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

[T2Kplus10]

Trump predicts a corona vaccine by the end of the year. Love the optimism! Pharma will get it done with the support of the WH and FDA.

My buddy/former colleague now runs the Sanofi NA Vaccines BU. She is bullish on it happening sooner than expected.

 

[RU-05]

60,000 AMERICANS DEAD in 2 MONTHS. And morons think wearing a mask is a big deal? Holy moly.

And 50K of those deaths are in 1 month, and most of those in 2 states.

Check out page 2 in regards to the impact on NJ:

https://www.nj.gov/health/chs/documents/2015-2020 Deaths by Month and County of Residence.pdf

 

[Upstream]

Trump predicts a corona vaccine by the end of the year. Love the optimism! Pharma will get it done with the support of the WH and FDA.

My buddy/former colleague now runs the Sanofi NA Vaccines BU. She is bullish on it happening sooner than expected.

There are several big pharma companies hopeful about having a vaccine ready for emergency use authorization by year end. And I believe all are moving forward with at-risk production, so they can start inoculations as soon as they prove their vaccine works and approved.

It would be great if all the vaccines work, but even if some don't, we just need one to be viable.

 

[T2Kplus10]

There are several big pharma companies hopeful about having a vaccine ready for emergency use authorization by year end. And I believe all are moving forward with at-risk production, so they can start inoculations as soon as they prove their vaccine works and approved.

It would be great if all the vaccines work, but even if some don't, we just need one to be viable.

+1
Just need to get one over the finish line!

 

[RU848789]

Trump predicts a corona vaccine by the end of the year. Love the optimism! Pharma will get it done with the support of the WH and FDA.

My buddy/former colleague now runs the Sanofi NA Vaccines BU. She is bullish on it happening sooner than expected.

I've been saying this for weeks. Maybe the POTUS is reading my posts...

 

[wisr01]

For those wondering what this tweet is hinting at...the Univ. of Minnesota study originally was to have 3000 patients to test HCQ for PEP and early cases of COVID19. They have reduced that number in half which usually suggests there already is a significance between HCQ and placebo. They have hinted we might see results published as early as in a few weeks as opposed to the originally much longer endpoint.

 

[Spare130]

This is crazy... Nearly 400 people tested positive in a Missouri pork plant and all were asymptomatic.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-missouri/index.html

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

This is crazy... Nearly 400 people tested positive in a Missouri pork plant and all were asymptomatic.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-missouri/index.html

Swine Flu?

 

[rutgersguy1]

On the accuracy of antibody tests and how Gottlieb would get even three to rule out false positives.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/cor...-three-antibody-tests-to-ensure-accuracy.html

 

[Upstream]

I've been saying this for

View embedded media

For those wondering what this tweet is hinting at...the Univ. of Minnesota study originally was to have 3000 patients to test HCQ for PEP and early cases of COVID19. They have reduced that number in half which usually suggests there already is a significance between HCQ and placebo. They have hinted we might see results published as early as in a few weeks as opposed to the originally much longer endpoint.

I'm not sure that I agree with your conjecture that a reduction in sample size means they have already seen a significance between the HCQ and Placebo arms. According to the study update page (https://covidpep.umn.edu/updates), the reduction in sample size is because they are seeing a higher event rate of Covid illness in the control group than originally anticipated. (that is, if the original study expected X patients in the control group to be infected, and they reached that X infections with a lower enrollment, they can reduce the total enrollment and still have enough infections in the control group to compare to the infection rate in the HCQ group).

Also, if there was a strong difference already seen between the control and HCQ group, they would have halted the study to report the results and make the beneficial drug available. The primary study completion date was supposed to be May 1, and the fact that they are still enrolling patients indicates that they have not seen a strong difference. That doesn't mean they won't see a strong difference once the data is analyzed; it just means they haven't seen it yet. (The good news is that they didn't halt the study for safety reasons, indicating the know cardiac AEs with HCQ do not seem to be an issue here.)

