Coronavirus Thread

[GoldZ]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

So, if uNC, had never started on-line courses for jocks, would they have ever been found guilty of not having done anything useful at all, in educating jocks via on-line courses. :>/

 

[GoldZ]

Very interesting change of opinion by WHO ---

https://www.newswars.com/who-flip-flops-now-endorses-swedens-no-lockdown-policy/

Dr. Mike Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, pointed out that Sweden’s healthcare system has not been overwhelmed and that their government was right to trust their people to self-regulate.
Ryan now says that Sweden’s approach should be a “model” for other countries as they begin to ease lockdowns.
“There are lessons to be learnt by our colleagues in Sweden,” said Ryan.

https://www.aei.org/economics/inter...-the-case-for-reopening-the-american-economy/

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

https://www.aei.org/economics/inter...-the-case-for-reopening-the-american-economy/

That article is almost a month old. We know a lot more relevant information now than we did then.

 

[GoldZ]

That article is almost a month old. We know a lot more relevant information now than we did then.

True enuf. The more current data still points to a near 11% death rate-not good, but as usual there's the lack of testing issue. The main takeaway of the 3 week old article is imo---Sweden vs US = apples to oranges, for many reasons/facts.

 

[GoldZ]

Not so sure about the source, but this appears to be a balanced view of the reopening results to date.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/759445/coronavirus-cases-spike-germany-japan-china-lockdown/

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

True enuf. The more current data still points to a near 11% death rate-not good, but as usual there's the lack of testing issue. The main takeaway of the 3 week old article is imo---Sweden vs US = apples to oranges, for many reasons/facts.

No one has a true 11% death rate. limited testing only makes it look that way. The key take away here is their hospital system was not overloaded. Where they really screwed up was the way they handled their nursing homes. Had they actually protected them and still kept their country open the death rate would have been much lower

 

[IEEEWreck]

There has apparently been sufficient peer-reviewed analysis in the ongoing research and trials in France.

I know a bit about this because I have a family member who is a hospitalist in Philly. There's five peer reviewed studies on the subject, two of which show a small positive effect and three of which fail to exclude the null hypothesis. Four studies were aborted recently because of harm to participants.

She says using chloroquines is a really bad idea, especially with azithromycin because both elongate the QT interval. In a patient whose heart is already under a lot of stress you'd be asking for an arrythmia.

 

[LibertyTurns]

If people on a GT board are confused as to data one way or the other just think about what the average Joe is going thru trying to figure out what info is good and which is bad.

A old political tactic is get your info out there first. It may be wrong but by the time anyone figures it out it’s too late and the folks on the other side have to waste a lot of energy trying to contradict it. You win.

 

[IEEEWreck]

It seems like there's a lot of misinformation going around about statistics.

No one has a true 11% death rate. limited testing only makes it look that way. The key take away here is their hospital system was not overloaded. Where they really screwed up was the way they handled their nursing homes. Had they actually protected them and still kept their country open the death rate would have been much lower

How do you protect nursing homes in a country that's open?

You're right about the case mortality to population mortality rate problem, but it's a bit more complicated than that. We would also be increasing the total deaths based on data for unreported deaths. We don't do that because there is no hard data to base that on.

Working the other way, to compare apples to apples, if we counted flu deaths the way we count CoViD deaths the worst flu in the last decade killed 15,000 people:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...u-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

 

[RonJohn]

Working the other way, to compare apples to apples, if we counted flu deaths the way we count CoViD deaths the worst flu in the last decade killed 15,000 people:

But, if flu deaths were reported on death certificates the same way COVID-19 deaths are, then the actual number of flu deaths reported would probably be higher and somewhere in the estimated range. The CDC calculates an estimated range because they know that flu isn't listed on death certificates for every person who has flu like symptoms and dies. With COVID-19, people who likely had the virus have it listed on their death certificates. It is possible that there are some deaths in March that were because of flu but are counted as COVID-19. It is also possible that there are some deaths before March that were because of COVID-19 but are counted as flu. There isn't a way to change COVID-19 death certificates to include all who died from COVID-19 and none who didn't. There also isn't a way to change flu related death certificates to include only those who died from the flu and none who didn't.

