model run is as follows: from 93K on 4/1 to 82K on 4/5 to 60K on 4/7 to 69K on 4/13 and now back down to 60K on 4/17.
• The projected NY deaths jumped significantly from the 14.5K in the 4/13 run to 21.8K on 4/17, presumably due to NY now counting deaths differently
• Projected NJ deaths also jumped significantly from 4.4K in the 4/13 run to 6.9K on 4/17 (although it was 9.6K on 4/5).
• The fact that the US projected deaths dropped by 8.5k while NY/NJ went up by 9.7K means the rest of thie US projection went down by 18.2K, which is significant.
• I'm starting to doubt that my 40-50K prediction for US deaths from 4/5, based mostly on my comparison of the US death rates vs. Italy's death rates and the math of the two curves, will be correct, but would still rather see that than 60K+.

Keep in mind that these projections are for the "first wave" of the outbreak and they assume that we will continue current social distancing practices and will start easing back on those soon, but only in conjunction with an improved containment infrastructure of testing, contact tracing and quarantining, as per the excerpt below from their model page.

Social distancing policies, which can range from restrictions on large gatherings to strict stay-at-home orders and closure of all non-essential businesses, have been used as a mechanism to substantially reduce the spread – and thus the immediate toll – of COVID-19. We are now entering the phase of the epidemic when government officials are considering when certain types of distancing policies may be eased. With today’s release, we provide initial estimates that can serve as an input to such considerations in the US.

These estimates assume that when social distancing policies will be eased, such actions will occur in conjunction with public health containment strategies. Such measures include widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation of new cases to minimize the risk of resurgence while maintaining at least some social distancing policies to reduce the risk of large-scale transmission (e.g., bans on mass gatherings).

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

 

[LETSGORU91]

Yeah, this testing of hundreds of people is absurd. 2 sites covering 3 counties with a combined population of ~1.3M tested under 300 people in those 2 days. And the RVCC site seems to only plan to test under 400 in 3 days.

There are two reasons I suspect the number of tests are limited at these sites. First, testing sites need allocated, guaranteed spots from a laboratory in order to plan for their daily number of people to test. Weeks ago, we were sending out samples to two labs which only guaranteed us a certain number of spots per day. We were limited in what we could send out. As we procured and implemented our own machines within the hospital, those outside labs became irrelevant. As new testing procedures/machines have been developed, the batch runs/result times have dramatically decreased, allowing for more tests to be completed on a daily basis. The Rutgers saliva test is a great example of how quick we can test someone, give them a quick result, and turn around and test someone else. From that respect and with these quicker test completion times, the available openings for testing should be greatly increased.

My next point is the staffing at these facilities. Number one, you need a prescription to have a test done, which can be a problem. Drive to a test site, show your prescription, you need to be registered, identification verified and possibly insurance verified...then you can be swabbed. A short and simple process, but it may take 5 to 10 minutes overall...per person. Assume the 5 minutes per person, start to finish, as I am feeling generous tonight. That's 12 people tested, per hour, per swabber. At that rate you would need 8 swabbers over a 4 hour open period to get almost 400 completed. 8 swabbers, registration staff, supervisory staff..at the minimum. Pick any one of these points, alter them and they can cause a decrease in the numbers tested. Sorry for babbling...its the beer. But on a good note, my coworker who was on a ventilator was discharged to home today!!!

