Coronavirus Thread

  • Thread starter Deleted member 2897
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
656
Most of what you said has already been debunked earlier in the thread. Yea, its a long thread.
It's just sad that so much media is putting out disinformation while others are saving lives and trying to get therapies approved.
Note - debunked means that of the studies i think your referencing have already been explained they were irrelevant due to either late application, lack of zinc, much larger dosage than the covid-19 dose, or in the VA case just scientific misconduct, so i'd request that you link your sources.Some of these just winnowed down what works and doesn't; which is as it should be. The Z-pack isn't for everyone,at least one other antibiotic that also works has been identified.

> the first french study was small
the mortality in the third French study (1061 patients) was 0.47%, and presently the IHU-Mediterrannee Infection is reporting 15 fatalities in 3181 patients treated for more than 3 days with HCQ/AZ, which is still a mortality rate of 0.47%.
Patients not treated with HCQ in other hospitals in the Mareille area: 128 deaths in 4763 cases. (2.7%)
Given the same proportion of fatalities as in the non-HCQ cohort one would have expected more than 85 deaths in the HCQ treated patients.
This is a highly significant difference, p < 0.0002. (not to mention 0 side effects over 1061 patients)
.
Ten comparative studies were identified involving 1,642 patients (965 patients treated witha 53chloroquine derivative) from fivecountries (Brazil, China, France, Iran, and USA) (Table S1).When considering all ten included studies (Figure 1, Table S2), chloroquine derivatives were associated with a lower need for hospitalisation (n = 1, Odds ratio (OR) 0.35, p = .024), shorter duration of cough (n = 1, OR 0.13, p = .001), shorter duration of fever (n = 1, OR 0.14, p = .001), decreased C-reactive protein level (n = 1, OR 0.55, p = .045), and increased hospital discharge (n = 1, 67OR 0.05, p =.050).
CQ derivatives were associated with a beneficial effect (OR < 1) for 11 of the 12 outcomes analysed (Figure 1). Of the comparisons made, 19 were favourable (Table S1).Accordingly, the two-sided sign-test p-value was 0.015. The fatality rate was analysed in two studies with an opposite direction of effect. The study reporting an increased fatality rate was suspected of scientific misconduct (patientsweresignificantly more severe in the treated group [7]). No significant negative effect was observed. https://www.mediterranee-infection....cy-of-Chloroquine-derivatives-in-COVID-19.pdf

>> 91.6 % success over 2333 patients )
an excellent idea rather than a bad one
Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients, States Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
To date, the total number of reported patients treated with HCQ, with or without zinc and the widely used antibiotic azithromycin, is 2,333, writes AAPS, in observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically. There were 63 deaths, all but 11 in a single retrospective report from the Veterans Administration where the patients were severely ill.The antiviral properties of these drugs have been studied since 2003. Particularly when combined with zinc, they hinder viral entry into cells and inhibit replication. They may also prevent overreaction by the immune system, which causes the cytokine storm responsible for much of the damage in severe cases, explains AAPS. HCQ is often very helpful in treating autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-90-percent-chance-helping-155637974.html
>> 5 studies?? here's a list of over 20 peer reviewed studies from AAPS

"Historical controls are used in many previous studies in medicine. In this respect, the safety of Hydroxychloroquine is well documented. When the safe use of this drug is projected against its apparent effect of decreasing the progression of early cases to ventilator use, it is difficult to understand the reluctance of the authorities in charge of U.S. pandemic management to recommend its use in early COVID-19 cases. "
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545C_dJWMIAgqeLEsfo2U8Kq5WprDuARXrJl6N1aDjY/edit
Sorry, I don't post here every day and then I got the post button out of reflex, but I couldn't let this one pass. This is the way pseudoscience takes advantage of the rigorous controls of real science, by shifting positions rapidly as a number of real studies come out. First it's chloroquines, then it's chloroquines and an antibiotic (despite that making no sense) and then it's chloroquines, an antibiotic, and zinc. Then it's only if you give it early in the course of disease. There's never an examination of the meaning of studies performed. If you are familiar with antivax claims about vaccines causing autism, you'll recognize the pattern.

Again, the French studies out of Marseilles are of extremely poor quality. They do not track severity at presentation, are open label, and are not randomized. That's enough to tell you that their error is unknowable, since they're using small groups with early infections and not tracking severity at admission could reasonably explain many times the differences in their findings, which amount to only a few dozen patients.