We'll have to wait for the study to complete before drawing conclusions. While I don't expect the study to show that HCQ is a magic pill (although that is still possible), I am hoping that it shows some benefit in reducing hospitalization rates and disease severity.

 

[DanRU]

View embedded media

For those wondering what this tweet is hinting at...the Univ. of Minnesota study originally was to have 3000 patients to test HCQ for PEP and early cases of COVID19. They have reduced that number in half which usually suggests there already is a significance between HCQ and placebo. They have hinted we might see results published as early as in a few weeks as opposed to the originally much longer endpoint.

I read where Turkey was having a lot of success with giving HCQ early on but there was no study done to verify.

 

[Upstream]

One way to help weed out false positives is to do a second antibody test on anyone who tests positive.

On the accuracy of antibody tests and how Gottlieb would get even three to rule out false positives.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/cor...-three-antibody-tests-to-ensure-accuracy.html

I guess Scott Gottlieb is reading my posts. :Wink:

 

[T2Kplus10]

This is crazy... Nearly 400 people tested positive in a Missouri pork plant and all were asymptomatic.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-missouri/index.html

Not crazy at all. This virus is absolutely nothing to the vast, vast, vast majority of people that get it. The random antibody testing in NY and MA proved this a few weeks ago.

 

[T2Kplus10]

View embedded media

For those wondering what this tweet is hinting at...the Univ. of Minnesota study originally was to have 3000 patients to test HCQ for PEP and early cases of COVID19. They have reduced that number in half which usually suggests there already is a significance between HCQ and placebo. They have hinted we might see results published as early as in a few weeks as opposed to the originally much longer endpoint.

Sounds promising. Thanks for the news!

 

[Upstream]

absolutely nothing to the vast, vast, vast majority of people that get it.

Quantify "vast, vast, vast majority"

 

[T2Kplus10]

Quantify "vast, vast, vast majority"

Scientifically, that means "a sh!t ton".
:)
Based on the NYC prevalence data, probably north of 95% with no noticeable symptoms.

 

[rutgersguy1]

This is crazy... Nearly 400 people tested positive in a Missouri pork plant and all were asymptomatic.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-missouri/index.html

I mentioned that earlier too....kind of makes me wonder is there such thing as asymptomatic seasonal flu too. They're both in the coronavirus family. We're finding it now with COVID-19 because we're testing more people including asymptomatic especially in positions where the likelihood of spread is higher.

We see it as unique to COVID-19 to see all these asymptomatic cases but has anyone ever looked and tested in the past during our seasonal flus. People would only go to a doctor, if they go at all, and get a test if they were having symptoms and no one would think to test anyone for seasonal flu if they're asymptomatic. They say flu isn't as contagious as COVID-19 so don't know if anyone would ever think to look for asymptomatic flu in any particular way.

 

[RU Cheese]

@RU848789 On Remdesivir, Gileads CEO mentioned supply limitations May be caused by ingredients constraints. There's some complexity in the structure of the molecule but isn't this something that could be synthesized fairly easily?

 

[DJ Spanky]

My son just reported that apparently Murphy tweeted that all schools will be closed through the end of the school year. Now, I fully expected this of our school district, but does he have that kind of control?

 

[RUinPinehurst]

Nationally, COVID-19 cases to double by June 1 per reports via the White House.

 

[T2Kplus10]

My son just reported that apparently Murphy tweeted that all schools will be closed through the end of the school year. Now, I fully expected this of our school district, but does he have that kind of control?

Legally, no he doesn't.

 

[CERU00]

My son just reported that apparently Murphy tweeted that all schools will be closed through the end of the school year. Now, I fully expected this of our school district, but does he have that kind of control?

That's irrelevant to him.

 

[RU4Real]

Scientifically, that means "a sh!t ton".
:)
Based on the NYC prevalence data, probably north of 95% with no noticeable symptoms.

Apparently ugly marketing chicks can't do math.

Based on the actual numbers, the asymptomatic infections in NYS account for 83.6% of the total prevalence. Which is remarkably close to the original estimate that 80% of all infections would be asymptomatic.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Apparently ugly marketing chicks can't do math.