 

[goru7]

While we wait for testing to ramp up, and until we get a vaccine, we are hopeful of a number of drugs that are working on mild cases, moderate cases and severe cases to help the people suffering now or who will be as more people get the virus. I know numbers has discussed a whole lot about remdesivir, and the 125 person trial has some promising results , that drug still has significant side effects.
I want to point people to a small biotech firm out of Vancouver called Cytodyn that has a drug called LeRonlimab, which has been in Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials used to treat Aids and cancer , is also having tremendous success treating Coronavirus. Only a 30 person use in LA at UCLA but almost 100 % of the people got better. The FDA just fast tracked approval for them to do a trial on moderate cases and on severe cases for 50 people and 350 people. The company is small unlike Gilead Sciences, and would have to ramp up production. The UK has also just started using it as well . The best part of this drug which has been originally designed to be the primary treatment for AIDS and also a primary treatment for certain breast cancer , is it has no known side effects yet. This has tremendous potential to be the primary treatment or in in conjunction with Remdesivir for Coronavirus. This gives me hope that we can treat this virus shortly to prevent its nasty impact and incredible death toll in NY and NJ . I do not know if it is being used in Ny and NJ hospitals now but I wish it would be. Ticker symbol is CYDY and you read the conversation section from investors , it is optimistic , something we can definitely use right now.

 

[RUevolution36]

While we wait for testing to ramp up, and until we get a vaccine, we are hopeful of a number of drugs that are working on mild cases, moderate cases and severe cases to help the people suffering now or who will be as more people get the virus. I know numbers has discussed a whole lot about remdesivir, and the 125 person trial has some promising results , that drug still has significant side effects.
I want to point people to a small biotech firm out of Vancouver called Cytodyn that has a drug called LeRonlimab, which has been in Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials used to treat Aids and cancer , is also having tremendous success treating Coronavirus. Only a 30 person use in LA at UCLA but almost 100 % of the people got better. The FDA just fast tracked approval for them to do a trial on moderate cases and on severe cases for 50 people and 350 people. The company is small unlike Gilead Sciences, and would have to ramp up production. The UK has also just started using it as well . The best part of this drug which has been originally designed to be the primary treatment for AIDS and also a primary treatment for certain breast cancer , is it has no known side effects yet. This has tremendous potential to be the primary treatment or in in conjunction with Remdesivir for Coronavirus. This gives me hope that we can treat this virus shortly to prevent its nasty impact and incredible death toll in NY and NJ . I do not know if it is being used in Ny and NJ hospitals now but I wish it would be. Ticker symbol is CYDY and you read the conversation section from investors , it is optimistic , something we can definitely use right now.

I know you are probably meaning well and sharing info, but for some reason, it just read like a pitch from the movie Boiler Room. Pump and dump. Maybe if you had left out the ticker...

 

[goru7]

I know you are probably meaning well and sharing info, but for some reason, it just read like a pitch from the movie Boiler Room. Pump and dump. Maybe if you had left out the ticker...

Those were the investors complaining about the shorts trying to drive price down so they could buy more. But on there, lots of positive information and data and recent press release explaining what is happening with the drug and its uses and early success. Any bit of good news I would think would be welcome news for the readers of this thread , who have been looking for hopeful signs out of this mess . Don’t miss the main point. Leronlimab has a real chance to be a real therapy for this virus without any side effects.

 

[redking]

Ticker symbol is CYDY and you read the conversation section from investors , it is optimistic , something we can definitely use right now.

OTC stock? Come on man.

 

[wisr01]

But on a good note, my coworker who was on a ventilator was discharged to home today!!!

What treatment protocol(s) were they on? Remdesivir by any chance?

 

[Upstream]

[QUOTE="LETSGORU91, post: 4512735, member: 47402"But on a good note, my coworker who was on a ventilator was discharged to home today!!!

What treatment protocol(s) were they on? Remdesivir by any chance?[/QUOTE]
Remdesivir? I thought you were a proponent of HCQ + Zinc.

 

[wisr01]

Remdesivir? I thought you were a proponent of HCQ + Zinc.

I guess you either missed or did not comprehend my message from a few weeks ago.

Agree completely about thwarting the progression of this disease. We need a treatment that avoids progression to hospitalization, etc.