The antivax thing is relevant, because the AAPS is a society of ultra-right cranks with no credibility. Their "Journal" has in the past published claims that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that vaccinations are a net public health harm, and that there is no over prescription of opioids. They also defended Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction in court as medically reasonable.

If you look at that Google doc, you'll find many items that arent studies at all, and then more that aren't peer reviewed, and then more that are in vitro investigations. They also claim to perform a meta-analysis of ten studies (which causes it's own issues) but when you examine their results all the n=1 raise some major red flags.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,048
Most of what you're saying is basic mathematical truth. Both numbers contain type I and type II errors of multiple sources. That's a near certainty.

It would be nice to be able to quantify that error and either name it or correct for it in both, but we can't. So while the error may be different, naming raw data vs raw data is far less misleading than publishing raw data vs corrected data.

And while we're just posting opinions in the dark at this level, I suspect you severely underestimate how seriously physicians take influenza in normal times as well as severely underestimating the effect of testing shortages in creating type I errors.

The CDC says that the information listed on death certificates regarding flu is not accurate. It isn't me saying that. The CDC website specifically says that "It has been recognized for many years that influenza is underreported on death certificates". Currently the deaths listed for COVID-19 are based on known and suspected cases of COVID-19. The raw data for flu is missing many cases where a person is elderly and either isn't tested for flu or is tested too late for the test to indicate flu. That is according to the CDC. Currently, the raw data for COVID-19 includes cases in which testing hasn't been done. The death toll for COVID-19 includes deaths that are suspected to be related to COVID-19.

As I stated before, I am not stating that flu is worse than COVID-19. I am simply pointing out that there are serious issues with using death certificates as an apples to apples comparison. There are also issues with using reported COVID-19 deaths vs estimated flu deaths. Neither of those is an apples to apples comparison. Since there are so many unknowns in each statistic, I don't see how you can arrive at a conclusion that one method of comparison is better than another method of comparison. How can anyone say that this number that I don't know vs that number that I don't know is better than this other number that I don't know vs that other number that I don't know. If the statistics were reliable, it would be easy to determine just from mathematics. The statistics are not reliable. Trust in one of the unreliable comparisons seems to be split by a partisan line.
 

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
656
The CDC says that the information listed on death certificates regarding flu is not accurate. It isn't me saying that. The CDC website specifically says that "It has been recognized for many years that influenza is underreported on death certificates". Currently the deaths listed for COVID-19 are based on known and suspected cases of COVID-19. The raw data for flu is missing many cases where a person is elderly and either isn't tested for flu or is tested too late for the test to indicate flu. That is according to the CDC. Currently, the raw data for COVID-19 includes cases in which testing hasn't been done. The death toll for COVID-19 includes deaths that are suspected to be related to COVID-19.

As I stated before, I am not stating that flu is worse than COVID-19. I am simply pointing out that there are serious issues with using death certificates as an apples to apples comparison. There are also issues with using reported COVID-19 deaths vs estimated flu deaths. Neither of those is an apples to apples comparison. Since there are so many unknowns in each statistic, I don't see how you can arrive at a conclusion that one method of comparison is better than another method of comparison. How can anyone say that this number that I don't know vs that number that I don't know is better than this other number that I don't know vs that other number that I don't know. If the statistics were reliable, it would be easy to determine just from mathematics. The statistics are not reliable. Trust in one of the unreliable comparisons seems to be split by a partisan line.

Yeah I definitely agree with the CDC. It's a major source of type I error.

Your last sentence really nails it. I don't understand how anyone can look at these things and think "ok, this is definitely what it is."
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Looking at the different countries, can someone go ask Germany what they are doing differently. Their death rate is low, their recovered rate is very high and they look to be truly flattening the curve.

Our obesity rate is about double theirs. I don't know how they compare to the rest of Europe, when they started social distancing, etc. But its an ironically interesting stat since our death rate is about double theirs.
 

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
Our obesity rate is about double theirs. I don't know how they compare to the rest of Europe, when they started social distancing, etc. But its an ironically interesting stat since our death rate is about double theirs.
If "obese" is fragile, then 44% may well be a low number.
Maybe we need to change the terminology to skinnying the curve because Americans are too fat headed to figure this out?

