Coronavirus Thread

[armeck]

I'm seeing people on Facebook tout chloroquine as a "savior" without actually reading what's said about it. People grasp on to what they want to...and that's certainly reflected in life overall. Dr. Fauci is on record warning people that there are still reservations, and he's trying to push back:

https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-temper...hloroquine-use-for-coronavirus-181035811.html

One day after Trump said chloroquine had shown “very encouraging early results” treating COVID-19 and would be rolled out to patients “almost immediately,” Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked at a briefing in Washington whether there was any evidence to suggest that taking the drug would help prevent a person from coming down with COVID-19.

“The answer is no. And the evidence that you’re talking about, John [Roberts, Fox News correspondent], is anecdotal evidence, so as the commissioner of FDA and the president mentioned yesterday, we’re trying to strike a balance between making something with a potential of an effect to the American people available, at the same time we do it under the auspices of a protocol that would give us information to determine if it’s truly safe and truly effective,” Fauci said. “But the information that you’re referring to specifically is anecdotal; it was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can’t make any definitive statement about it.”

...Trump was then asked by Roberts whether chloroquine had been shown to be effective against SARS during the 2002-03 outbreak of that virus.

“It was very, as I understand that,” Trump said before turning to Fauci. “Is that a correct statement? It was fairly effective against SARS.”

Fauci then stepped to the podium to throw cold water on that characterization.

“You’ve got to be careful when you say ‘fairly effective.’ It was never done in a clinical trial that compared it to anything. It was given to individuals and felt that maybe it works,” Fauci said.

I have a feeling we may not be seeing much more of Dr. Fauci. You don't get to contradict the President like this and get away with it.

 

[RonJohn]

That is why they are doing trials. There is strong anecdotal evidence, but those datapoints were not done in a way to definitively determine the safety and efficacy of the medicine. (In other words, does it work, how well does it work, and is it safe.)

One part the rest of the world has done very well that our FDA has sucked about is weighing the balance appropriately between being 100% precise and wasting time. For example, these drugs have been on the market a long time and the side effects are known well. If you target people that are in very serious condition in the first place, what have you got to lose? Nobody is advocating prescribing this across the country to everyone yet. What the aggressive folks are saying is lets be responsibly aggressive - target those in most need with nothing to lose and do it in a way so that when we're done with this next phase it meets all the protocols for the FDAs requirements to approve for a larger use of it.

Traditionally, the FDA has stood there stoically with its arms crossed saying No. No bending or changing of any rules until they 100% know everything about a drug. That's why even the most world renowned epidemiologists in the world still have a lane they need to stay in.

There is one study of 26 people. In that study the mortality rate of the participants was 3.8%. To me that isn't "strong", and it isn't even compelling.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I have a feeling we may not be seeing much more of Dr. Fauci. You don't get to contradict the President like this and get away with it.

He hasn’t contradicted the President. You should listen to his interviews and watch the press conferences. There is no substantive difference between them, in Dr. Fauci’s own words.

it’s sad that in times like these we have to spend so much time and energy combating false information.

 

[armeck]

There is one study of 26 people. In that study the mortality rate of the participants was 3.8%. To me that isn't "strong", and it isn't even compelling.

I don't think you can ever say, statistically, that anecdotal evidence is ever "strong". It is by its very definition, weak evidence.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There is one study of 26 people. In that study the mortality rate of the participants was 3.8%. To me that isn't "strong", and it isn't even compelling.

Because you’re misusing the data. You’re not pointing to all the people it helped, and you’re ignoring the desperate state of health these people were in.

 

[GT_EE78]

Browsing through: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Yesterday's numbers aren't in there yet - only goes through 3/22. But on that day, pretty much every country in Europe had their single worst day yet.

However, South Korea had an amazingly good day then. Lets hope it continues. They were starting to show the signs of a second new wave of infections. If 1 country can get to a manageable equilibrium, it gives everyone else a blueprint.

US is around 46K now- half in NY. 3/23 new cases was 10K.. Ga/SC 800/300 look to have exponential growth. SC jumped by 100 yesterday

 

[GT_EE78]

I don't think you can ever say, statistically, that anecdotal evidence is ever "strong". It is by its very definition, weak evidence.