I do not find it amazing/surprising regarding the controversy. One of the things I learned in my career (about to turn 56 in a few days) is that the overwhelming majority of human beings are enslaved to their prejudices, beliefs, ideology, etc. Chemists, pharmacists, nurses, doctors, lawyers, statisticians, analysts, marketers, sales people, etc...no one is immune. I see it in almost every thread on this board including this one. Most people are blind to it. Most people never realize how debilitating it is to solving problems. The goal has to be to solve the problem by preventing and/or inhibiting the disease progression. We need a vaccine that works and is safe. We need treatments that slow or halt the progression of the disease. Nothing else matters. Period. I could not care less about who looks good or bad as a result of the solutions. We need real solutions as this is far from over. Politics has no place in real science.

This and a few other posts I made around that time show that I couldn't care less which treatment works as long as we solve the problem at hand. You assumed that because I have been supportive of testing HCQ and zinc it had to do DT. Well it has nothing to do with him and everything to do with the science behind it, albeit it is only in vitro studies. BTW there still has not been a clinical trial started using HCQ and zinc in combination.

I also have high hopes for APN01 as that trial has just started.

I am interested in this study for fighting CV19:

https://www.biospace.com/article/re...cal-trial-of-apn01-for-treatment-of-covid-19/

APN01 is a recombinant human Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (rhACE2) and was developed by APEIRON biologics for the treatment of acute lung injury (ALI), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). After licensing from APEIRON in February 2010, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) conducted several clinical trials from 2014 to 2017 to treat ALI/ARDS and PAH patients, lung injury being the major source of Covid-2019 mortalities, the disease caused by the new corona virus SARS-CoV-2. In 2019, APEIRON obtained the APN01 licenses back from GSK for further clinical development, after a their strategic refocusing of GSK to oncology.

The ACE2 receptor is expressed in human airway epithelia as well as lung parenchyma and was previously identified as the essential gateway used by the first SARS-CoV virus to infect human cells. ACE2 is also the critical receptor for the new virus SARS-CoV-2 to enter human cells. Thus, treatment with recombinant human ACE2 could be used to not only block viremia but also protect lungs and other organs from injury. The drug candidate is administered intravenously as an infusion and has already shown safety and tolerability in 89 patients and volunteers.

 

[jreinsdorf]

Those were the investors complaining about the shorts trying to drive price down so they could buy more. But on there, lots of positive information and data and recent press release explaining what is happening with the drug and its uses and early success. Any bit of good news I would think would be welcome news for the readers of this thread , who have been looking for hopeful signs out of this mess . Don’t miss the main point. Leronlimab has a real chance to be a real therapy for this virus without any side effects.

Respectfully, please understand that there is not a single drug known to man that has no side effects. I've attended enough pharmacology conferences to type that with conviction because they are not my words but the words of many others who are in a position to know. Every drug you take is a trade. If the therapeutic effects outweigh the unintended effects than go for it but no drug as zero side effects.

 

[Leonard23]

There are two reasons I suspect the number of tests are limited at these sites. First, testing sites need allocated, guaranteed spots from a laboratory in order to plan for their daily number of people to test. Weeks ago, we were sending out samples to two labs which only guaranteed us a certain number of spots per day. We were limited in what we could send out. As we procured and implemented our own machines within the hospital, those outside labs became irrelevant. As new testing procedures/machines have been developed, the batch runs/result times have dramatically decreased, allowing for more tests to be completed on a daily basis. The Rutgers saliva test is a great example of how quick we can test someone, give them a quick result, and turn around and test someone else. From that respect and with these quicker test completion times, the available openings for testing should be greatly increased.

My next point is the staffing at these facilities. Number one, you need a prescription to have a test done, which can be a problem. Drive to a test site, show your prescription, you need to be registered, identification verified and possibly insurance verified...then you can be swabbed. A short and simple process, but it may take 5 to 10 minutes overall...per person. Assume the 5 minutes per person, start to finish, as I am feeling generous tonight. That's 12 people tested, per hour, per swabber. At that rate you would need 8 swabbers over a 4 hour open period to get almost 400 completed. 8 swabbers, registration staff, supervisory staff..at the minimum. Pick any one of these points, alter them and they can cause a decrease in the numbers tested. Sorry for babbling...its the beer. But on a good note, my coworker who was on a ventilator was discharged to home today!!!