Based on the actual numbers, the asymptomatic infections in NYS account for 83.6% of the total prevalence. Which is remarkably close to the original estimate that 80% of all infections would be asymptomatic.

Nay, I saw closer to 95% based on NYC having a prevalence of 30-35% of the total pop.

 

[RU85inFla]

My son just reported that apparently Murphy tweeted that all schools will be closed through the end of the school year. Now, I fully expected this of our school district, but does he have that kind of control?

Murphy doesn't have that control but the teachers union does. Any sane teacher would not step in a classroom prior to September.

 

[RU-05]

Murphy doesn't have that control but the teachers union does. Any sane teacher would not step in a classroom prior to September.

My guess would be that in speaking with teacher unions and BOE's that they agreed that there would be no school through the end of the year. Murphy just being the spokesmen in this instance.

 

[Spare130]

No it's a comment from someone who doesn't understand why this clown is closing schools for the year when kids aren't getting sick anywhere... If a teacher is older or has underlying conditions they obviously can stay home for the rest of the school year Just like the other tens of millions that are out of work.

Speaking of out of work, what happens with kids' parents who don't have a babysitter? Murphy would be mad if they left the kids with grandparents.

also it's good to know that liquor stores are important enough to be open while parks weren't.

 

[Upstream]

Scientifically, that means "a sh!t ton".
:)
Based on the NYC prevalence data, probably north of 95% with no noticeable symptoms.

Apparently ugly marketing chicks can't do math.

Based on the actual numbers, the asymptomatic infections in NYS account for 83.6% of the total prevalence. Which is remarkably close to the original estimate that 80% of all infections would be asymptomatic.

T2K, north of 95% seems way too high for asymptomatic cases. Not sure where 4Real got the 83% number, but that seems too high also.

Preliminary reports for NYC show approx 25% of those tested were positive for antibodies. Although the testing isn't a random sample (since they only tested those out and about in specific locations), let's assume that 25% of the city has antibodies. That is about 2.1MM people.


NYC also has about 19,000 deaths and 69,000 hospitalizations (per Hopkins dashboard). If we assume 2.5% of symptomatic cases result in death, the deaths imply that there are 760,000 symptomatic cases in NYC. If we assume that 10% of symptomatic cases result in hospitalization, the hospitalization numbers imply 690,000 symptomatic cases in NYC. Those numbers are fairly close for back-of-envelope estimation. Let's split the difference and say there are 725,000 symptomatic cases in NYC.

That means of the 2.1 million cases, 725,000 (34.5%) are symptomatic and 1,375,000 (65.5%) are asymptomatic.

While 65.5% is a solid majority, it is still far away from 95%.


Interestingly, the Pacific Princess data showed about 50% of cases were asymptomatic. The Pacific Princess data may have been low, due to missing people who were asymptomatic and did not have enough virus load to test positive (either because they were recovering, never that sick, or just testing error). On the other hand, the NYC 65% estimate may be high due to false positives in the antibody test, or lack of random sample. But I think it is reasonable to assume that somewhere in that range is correct.

 

[RU848789]

This is crazy... Nearly 400 people tested positive in a Missouri pork plant and all were asymptomatic.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-missouri/index.html

That is a little crazy having nobody symptomatic in that group. Although I still can't figure out why so many are spending so much effort on disinfecting and so little effort on redesigning the workplace to reduce close contact and/or providing N95 masks - or failing that, faceshields with surgical/cloth masks underneath (with a plastic sheeting hood attached to cover the rest of the head and neck area - or redesign the faceshield to cover the sides better).

Disinfecting probably reduces well less than 5% of the risk, whereas >95% of the risk is from other people. Same thing with the subways/buses/trains - disinfecting is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - useless if people are packed like sardines, even with masks (unless they're virus-filtering N95 masks).

 

[T2Kplus10]

T2K, north of 95% seems way too high for asymptomatic cases. Not sure where 4Real got the 83% number, but that seems too high also.

