So you believe NJ numbers but no others. Gotcha. Still believe Trump won? Just trying to figure how crazy you really are.
OT: COVID Science - Pfizer/Moderna vaccines >90% effective; Regeneron antibody cocktail looks very promising in phase II/III trial and more
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
More good news on monoclonal antibodies from Eli Lilly's single mAb, bamlanivimab (which will likely apply to the Regeneron mixture of two antibodies, which have generally had better clinical results so far), which was shown to significantly reduce infection with COVID by ~80% in LTC residents and staff vs. those who did not recieve a prophylactic mAb treatment.
Haven't seen prevention data from the general public yet but no reason to think these people are unique. The problem with the mAbs is that they're expensive and there are nowhere near enough doses for more than a small fraction of the public (maybe a few million doses by end of 1Q21 vs. tens of millions of vaccine doses and the vaccines are better). But right now, with the vaccine rollout being slow, there's no reason to not use these mAbs up as fast as possible, especially in vulnerable LTC/elderly populations.
https://investor.lilly.com/news-rel...zing-antibody-bamlanivimab-ly-cov555-prevente
The 965 participants who tested negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus at baseline (299 residents and 666 staff) were included in the analysis of primary and key secondary endpoints for assessing prevention, while the 132 participants (41 residents and 91 staff) who tested positive for the virus at baseline were included in exploratory analyses for assessing treatment, adding to the growing body of evidence for treatment with bamlanivimab. All participants were randomized to receive either 4,200 mg of bamlanivimab or placebo.
After all participants reached 8 weeks of follow-up, there was a significantly lower frequency of symptomatic COVID-19 (the primary endpoint) in the bamlanivimab treatment arm versus placebo (odds ratio 0.43, p=0.00021). Results for all key secondary endpoints also reached statistical significance in both the overall and resident populations.
For the pre-specified subgroup of nursing home residents, there was also a significantly lower frequency of symptomatic COVID-19 in those treated with bamlanivimab versus placebo in this important population (odds ratio 0.20; p=0.00026). These results suggest that residents randomized to bamlanivimab have up to an 80 percent lower risk of contracting COVID-19 versus residents in the same facility randomized to placebo.
Are you calling this medical journal not science
You are full of it
Is the chart fake..its not random twitter..its in the freaking journel
Follow the science bro
All science matters
I also see you conveniently ignoring the pcr news
Will you please take your silly nonsense to the CE board.
Now they just need to use the drugs in some systematic fashion.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, it's a medical journal, but it's not a high quality one and their peer review sucks if they let this be published. I've published about a dozen peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature (not medical, but the systems are similar), so I know what I'm talking about. To publish that article without referencing/discussing the "gold standard" RCTs showing no efficacy in mildly ill COVID outpatients is an egregious error. Full stop. Now go find some even worse nonsense and post it breathlessly, as if it means something. I haven't put anyone on ignore on this site, but you're close - if it weren't for hoops, I think you'd be the first. If I could do it by thread that would be nice.
Yes I believe I suggested this along with a few others here. It is the only possible solution other than more vaccine availability. Fed and State directed by the Fed. The states have enough issues.
Them numbers are not real. It is sad but they are inflated.
You guys just don’t stop do you? Enough already. Plenty of evidence of the deadliness of this virus from excess deaths and declining age expectancy to back up these numbers in this country and many others. Move your Q nonsense elsewhere please.
Lol because its not your science..wow this is amazing
U are actually deciding which peer reviewed medical studies are acceptable
Your arrogance is showing
Telling you threatening ignoring when you don't like the science
This is off the top of my head (I rarely do that, so take it with a grain of salt. IMO, it would be very difficult to bring on more vaccine production facilities in under 4 months, as it's really, really complicated to make sterile vaccines without compromising sterility (which is a key safety issue), so I don't think it's going to help with the current state - it could help with bringing more vaccines on line this summer, although I think simply providing more OWS funding to existing manufacturers is a better move for that.
The Act is more suited, IMO, to helping produce key "cogs" like vials, syringes, machinery/equipment for manufacturing, etc. However, FEMA and the National Guard could certainly help with logistics and distribution - in the article I linked the other day about Israel's vaccination success (nearly 30% vaccinated already), one of the key elements was the involvement of their military in logistics/distribution.
I've been right on every aspect of HCQ all along, including anticipating the medical community dismissing HCQ, since I'm able to read scientific articles and sniff out BS, especially when comparing them vs. much better studies already published. This is just one more example. Just because you don't have those skills is no reason for me not to exercise them. We're done on this topic as you clearly lack the abiility to understand even basic science if you're trying to argue this point.
COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 5,015 studies
COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 5,015 studies for 104 treatments
c19study.com
I am not say it isnt deadly by any means. I worked in hospitals in the beginning as saw how jammed they were. I know it is real. However even on the CDC website it has over 12,000 deaths from Intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events that is counted as a Covid death. Has nothing to do with the letter Q
and now the WHO comes out and questions the PCR testing, some of us were onto this before but it was shouted down..ie NY Times article.
means that if you are showing no symptoms and test positive with PCR testing, ANOTHER test should be run to confirm
wow
the timing of the announcement makes my head spin but I wont go there
Not much "new" here. This was discussed months ago, as per the first 2 links below and nobody I saw "shouted" anyone down. I'm actually surprised it took them this long to reduce the number of amplification cycles in the PCR viral test for COVID. I've been arguing for months, as per Dr. Mina's positions on this, that we're misusing the PCR test and should be using less sensitive antigen-style screening tests, but doing them very frequently (like the B1G is doing), but this would've required a large investment that the Trump Administration was unwilling to make (they bungled testing at every step of the way), in order to make such tests widely available for everyone (and even at-home). Maybe we can get this kind of massive, frequent testing going now.
The PCR test is better suited as a confirmatory test or as a test for people with clear COVID symptoms just to be sure (since the antigen tests aren't as good). Or, as I said in August, using the PCR test with 35-40 cycles is ok, as long as we have no other tests and as long as we're telling people how many cycles are being used, so they can know the risk. I also don't have much issue with false positives, as those merely tell people they should be isolating and there isn't a huge downside of isolating for most - but for essential workers, that's where the daily antigen test would be better, as that is sensitive enough to alert the person to when they're already or just becoming contagious (even if asymptomatic), which is what is really important, plus it's fast/frequent enough that one can do it every day to "exonerate" false positives (while the PCR test is much more complex/expensive and takes too much time).
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...es-interventions-and-more.198855/post-4680980
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...es-interventions-and-more.198855/post-4683701
Can you take your accusations of Q elsewhere..its childish
Sorry there is downside to isolating..are you even serious with that
Its unnecessary if you arent positive..stop acting like its normal to stay inside
Finally some data on the prophylactic use of mABs. Can’t believe it took this long. This is a much better use case than using in a hospital setting.
I hope Biden pours money into early treatments. It’s pathetic it’s been a year and we are nowhere with it. No inhaler treatments, no antiviral pills. So many trials for hospital settings, which we’ve all know for a long time is too late for most treatments.
Ugh, prob won’t see J&J data until sometime in the first half of Feb.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
www.bloomberg.com
Article said we'd have trial data by the last week in Jan or the first week in Feb, which I don't think is a change - that's when we'll see press releases. Just like for Pfizer/Moderna, it'll take a few weeks to a month to get an EUA.
You're simply wrong on this and, in fact, the numbers are likely 10-20% higher, given excess death data, to date, as many have discussed previously in this thread.
I said there isn't a huge downside for most. Most people I know are working remotely, which is maybe inefficient for some, but not particularly hard. Sure, false positives are an issue for people who are on the front lines working and will lose time because of that. But like I said, I'd rather have a less sensitive, cheaper, more frequent antigen test for all so false positives become much less of an issue, but we aren't there yet. Also, isolating doesn't mean one is chained indoors, but it does usually mean not going to work with people, which I agree is an issue.
I think you are assuming everyone is an office worker who can work from home. What about the people who really work for a living? They don’t have that luxury.
I know you’ve posted about this before but based on the preliminary data, any guesses on the efficacy of the J&J vaccine? Not sure if the 90-100% in the paper is the same as efficacy.
Your idiocy is showing. You've been laughed out of this thread a dozen+ times already. Take the hint.
It’s hard to trust non-scientists to interpret scientific data from a journal article. It’s even harder when they spell journal wrong.
I think you are wrong on this. How do you explain a decline in all other illnesses related to deaths. What about the 12000+ on the CDC that died from Intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events that is counted as a Covid death. Again Im not saying the virus is not real just feel that the deaths and positives are exaggerated.
but the other day they just accepted a bunch old people dying in Norway after receiving the vaccine of dying because well they were old and old people die
Why were there so many more deaths year over year then? Was every COD up?
no he trashed it and says he knows better than medical professionals, its stunning to see his ego on display as he dismisses SCIENCE
no thats what was said and yes they found no correlation but maybe it was just enough in their system to push them over the edge...kind of like Covid
Sounds like maybe you think you know better than the medical professionals now ; \
I think I did, but briefly, there is zero known efficacy yet for J&J, as we simply don't have the data from the phase III trials comparing placebo to the vaccine. The paper on the earlier clinical trials discussed the very strong immune responses seen in vaccinated patients, but that won't necessarily translate to >90% efficacy (it could). Given that the J&J vaccine is an adenovirus vector vaccine, like the Astra-Zeneca one, I would think it would be closer to the AZ efficacy (which was murky given the issues in their trials), like maybe 70-80%, but OWS's Slaoui said he thought 80-85% efficacy is likely, but again, nobody knows.
If it's 80% and a single shot and stable in the fridge, that's a lot of plusses, even though that's slightly less effective than the two mRNA vaccines - I think the key may then be how many of those who get the virus, still, have serious cases - if that's essentially zero, like the mRNA vaccines, I'd say that puts J&J in the lead; if not, it'll still get used but maybe not as much.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...decision-on-vaccine-clearance-coming-by-march
I trashed it because yeah, I do know better in this case and so does the medical community, which will trash it once they see it, since they know that the Boulware/Mitja RCTs on mildly ill patients are far more relevant than this crappy "recommendation" (it's not even a study) and they'll laugh their asses off when they see the "paper" didn't even mention these RCTs.
- Status