Awesome news on your coworker!

The Rutgers saliva test is available at the Edison site and they didn't ramp up testing this week. They tested 184 people on day 1 and the labs are nearby. They need to staff up at current sites, not require a prescription, and open more sites. We seem to be sleepwalking through testing.

 

[RU#1fan]

Respectfully, please understand that there is not a single drug known to man that has no side effects. I've attended enough pharmacology conferences to type that with conviction because they are not my words but the words of many others who are in a position to know. Every drug you take is a trade. If the therapeutic effects outweigh the unintended effects than go for it but no drug as zero side effects.

Point taken.
A drug with a side effect of an upset stomach vs.a drug that can induce a heart attack might people think twice.

 

[LETSGORU91]

What treatment protocol(s) were they on? Remdesivir by any chance?

Remdesivir? I thought you were a proponent of HCQ + Zinc.

I was not the one pushing HCQ. But he was given that (no zinc), along with the IL6 receptor antagonist Tocilizumab and Azithromycin. No Remdesivir as it is not on formulary. From what I gather, the therapy was started right about the time he was close to being intubated. Once intubated, he really didn't regress much on the ventilator, which to me was close to a miracle.

 

[LETSGORU91]

Awesome news on your coworker!

The Rutgers saliva test is available at the Edison site and they didn't ramp up testing this week. They tested 184 people on day 1 and the labs are nearby. They need to staff up at current sites, not require a prescription, and open more sites. We seem to be sleepwalking through testing.

Agreed and thank you. Testing can only be completed as fast as the weakest (read slowest) link. Staffing, prescriptions, registration, available testing kits, testing times, etc. can all hamper the operation.

 

[Upstream]

I was not the one pushing HCQ. But he was given that (no zinc), along with the IL6 receptor antagonist Tocilizumab and Azithromycin. No Remdesivir as it is not on formulary. From what I gather, the therapy was started right about the time he was close to being intubated. Once intubated, he really didn't regress much on the ventilator, which to me was close to a miracle.

Thanks. From the anecdotal evidence I have seen, it seems HCQ is more effective when given earlier, and less effective when reaching the ventilator stage. I know there are some trials going on regarding Tocilizumab (and similar drugs), and there seems to be some indications that it works for more serious cases. While there doesn't appear to be a magic pill, hopefully a combinations of treatments, at appropriate stages, will help reduce the severity of the disease in most patients.

Glad your co-worker is doing better.

 

[wisr01]

I was not the one pushing HCQ. But he was given that (no zinc), along with the IL6 receptor antagonist Tocilizumab and Azithromycin. No Remdesivir as it is not on formulary. From what I gather, the therapy was started right about the time he was close to being intubated. Once intubated, he really didn't regress much on the ventilator, which to me was close to a miracle.

Somehow the quoting function was messed up. Your quote makes it look like I suggested you were a proponent of HCQ which was something @Upstream asked of me. Bizarre sequence there. I am glad your coworker is doing much better.

 

[goru7]

Respectfully, please understand that there is not a single drug known to man that has no side effects. I've attended enough pharmacology conferences to type that with conviction because they are not my words but the words of many others who are in a position to know. Every drug you take is a trade. If the therapeutic effects outweigh the unintended effects than go for it but no drug as zero side effects.

Okay but read the accounts of the doctors on the front line that have been using it. The drug actually has very few , if any, side effects for AIDS and cancer patients and it seems to be the same for Coronavirus. It will likely be approved as the drug of choice for AIDS as soon the Phase 3 trial is completed first before its use for Coronavirus is approved( other than for compassionate use).