If you mean that it's never strong enough to treat it as if it were a clinical trial then true. however anecdotal evidence and case studies are normally the basis for spending big bucks to do a clinical trial. depends on the context for how "strong" is used.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

BTW, I think Dr. Fauci is a political genius too. Not only has he said there is no substantive difference between the two of them, he also understands what I think is going on - the media and politicians are trying to force a separation between the two of them for their own political gain - damaging Trump. Pretty sad actually to do such a thing during such a time.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

That's one take. Mine is that he is good doctor and knows that if he pisses off the Grand Cheeto he will not be allowed to help and would be replaced by someone who's top priority is being a good Trump Team Member.

I'm just using his own words. He has stated there is no substantive difference between them and he told CBS he thinks all this uproar is trying to intentionally create a rift between the two of them.

Now he could be making this up for his own political purposes, but if that's the case, then nobody should be listening to anything he's saying.

 

[RonJohn]

Because you’re misusing the data. You’re not pointing to all the people it helped, and you’re ignoring the desperate state of health these people were in.

Desperate state of health the people were in? How many of the people in the study were completely asymptomatic? Do you know? Did you read the study?

I did. The majority of people in the study, control group or treated group, had upper tract infections. There were only 8 with lower tract infections, and there were 6 who were completely asymptomatic. This was not a case of people on death's bed who were given a drug that miraculously saved them. This drug might be of benefit, but it isn't proven by a non-randomized study of 26 people. And as I pointed out using mortality rate (which seems to be one of your favorite metrics), it did fairly poorly.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Desperate state of health the people were in? How many of the people in the study were completely asymptomatic? Do you know? Did you read the study?

I did. The majority of people in the study, control group or treated group, had upper tract infections. There were only 8 with lower tract infections, and there were 6 who were completely asymptomatic. This was not a case of people on death's bed who were given a drug that miraculously saved them. This drug might be of benefit, but it isn't proven by a non-randomized study of 26 people. And as I pointed out using mortality rate (which seems to be one of your favorite metrics), it did fairly poorly.

I don't disagree with any of that. I am not sure anybody does. Except for your use of the mortality rate. Until you know the condition of that person, 1 death is not of much use when fighting a deadly virus.

 

[dtm1997]

 

[Techster]

I have a feeling we may not be seeing much more of Dr. Fauci. You don't get to contradict the President like this and get away with it.

There's an article I posted in one of these threads where you can tell Fauci is close to his breaking point. IMO, if Fauci goes, Trump better find someone Fauci's equal or better. Not only in ability, but in reputation. This isn't the time for stroking egos, this is a time that we need a credible voice and presence. Fauci gives Trump that. In fact, and I'm just making an assumption here, but I think the public AND the market like the fact that Fauci isn't afraid to correct Trump. Fauci gives everyone the confidence that there's a form of checks and balances to Trump's off the cuff style. Once that goes, I'm not sure it's going to be pretty for everyone.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There's an article I posted in one of these threads where you can tell Fauci is close to his breaking point. IMO, if Fauci goes, Trump better find someone Fauci's equal or better. Not only in ability, but in reputation. This isn't the time for stroking egos, this is a time that we need a credible voice and presence. Fauci gives Trump that. In fact, and I'm just making an assumption here, but I think the public AND the market like the fact that Fauci isn't afraid to correct Trump. Fauci gives everyone the confidence that there's a form of checks and balances to Trump's off the cuff style. Once that goes, I'm not sure it's going to be pretty for everyone.

I'm not sure we will ever know what is true and what is not. But in that article you posted, Dr. Fauci said there wasn't any substantive difference between them and that he thinks there's an intentional effort to create a rift between the two of them. Now that does NOT mean at the same time he doesn't think Trump is an idiot and speaks off the cuff too much (extreme apologies for my double and triple negatives). But there's a difference between a guy that is a poor public speaker and rambles and what-not and a guy that is intentionally spreading false information, which Dr. Fauci contends is not the case.

 

[GT_EE78]

>guess the menage a trois isn't safe here either
SC Governor gives police authority to disband gatherings of 3 or more
https://www.wspa.com/health-2/sc-governor-gives-police-authority-to-disband-gatherings-of-3-or-more/

 

[RonJohn]

I don't disagree with any of that. I am not sure anybody does. Except for your use of the mortality rate. Until you know the condition of that person, 1 death is not of much use when fighting a deadly virus.

