Look, I know you like to troll for fun, but could you at least not do that with important coronavirus data? NYC has 19.9% prevalence of the virus as per the completed antibody serological testing, shared by Cuomo on Saturday. The State is at 12.3% prevalence. A ton of other location/demographic data are in the video.
Everything is more "effective" when given early in the disease course, anecdotally, because most people with mild symptoms get better no matter what. We won't know if HCQ or any other medication is truly effective early on until we see the results from placebo or standard-of-care controlled clinical studies.
Thanks for posting, looks promising!https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20081059v1.full.pdf
In this study, we found that patients in the chloroquine group experienced significantly faster and higher rate of viral suppression comparing to the non chloroquine group in both the full analysis and the post hoc stratified analysis. Even when the dose reduced to half, the benefit of chloroquine still remained (Figure 3). These findings indicate that chloroquine could be effective in treating patients with COVID-19. To our knowledge, this is the first and largest clinical study on chloroquine phosphate for treating COVID-19 to date.
Yes, if there is established benefit, then we can start folks on it as soon as they have symptoms/test positive.
Education is in the province of the State. Recall the State takeover of Jersey City and Newark. Know your law before you make statements.
Latest (4/27) projections are out from the U of Washington/IHME; bulleted highlights and graphics below.
Keep in mind that these projections are for the "first wave" of the outbreak, through about August 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. The fact that some states are now looking to ease back sooner will likely mean that deaths in those states will end up higher than modeled - how many more is the big question - and that's why the IHME has stopped their model projections after the dates where those states drop distancing controls.
- The model shows a fairly significant bump back up in projected US deaths vs. the 4/21 run, i.e., from 66.0K on 4/21 to 74.1K on 4/27 and this is likely to go up to at least 80K, IMO.
- 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 to 60.3K on 4/17 to 66.0K on 4/21 and back up to 74.1K on 4/27.
- The projected NY deaths are now 23.9K; the progression of model estimates has been as follows: from 14.5K in the 4/13 run to 21.8K on 4/17, to 23.7K on 4/21 and now 23.9K on 4/27. The early jump was due to NY now counting many more "presumed" COVID deaths without actual positive viral tests (mostly in hospitals with some in nursing homes), as per the update notes.
- The projected NJ deaths are now 7.2K; the progression of model estimates has been as follows: from 4.4K in the 4/13 run to 6.9K on 4/17 to 7.1K on 4/21 to 7.2K on 4/27.
- The US projected deaths jumped by 8.1K, but this latest jump is not due to NY/NJ jumps (only up 0.3K), as the projection for the rest of the US went up by 7.8K.
- Here's what the IHME said about this: "At least part of this increase is due to many states experiencing flatter and thus longer epidemic peaks. Further, updated data indicate that daily COVID-19 deaths are not falling very quickly after the peak, leading to longer tails for many states’ epidemic curves. In combination – less abrupt peaks and slower declines in daily COVID-19 deaths following the peak – many places in the US could have higher cumulative deaths from the novel coronavirus."
- When I made my 40-50K prediction for US deaths on 4/5, I was assuming we'd have very aggressive social distancing everywhere in the US, which hasn't quite been the case, plus I was probably just being a bit too hopeful we'd do better. Should have stayed with my original guess of ~85K US deaths from 3/26, which assumed modest SD (enough to limit infections to 5% of the population with an infection fatality rate of 0.7%; although we now know that way more than 5% are likely infected in some locations, like NY with 15% with antibodies).
http://www.healthdata.org/covid/updates
The latest (5/4) projections are out from the U of Washington/IHME and they're very bad, with the US deaths predicted to jump from the 72K in the 4/27 model to 134K through the end of July in the 5/4 model run. NY deaths are modeled to increase from 24K in the 4/27 model to 32K in the 5/4 model (more distancing modeled, hence the smaller increase vs. the US) and NJ deaths are modeled to increase from 7,2K in the 4/27 mode to 16K in the 5/4 model (not clear why NJ wasn't treated like NY).
They've completely overhauled the model and are now factoring in an increase in deaths due to expected significant increases in transmissions related to significant relaxation of stay at home policies and social distancing efforts, as well as slower than expected declines in deaths everywhere, once peaks are reached and passed. Haven't had time to go through it all, as there's a ton of new info, but did include the updated US/NY/NJ graphics. Will update this post with more later...
In addition, the Times obtained an internal CDC report from internal modeling, which is also predicting roughly a doubling of deaths from the current 68K (that would be 136K) by mid-summer, but the Administration is pushing back on that saying the report hasn't been fully vetted yet. However, President Trump on Sunday said deaths could reach 100K, so it certainly seems like forecasts are getting worse, even if not final yet. In that CDC report, it shows deaths per day increasing from the current ~2000/day to over 3000 per day by June.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/coronavirus-live-updates.html#link-32993cff
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...f7319f4a55fd0ce5dc9/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
As I have been saying for the past week or so and which the Wharton model clearly confirmed on Friday, if restrictive policies are relaxed and social distancing lessened significantly, as looks to be happening, without an infrastructure to test massively and rapidly to detect outbreaks and to trace contacts and isolate positives and contacts, like South Korea and Taiwan have done (which we don't appear to be ready/willing to implement), deaths will get far worse than most have been projecting (including me). If one assumes a 60% infection endpoint (near herd immunity) and a very conservative 0.2% infection fatality rate (NY is at 0.7% now), then about ~400K US deaths would occur in the next 6-12 months if we open it all back up, but if we use an IFR of 0.5% (plausible), the estimate would be 1000K US deaths, which is pretty damn close to Wharton's 950K estimate in their model with limited controls/distancing.
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-94#post-4539724
The only other hope we have to not hit the modeled numbers of deaths in the next 2 months is if we have a bona fide cure (or close to it) in place in the next month or so. We all better hope convalescent plasma is as good as the anecdotal reports are indicating, since that can help now, whereas even the engineered antibodies, which could be available by late summer, will be too late to prevent many of these deaths, and a vaccine is at least several more months beyond late summer.
Well they say a virus ideally doesn’t want to kill its host which makes sense so it can keep on replicating. Kill the host and the virus can’t replicate. So if enough infection happens I suppose a sort of viral evolution could weaken it so the host survives longer and therefore the virus’ ability to replicate continues as well.
Certainly can't rely on this, but man, we could use a break. Link to the communication (not quite a full "paper") is below and the Mail article is more informative in some ways, as it included some comments from the lead author.
That's what they believed happened with the Spanish Flu.
We should have done this to begin with, but way too many CLs. By the way, UK's reopening plan calls for everyone to return to life and work except for people over 70+ or obese (the 2 biggest risk groups). Interesting.
Should have done what to begin with? I hope you mean what SK did and not what the WSJ is advocating, unless you simply don't care about deaths. And what's a CL?