Preliminary reports for NYC show approx 25% of those tested were positive for antibodies. Although the testing isn't a random sample (since they only tested those out and about in specific locations), let's assume that 25% of the city has antibodies. That is about 2.1MM people.


NYC also has about 19,000 deaths and 69,000 hospitalizations (per Hopkins dashboard). If we assume 2.5% of symptomatic cases result in death, the deaths imply that there are 760,000 symptomatic cases in NYC. If we assume that 10% of symptomatic cases result in hospitalization, the hospitalization numbers imply 690,000 symptomatic cases in NYC. Those numbers are fairly close for back-of-envelope estimation. Let's split the difference and say there are 725,000 symptomatic cases in NYC.

That means of the 2.1 million cases, 725,000 (34.5%) are symptomatic and 1,375,000 (65.5%) are asymptomatic.

While 65.5% is a solid majority, it is still far away from 95%.


Interestingly, the Pacific Princess data showed about 50% of cases were asymptomatic. The Pacific Princess data may have been low, due to missing people who were asymptomatic and did not have enough virus load to test positive (either because they were recovering, never that sick, or just testing error). On the other hand, the NYC 65% estimate may be high due to false positives in the antibody test, or lack of random sample. But I think it is reasonable to assume that somewhere in that range is correct.

Sorry, but way too many assumptions in this post.

 

[wisr01]

T2K, north of 95% seems way too high for asymptomatic cases. Not sure where 4Real got the 83% number, but that seems too high also.

Preliminary reports for NYC show approx 25% of those tested were positive for antibodies. Although the testing isn't a random sample (since they only tested those out and about in specific locations), let's assume that 25% of the city has antibodies. That is about 2.1MM people.


NYC also has about 19,000 deaths and 69,000 hospitalizations (per Hopkins dashboard). If we assume 2.5% of symptomatic cases result in death, the deaths imply that there are 760,000 symptomatic cases in NYC. If we assume that 10% of symptomatic cases result in hospitalization, the hospitalization numbers imply 690,000 symptomatic cases in NYC. Those numbers are fairly close for back-of-envelope estimation. Let's split the difference and say there are 725,000 symptomatic cases in NYC.

That means of the 2.1 million cases, 725,000 (34.5%) are symptomatic and 1,375,000 (65.5%) are asymptomatic.

While 65.5% is a solid majority, it is still far away from 95%.


Interestingly, the Pacific Princess data showed about 50% of cases were asymptomatic. The Pacific Princess data may have been low, due to missing people who were asymptomatic and did not have enough virus load to test positive (either because they were recovering, never that sick, or just testing error). On the other hand, the NYC 65% estimate may be high due to false positives in the antibody test, or lack of random sample. But I think it is reasonable to assume that somewhere in that range is correct.

I believe the hospitization number for the entire NY State is 68,736, so I doubt NYC has 69,000 when the entire state has 68736. Just saying. The last number I saw for NYC was maybe in the mid 40's...I just saw some numbers suggesting 43000 hospitalized in NYC.

 

[T2Kplus10]

I believe the hospitization number for the entire NY State is 68,736, so I doubt NYC has 69,000 when the entire state has 68736. Just saying. The last number I saw for NYC was maybe in the mid 40's

+1
The data definitely suggests an asymptomatic rate of well over 90%.

 

[Upstream]

I believe the hospitization number for the entire NY State is 68,736, so I doubt NYC has 69,000 when the entire state has 68736. Just saying. The last number I saw for NYC was maybe in the mid 40's...I just saw some numbers suggesting 43000 hospitalized in NYC.

Thanks. I misread the Hopkins dashboard which showed hospitalizations for "New York" which I interpreted as NYC, but was for the state. Hospitalizations for NYC are about 43,000. Which at a 10% hospitalization rate for symptomatic cases, means 430,000 symptomatic cases in NYC. That means 1,670,000 asymptomatic cases or 79.5%, which is close to the 83% number 4Real quoted.