And by the same measure, 6 people being virus free isn't much use without knowing their: blood type, age, phyiscal condition, etc. It is not a randomized scientific study, whether looking at good data or bad data. It especially isn't useful to look at data that appears to be good while ignoring data from the same study that appears to be bad.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

There's an article I posted in one of these threads where you can tell Fauci is close to his breaking point. IMO, if Fauci goes, Trump better find someone Fauci's equal or better. Not only in ability, but in reputation. This isn't the time for stroking egos, this is a time that we need a credible voice and presence. Fauci gives Trump that. In fact, and I'm just making an assumption here, but I think the public AND the market like the fact that Fauci isn't afraid to correct Trump. Fauci gives everyone the confidence that there's a form of checks and balances to Trump's off the cuff style. Once that goes, I'm not sure it's going to be pretty for everyone.

If there were a rift between them, then Trump would not, as he often does, visibly defer to Dr. Fauci for corroboration or denial. Trump trusts and values Fauci, and apparently Fauci at worst tolerates and at best respects Trump

 

[Lotta Booze]

I'm not sure we will ever know what is true and what is not. But in that article you posted, Dr. Fauci said there wasn't any substantive difference between them and that he thinks there's an intentional effort to create a rift between the two of them. Now that does NOT mean at the same time he doesn't think Trump is an idiot and speaks off the cuff too much (extreme apologies for my double and triple negatives). But there's a difference between a guy that is a poor public speaker and rambles and what-not and a guy that is intentionally spreading false information, which Dr. Fauci contends is not the case.

I watched that press conference where Fauci commented on he and Trump's approaches to the virus and think there's some context being left out in your interpretation. Yes, I believe he said something along the lines that they don't "fundamentally disagree" on how to approach the virus but he did draw a stark contrast between himself and the President that the President is approaching it as a lay person who is trying to provide hope and Fauci is approaching from a stance rooted in science. And as a scientist he could not say they have had "great effect" like the President was claiming.

Whether you think the President's promotion of these drugs crosses a line from providing hope to being reckless will likely be affected by whether you're a defender or disdainer of the orange man.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I watched that press conference where Fauci commented on he and Trump's approaches to the virus and think there's some context being left out in your interpretation. Yes, I believe he said something along the lines that they don't "fundamentally disagree" on how to approach the virus but he did draw a stark contrast between himself and the President that the President is approaching it as a lay person who is trying to provide hope and Fauci is approaching from a stance rooted in science. And as a scientist he could not say they have had "great effect" like the President was claiming.

Whether you think the President's promotion of these drugs crosses a line from providing hope to being reckless will likely be affected by whether you're a defender or disdainer of the orange man.

I think you're being very naive in assuming that any President would have any different kind of relationship with an actual expert, other than others might not be as blustery as Trump. Presidents are politicians, not doctors, so they are all ignorant when it comes to medical matters.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I watched that press conference where Fauci commented on he and Trump's approaches to the virus and think there's some context being left out in your interpretation. Yes, I believe he said something along the lines that they don't "fundamentally disagree" on how to approach the virus but he did draw a stark contrast between himself and the President that the President is approaching it as a lay person who is trying to provide hope and Fauci is approaching from a stance rooted in science. And as a scientist he could not say they have had "great effect" like the President was claiming.

Whether you think the President's promotion of these drugs crosses a line from providing hope to being reckless will likely be affected by whether you're a defender or disdainer of the orange man.

I agree with this, all the way down to the orange man except for the part about being reckless. Trump isn't advocating the spread of the medicine across the country. He's been pressing the FDA to be more aggressive in allowing trials to go forward. His justification is that its a drug that is well known and been around for a long time, so the side effects are known well. "What have we got to lose" is his non-scientific rhetorical question. My gut tells me we will find medicines and vaccines from other countries first, because our traditional FDA posture is so restrictive. Its well intentioned, but often too restrictive, as we learned during the testing fiasco we've faced. Then we'll be faced with the question, do we allow what other countries are doing to be done here? That's also traditionally been a No, until we do it ourselves.