I thought it was morbidly obese that was at risk, not just obese. Neither one is favorable but there is a difference between the two.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,758
I was wrong. It's only 90 million people. See:

https://www.kff.org/global-health-p...serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/

That means roughly 41 million people in the active population. Still enough to be, shall we say, concerned about.

It's a complicated issue. I thought it was a no-brainer until I read this article:

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/obesity-covid-19

Overall probably a negative, but in some cases, higher weight may even protect against complications of COVID-19
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
That’s still a lot, still an insane number. Our country needs a better diet (Note: not a diet, that does not work)

Well and we need to pay attention to the qualifier in that article. It says only that many people have a 'higher risk of developing serious illness if they become infected with the virus'. If you look at the actual data of what percentage of deaths they account for instead of just a theoretical risk, about 90% of deaths are over the age of 55. About 95% of deaths are over the age of 45. 90% of the workforce is under the age of 55 (if I remember what I looked up last week). So there's your cross section - if people who don't have severe pre-existing health conditions and those under the age of 55 go back to work, the odds of them dying are exceedingly small. Plus, again you can wear masks, gloves, social distance, use hand sanitizer, frequently wash your hands, and don't touch your face so you don't even pick it up in the first place. In Charleston County SC we have 500,000 residents. We had just as many people killed by alligators last week in the county than we did COVID-19.
 

GTRX7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,524
Location
Atlanta
If they have been wrong at times, imagine the likelihood that you are as well---and the shoe would be on the other foot for them at your place of work. Plus, "they" ARE recommending moving forward. I wasn't suggesting by pointing out the many nuances that we "sit still until we've covered every possible scenario there is". Neither is Fauci etal.
Imo, zero sum is far too simplistic when it comes to economic harm vs unecessarily harming the vulnerable---and this from someone who believes both choices are very real and very damaging. Further more, the notion of the elderly are gonna die soon anyway, is pathetically stupid (not stoopid, but downright stupid).

It also must be realized that the virus was going to cause a huge economic impact whether the government ordered shut downs or not. It is extremely wrong to assume that the economy would have just kept going as normal had we not enforced shutdowns. Apart from the many more deaths that would have been caused by not shutting down, it must be understood that the virus itself would still have caused hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people to get sick, a good percent of those to the point of hospitalization. While it is true that those over 65 are most likely to get sick, that is not always true, and HUGE portion of the active work force has gotten sick and would have had to miss time at their jobs anyway (in fact, many many more if there was no shutdown). That was always going to have a huge impact on our economy. I don't think these numbers are truly representative, but a recent CDC survey of 8 Georgia hospitals found that over 60% of hospitalizations were in people aged under 65, with 25% of hospitalizations coming from those who had no pre-existing high risk condition. LINK Employee sickness alone would have still forced many small businesses to close, and without the small business loans and checks.

Not only that, but whether the government officially "ordered" a shut down or not, a huge segment of the population was also always going to guard their disposable income and refrain from personally visiting non-essential businesses. A huge percentage and often times majority of individuals say they will still refrain from reengaging in the economy even if states lift all lockdown restrictions. LINK

No doubt it has been an extremely complex matter to try to balance all of the competing factors. But, quite simply, it is simplistic and silly to assume that the country would not have suffered extreme economic impact even had the government done nothing to "order" lockdown restrictions.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,150
Perhaps you could quote exactly what section of my comment you are replying to, because I can't seem to see what you are responding to for the "millionth time"? From my perspective, you introduce something from one part of my comment, set up a different argument from another, and then answer from possibly a third?



Can you be more specific as to which number(s) have to do with your point with respect to federal government, state government, powers, and their relationship to "getting people to behave" during an epidemic? I'm not seeing how Article I, Section 8 has to deal with "federal government's main role - as in this crisis".