 

[wisr01]

Am I missing something here? I see NYC has had 43,000 hospitalizations for Covid19 and almost 19,000 dead. Those are horrific numbers. However, Agilum is doing real time tracking in hospitals across the country and here is the table showing that only 12% on HCQ succumb to the disease. Does that not seem like A FREAKING MASSIVE difference from 45%?

Even the co-morbid patients are around 12%:

Even the 86+ group of males, worst case scenario, are surving at 68% which is a lot better than NYC numbers.

 

[wisr01]

The primary study completion date was supposed to be May 1, and the fact that they are still enrolling patients indicates that they have not seen a strong difference. That doesn't mean they won't see a strong difference once the data is analyzed; it just means they haven't seen it yet. (The good news is that they didn't halt the study for safety reasons, indicating the know cardiac AEs with HCQ do not seem to be an issue here.)

From an article I posted the other day. Boulware is the guy running the trial. He has said on twitter that they were on pace for May 1st when the whole HCQ VA study and QT scare from the Brazil study who overdosed patients. Since then he has had a hard time signing the last 180 up. From article:

Boulware’s group has 1,200 people enrolled already, but they need 180 more. And he’s having a hell of a time getting them signed up. So far, Boulware says, no one in the study has had any safety issues remotely like what the Brazilians experienced—probably because of the lower dose.

 

[RU848789]

As per retrospective viral-PCR analysis of reserved, frozen sputum samples from ILI (influenza like illness) patients with most of the classic COVID symptoms, France's first COVID patient is now known to be in late December, a month before their previous earliest case. I'm sure the same will be true here and almost everywhere, given the level of international travel everywhere.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920301643?via=ihub#!

 

[Upstream]

From an article I posted the other. Boulware is the guy running the trial. He has said on twitter that they were on pace for May 1st when the whole HCQ VA study and QT scare from the Brazil study who overdosed patients. Since then he has had a hard time signing the last 180 up. From article:

Boulware’s group has 1,200 people enrolled already, but they need 180 more. And he’s having a hell of a time getting them signed up. So far, Boulware says, no one in the study has had any safety issues remotely like what the Brazilians experienced—probably because of the lower dose.

Thanks. I think the whole Brazilian cardiovascular issue was way overblown. HCQ is a fairly widely prescribed drug, with known side effects. Cardiovascular issues are one of the known side-effects and easily managed. While there are CV issues with Covid, and perhaps that compounds the issues with HCQ, there are enough other studies of HCQ to treat Covid that I would have expected a safety issue in more than just the Brazilian study. As you indicate, the Brazil issue may have more to do with dosage, or some other cause unique to that study.

It would be really nice if the UMN study showed a benefit in helping to keep Covid cases out of the hospital. If you are able to have an array of treatments for different stages of disease progression, that can go a long way to reducing mortality, avoiding long-term effects, and helping the system cope.

 

[cohwx]

Am I missing something here? I see NYC has had 43,000 hospitalizations for Covid19 and almost 19,000 dead. Those are horrific numbers. However, Agilum is doing real time tracking in hospitals across the country and here is the table showing that only 12% on HCQ succumb to the disease. Does that not seem like A FREAKING MASSIVE difference from 45%?

Even the co-morbid patients are around 12%:

Even the 86+ group of males, worst case scenario, are surving at 68% which is a lot better than NYC numbers.

Where are these numbers from? Is there a link/twitter account/something? I would like to see more of this.

Was just browsing some HCQ info on twitter and I have to say, there are more and more reports that it is effective if given early in the disease course.

 

[wisr01]

It would be really nice if the UMN study showed a benefit in helping to keep Covid cases out of the hospital. If you are able to have an array of treatments for different stages of disease progression, that can go a long way to reducing mortality, avoiding long-term effects, and helping the system cope.

Agreed

 

[wisr01]

Where are these numbers from? Is there a link/twitter account/something? I would like to see more of this.

Was just browsing some HCQ info on twitter and I have to say, there are more and more reports that it is effective if given early in the disease course.

Agilum is doing real world real-time analytics.

https://agilum.com/agilum-releases-nationwide-covid-19-real-world-data-rwd-survival-rate-analytics/

It is updated everyday.