To be clear, I am not saying that COVID-19 isn't worse than the flu. I am saying that there isn't data publicly available to make an "apples to apples" comparison. Anyone can take the available data and make it say anything they want it to say.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I know a bit about this because I have a family member who is a hospitalist in Philly. There's five peer reviewed studies on the subject, two of which show a small positive effect and three of which fail to exclude the null hypothesis. Four studies were aborted recently because of harm to participants.

She says using chloroquines is a really bad idea, especially with azithromycin because both elongate the QT interval. In a patient whose heart is already under a lot of stress you'd be asking for an arrythmia.

I’d have to look it up but approx 2 months ago researchers warned against using HCQ on people with heart issues and in later stages of the virus AND they mentioned what to combine it with, etc that seems to produce more favorable outcomes. The fact we’re just now learning what a bunch of Frenchmen already knew a couple of months ago is disturbing and reflects poorly on our country’s doctors, research facilities and our medical system in general. It’s why you don’t do to a medical system what we’ve done to ours. You pay a lot more money to get much worse care for a lot more people.

 

[GTRX7]

Georgia just had 4 days in a row of some of its highest deaths per day. Since this is a trailing indicator, who knows exactly what that means, but it certainly doesn't bode well.

 

[IEEEWreck]

But, if flu deaths were reported on death certificates the same way COVID-19 deaths are, then the actual number of flu deaths reported would probably be higher and somewhere in the estimated range. The CDC calculates an estimated range because they know that flu isn't listed on death certificates for every person who has flu like symptoms and dies. With COVID-19, people who likely had the virus have it listed on their death certificates. It is possible that there are some deaths in March that were because of flu but are counted as COVID-19. It is also possible that there are some deaths before March that were because of COVID-19 but are counted as flu. There isn't a way to change COVID-19 death certificates to include all who died from COVID-19 and none who didn't. There also isn't a way to change flu related death certificates to include only those who died from the flu and none who didn't.

To be clear, I am not saying that COVID-19 isn't worse than the flu. I am saying that there isn't data publicly available to make an "apples to apples" comparison. Anyone can take the available data and make it say anything they want it to say.

I'm not sure what you mean. Everyone who has been diagnosed with influenza and dies of it has it listed on their death certificate. Usually something like congestive heart failure secondary to influenza.

I suppose it's possible that there's more testing of CoViD than influenza in hospitals, but 6x the identified deaths for Influenza and zero unidentified deaths from CoViD seems statistically unlikely.

 

[IEEEWreck]

I’d have to look it up but approx 2 months ago researchers warned against using HCQ on people with heart issues and in later stages of the virus AND they mentioned what to combine it with, etc that seems to produce more favorable outcomes. The fact we’re just now learning what a bunch of Frenchmen already knew a couple of months ago is disturbing and reflects poorly on our country’s doctors, research facilities and our medical system in general. It’s why you don’t do to a medical system what we’ve done to ours. You pay a lot more money to get much worse care for a lot more people.

You should look it up. That french study was terrible. Tiny sample size, no control group, no randomization, no attempt to account for severity at presentation. I understand why some people WANT chloroquines to work. They are widely available and cheap to make. Especially in comparison to the other antivirals that have potential in treating CoViD. But you don't treat patients on wishes just like you can't power an engine on wishes.

Evidence based medicine protects us all. Remember how the FDA's insistence on evidence saved American babies from Thalidomide.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

It seems like there's a lot of misinformation going around about statistics.


How do you protect nursing homes in a country that's open?

You're right about the case mortality to population mortality rate problem, but it's a bit more complicated than that. We would also be increasing the total deaths based on data for unreported deaths. We don't do that because there is no hard data to base that on.