I'm getting rather confused, since I don't believe I've made such arguments. Can you quote where I said such? Also, I don't know why you keep making vague declarations that seem to get broader and broader when most of my input/questions are trying to narrow down to specific elements of your statements for clarity or references to original authority.
I took it as read that you had read Jacobson. All the answers to your questions are right there in Justice Harlan's opinion. Here'e the link:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

Read him again.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,594
What is truly obtuse, is not understanding that Fauci and many others like him, that actually know a LOT more than you or I about this, ARE actually suggesting that reopening is possible, but with a speed control. Another sign of obtuseness, is assuming someone is ignoring the harm done to the economy. This is the prob with msg brds, if you knew me, you would understand that I not only understand such, but that I believe it's very real. Many shades of grey = economic pain, unnecessary deaths of elders, National security, etc. etc. etc. Z
I am glad to hear that you do understand the shades of grey. And yes, I also understand Fauci is measured in his recommendations, as he should be. I think it sounds like we both realize the neither a complete shutdown nor a complete re-opening is appropriate at this juncture.

That's a good thing!
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,594
Last figures I saw on the "inactive population" and those who are in the medically fragile group came out to around 145M people. The answer to this isn't to take risks with these people. It's to write laws that provide the funds the less threatened need.

But that's too easy and makes too much sense.
Wow, that's a huge number....any chance it is being over-stated?
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,594
Last figures I saw on the "inactive population" and those who are in the medically fragile group came out to around 145M people. The answer to this isn't to take risks with these people. It's to write laws that provide the funds the less threatened need.

But that's too easy and makes too much sense.
Is it possible that the other reason is that to raise taxes to cover that type of support is too expensive?

It is a difficult area we are sliding into...a slippery slope, as they say. At what point should people be responsible for their own poor choices on issues such as diet, exercise, smoking, etc? Should the rest of society ALWAYS be required to pay their medical expenses?
 

GTRX7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,524
Location
Atlanta
It also must be realized that the virus was going to cause a huge economic impact whether the government ordered shut downs or not. It is extremely wrong to assume that the economy would have just kept going as normal had we not enforced shutdowns. Apart from the many more deaths that would have been caused by not shutting down, it must be understood that the virus itself would still have caused hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people to get sick, a good percent of those to the point of hospitalization. While it is true that those over 65 are most likely to get sick, that is not always true, and HUGE portion of the active work force has gotten sick and would have had to miss time at their jobs anyway (in fact, many many more if there was no shutdown). That was always going to have a huge impact on our economy. I don't think these numbers are truly representative, but a recent CDC survey of 8 Georgia hospitals found that over 60% of hospitalizations were in people aged under 65, with 25% of hospitalizations coming from those who had no pre-existing high risk condition. LINK Employee sickness alone would have still forced many small businesses to close, and without the small business loans and checks.

Not only that, but whether the government officially "ordered" a shut down or not, a huge segment of the population was also always going to guard their disposable income and refrain from personally visiting non-essential businesses. A huge percentage and often times majority of individuals say they will still refrain from reengaging in the economy even if states lift all lockdown restrictions. LINK

No doubt it has been an extremely complex matter to try to balance all of the competing factors. But, quite simply, it is simplistic and silly to assume that the country would not have suffered extreme economic impact even had the government done nothing to "order" lockdown restrictions.

As a follow-up on my post above, I haven't done any independent analysis or deep dive of this article, but a recent article (LINK) concludes that COVID's economic impact on Sweden has been just as bad as its neighbors, despite having some of the loosest formal government restrictions (and a death rate of 4 to 6 times higher than their neighbors). I would honestly be surprised if this article is totally accurate (I would have expected Sweden's economy to be fairing at least somewhat better), but it does emphasize the idea I made above that it is silly to think that the lockdown caused our economic problems and that our economy would have been fine had the government simply not imposed those restrictions.
 

gthxxxx

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
150
I took it as read that you had read Jacobson. All the answers to your questions are right there in Justice Harlan's opinion. Here'e the link:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

Read him again.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? One of my questions/observations was regarding a contradiction (in my view) within a paragraph of the written opinion in Jacobson's case, so how would rereading it contain "all the answers to [my] questions"? Moreover, what's the point of offering the link when I provided the exact text in one of my previous replies? Just to play along on this one thread, here is the text again, with the contradictory parts bolded:

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by -an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of. the State. If such be the privilege of a minority then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be' an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the National Government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take; and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.
It can be taken from the text that:

1) there exists rights secured by the Federal Constitution
2) the court guards those rights
3) the legislation does not invade these rights

Meanwhile, at the same time:

4) the court is unwilling to secure that right when that it allows a minority to dominate the majority

Do you see how (1)-(3) clash with (4)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top