 

[wisr01]

A friend of mine (works in corrections) was given the antibody test and found to have had COVID19. He only remembers having very mild symptoms for a few days back in Feb. My wife was also sick then but she was much more severe. She was bed ridden for a week which is the first time in our 30 year marriage. She had shortness of breath for two weeks.

We are looking into getting her tested for antibody after hearing from our friends. I wonder how many folks might have had this already and don't even realize it?

 

[RUhasarrived]

Murphy's latest report shows a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths on Friday.If this continues until months end,he should begin the process of opening up the barbershops and the parks before May 15th.

 

[rutgersguy1]

New study suggests humidity and heat might help reduce the rate of transmission as suspected. Sunlight kills it too. As I mentioned in one of these threads for disinfecting a non washable mask, grandma's old remedy of letting sit in the sun is good solution.

From the article:

Preliminary results from government lab experiments show that the coronavirus does not survive long in high temperatures and high humidity, and is quickly destroyed by sunlight, providing evidence from controlled tests of what scientists believed — but had not yet proved — to be true.

A briefing on the preliminary results, marked for official use only and obtained by Yahoo News, offers hope that summertime may offer conditions less hospitable for the virus, though experts caution it will by no means eliminate, or even necessarily decrease, new cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The results, however, do add an important piece of knowledge that the White House’s science advisers have been seeking as they scramble to respond to the spreading pandemic.

The study found that the risk of “transmission from surfaces outdoors is lower during daylight” and under higher temperature and humidity conditions. “Sunlight destroys the virus quickly,” reads the briefing.

https://news.yahoo.com/sunlight-des...ould-still-last-through-summer-200745675.html

 

[RU-05]

But Fauci never actually answered the reporters question... he circumvented and did an end around... he knows there is more to this story which will come out someday.

he didnt answer the question, he answered a different question

This is true, but Tucker(who I'm sure both of you guys are following the lead of) only went half way in interpreting Fauci's statement.

Fauci did leave the door open for the virus to have come from a bat that was in the lab, but his strong implication was even if that bat was in a lab, it likely had gotten the disease naturally, and that is a significant distinction from this being created in the lab.

 

[LETSGORU91]

Thanks. From the anecdotal evidence I have seen, it seems HCQ is more effective when given earlier, and less effective when reaching the ventilator stage. I know there are some trials going on regarding Tocilizumab (and similar drugs), and there seems to be some indications that it works for more serious cases. While there doesn't appear to be a magic pill, hopefully a combinations of treatments, at appropriate stages, will help reduce the severity of the disease in most patients.

Glad your co-worker is doing better.

Thank you..he is a good story among many bad ones. I too think if treatments are started more preemptively, success rates might be higher..as with the case of many treatments.

Somehow the quoting function was messed up. Your quote makes it look like I suggested you were a proponent of HCQ which was something @Upstream asked of me. Bizarre sequence there. I am glad your coworker is doing much better.

Yes, I figured that. I only replied to you in case you were interested in the response as well. Thanks for the good wishes.

 

[RU848789]

It's worth revisiting South Korea now that they've relaxed social distancing even further. They should be the model for the world, as they did it right during the first wave with implementing very aggressive and early testing (the early part is very, very important, before it gets out of hand like it did in much of Europe and much of the US, especially NY/MJ) and aggressive contact tracing/quarantining, as well as effective social distancing. This is what the US and Europe could have done, but didn't. And remember, at one time, they had the biggest outbreak outside of China, by far, and they're not a tiny country with 52MM in population (similar to Italy, Spain, etc and more than NY/NJ combined - 29MM)

Also, by establishing the infrastructure and procedures during the first wave, they've been able to stamp out any flare-ups without hard core social distancing. In fact, over the past few days they've loosened SD rules even further, opening up cafes and many businesses that had been shut down and they just held a nationwide election, where the incumbent won by a landslide (duh), given how well their government led their country during the pandemic. So far no major spikes, but I'm sure we'll see some and I'm guessing their infrastructure will be able to deal with it. It should be noted that everyone is still wearing masks outdoors and at work.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-apple-store-lines-show-mass-testing-success

 

[RU848789]

Okay but read the accounts of the doctors on the front line that have been using it. The drug actually has very few , if any, side effects for AIDS and cancer patients and it seems to be the same for Coronavirus. It will likely be approved as the drug of choice for AIDS as soon the Phase 3 trial is completed first before its use for Coronavirus is approved( other than for compassionate use).