Working the other way, to compare apples to apples, if we counted flu deaths the way we count CoViD deaths the worst flu in the last decade killed 15,000 people:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...u-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

For starters make the vistitors and care givers wear masks and other PPE equipement. Provide some PPE for those at risk as well. Using the word "open" is misleading. They specifically said they wanted to and said they would protect those are risk while staying "open", but then failed to do so.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I know a bit about this because I have a family member who is a hospitalist in Philly. There's five peer reviewed studies on the subject, two of which show a small positive effect and three of which fail to exclude the null hypothesis. Four studies were aborted recently because of harm to participants.

She says using chloroquines is a really bad idea, especially with azithromycin because both elongate the QT interval. In a patient whose heart is already under a lot of stress you'd be asking for an arrythmia.

So you don't give it to patients with pre-existing heart problems. The medicine has been used in small does for decades. I have taken it on 3 occasions for visits to countries with known malaria problems, and I didn't suffer any side effects at all, as has also been the case with millions of others who have used it, both for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Now whether it actually helps in the treatment of Covid is yet to be fully determined, but the fact is that it has apparently helped in some cases. There is no reason whatsoever to cancel or demean studies of it.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You should look it up. That french study was terrible. Tiny sample size, no control group, no randomization, no attempt to account for severity at presentation. I understand why some people WANT chloroquines to work. They are widely available and cheap to make. Especially in comparison to the other antivirals that have potential in treating CoViD. But you don't treat patients on wishes just like you can't power an engine on wishes.

Evidence based medicine protects us all. Remember how the FDA's insistence on evidence saved American babies from Thalidomide.

I have not read those complaints about what has been done in France, but that description certainly applies to the absurd study the VA did, in which they didn't even record the dosages used, and 3 of the physicians doing the study were (IIRC) ophthalmologists.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Georgia just had 4 days in a row of some of its highest deaths per day. Since this is a trailing indicator, who knows exactly what that means, but it certainly doesn't bode well.

I think it is only going to get worse as well. The hopsitalization rate went from about 2,800 to 3,000 2 weeks ago to 5,100 today. Deaths are a significant trailing indicator on the infection rate though

 

[IEEEWreck]

So you don't give it to patients with pre-existing heart problems. The medicine has been used in small does for decades. I have taken it on 3 occasions for visits to countries with known malaria problems, and I didn't suffer any side effects at all, as has also been the case with millions of others who have used it, both for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Now whether it actually helps in the treatment of Covid is yet to be fully determined, but the fact is that it has apparently helped in some cases. There is no reason whatsoever to cancel or demean studies of it.

I wish it were that simple. But the problem isn't just preexisting heart disease. The virus itself creates a crisis that's a big stressor on the heart and lungs both. You can't just not use it on the worst patients because CoViD tends to worsen very quickly and you have no time to stop treatment before the cardiac toxicity is suddenly enough combined with the crisis to kill the patient.

FWIW, I also have taken it for travel, at a much lower dose than used for treating malaria. I also like a good quinine filled tonic water with my gin. The highest studied dosage before CoViD is a fifth of what in vitro studies suggest is the minimum concentration to fight CoViD.

Well designed studies that treat at those concentrations had to be stopped because they were killing patients:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v2

I have not read those complaints about what has been done in France, but that description certainly applies to the absurd study the VA did, in which they didn't even record the dosages used, and 3 of the physicians doing the study were (IIRC) ophthalmologists.

Maybe you're thinking of the original work done in Wuhan that the Wuhan government tried to supress? It's certainly a retrospective study, but right now all the published studies are low quality.

So we don't know anything with certainty, but that's the price of skepticism and science. But it's also not true to say there are no risks.

 

[GoldZ]

No one has a true 11% death rate. limited testing only makes it look that way. The key take away here is their hospital system was not overloaded. Where they really screwed up was the way they handled their nursing homes. Had they actually protected them and still kept their country open the death rate would have been much lower

The US has a nursing home issue as well, that has contributed a ton to our nos.