Counting on a drug becoming the drug of choice before phase III trials are complete is what bankrupts countless small pharma companies and is the bane of existence for due diligence evaluations for buying small companies with drugs in late stage trials (having been involved in due diligence of countless acquisitions in my time at Merck).

Although I will say that for antibiotic and anit-virals, phase IIb trials are usually better predictors of success than they are for more complex diseases/markers, since it's fairly easy to measure bacterial or viral responses to such drugs and extrapolate to good outcomes, whereas for something like heart disease, alzheimer's, or depression, for example, measuring some biological marker difference in earlier trials is much harder to connect to positive outcomes.

 

[RU848789]

Convalescent plasma-antibody treatment update

Well, we're still waiting on data from convalescent plasma treatments where antibody-rich plasma from recovered COVID patients are infused into sick to very sick current COVID patients (or even as a preventative). A number of clinical trials are ongoing, but results supposedly aren't expected for another week or two.

However, lots of chatter out there about "promising results" and many people are desperate to find a way to get this treatment for their very sick loved ones, as per the article. Some doctors aren't pursuing this option despite the FDA now allowing it (4/13 emergency use authorization) in serious cases, based on a doctor's recommendation (3rd link below).

The biggest problem though, is there are not enough donors, so there's not enough plasma available. IMO, this should be made into a national appeal with PSAs and such to get people to donate blood/plasma to potentially save lives. If these ongoing trials prove successful, demand will go through the roof and we won't have nearly enough plasma from recovered patients. At the very least, we should at least be ramping up collection in case the results are good.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...9-families-vie-access-plasma-therapy-n1183946

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...wing-promise-in-houston-coronavirus-patients/

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-...-investigational-covid-19-convalescent-plasma

Another tantalizing snippet (below) from a report on the Mt. Sinai convalescent plasma-antibody therapy trial going on there. Dying to know more, but I'm still hearing end of April for a more comprehensive report. This article also talks about the various antibody tests that are approved in the US, including the one developed at Mt. Sinai, which can do over 2000 tests per day - not enough for massive testing, but enough for targeted testing of populations.

There have also been reports (on message boards by docs, but haven't seen it officially reported anywhere yet) of them testing a bunch of NYC health care workers and seeing antibodies in a decent percentage (over 10%), which would be great news, especially if we can soon confirm that antibodies = immunity.

Reich said Mount Sinai has enrolled more than 90 patients in its convalescent plasma trial. The results are at least a couple of weeks out, he said, but many patients have developed high concentrations of antibodies so far.

Mount Sinai's convalescent plasma program started on March 28. Researchers began by testing people who were diagnosed two weeks earlier but were no longer symptomatic.

"What we saw was at about 14 days, people had antibodies, but they still were shedding some virus or at least viral particles," Reich said. "By 21 days, the viral particles were all pretty much gone, and the antibodies were stronger."

Since a person's immune response ramps up over time, Reich said it could take around four to six weeks before antibodies reach their peak concentration. But researchers aren't sure whether that means a person is immune to the virus.

"There is a presumption that the higher the number of antibodies in the bloodstream, the more likely it is to 'neutralize' virus in the bloodstream," Reich said. "But remember this is primarily a respiratory virus. That's how people get infected. So it's unclear what it means to have immunity in the bloodstream."

https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-approved-antibody-test-new-york-mount-sinai-2020-4