Coronavirus

[kbM3]

Scenario 5 with 37 million infected in the US? We don't have 11% infected overall in the US. That's roughly the infection level of New York State, which is exceptionally high.

By the way, the mortality in New York City (including "probable deaths") is now over 0.25%. That's deaths per population, not per infected. I don't see the slightest explanation why actual NYC mortality should be higher than the average IFR.

On the flip side, Michael Osterholm (The director of CIDRAP, author and an infectious disease epidemiologist), said in one of his latest podcasts that between 5%-15% of the U.S. has been infected, so maybe IFR will come in at about 0.3%.
He’s one of the leading experts I’ve been listening to, since he did that first interview on Joe Rogan.

 

[GFernandes]

Regarding HCQ + Z pack.
My dad is a cardiologist as well, although I come from the moron-cave.
I saw mentioned here that there is a cardiologist on the forum concerned about HCQ? It’s bullshit.
What can cause arrhythmia is the Z Pack. Show me a proper study WITH control group saying otherwise.ill gladly get an experts opinion on it maximum by tomorrow when we go to the beach and enjoy life. They prescribe it to any bacterial respiratory disease since forever. And The probabilities are still so widely known and small that it’s normal that you give Z Pack to these respiratory patients and NOT even do a ECG scan. Why would that be?
I have no idea if it’s effective to treat CV19 but while talking to my dad about this matter he says it’s strange people are worrying about hearth related problems to something that’s so widely studied already.

 

[dfwatt]

On the flip side, Michael Osterholm (The director of CIDRAP, author and an infectious disease epidemiologist), said in one of his latest podcasts that between 5%-15% of the U.S. has been infected, so maybe IFR will come in at about 0.3%.
He’s one of the leading experts I’ve been listening to, since he did that first interview on Joe Rogan.

I was incredibly disappointed in his comments about masks. Like someone once reminded us just recently on this thread, bashing something because it's not perfect is the enemy of the good. He made a lot of negative comments about mask wearing not being protective, which I thought was bizarre coming from someone with his background. Yes it's important to understand that they don't offer you bulletproof protection particularly in terms of incoming virus, due to leakage around the borders and even through the material, but it's just bizarre to have a leading ID specialist who I'm sure has seen the data on the countries that have basically squashed this, where mask wearing was mandatory and where compliance was high. I'm sorry but that was just terrible mis-emphasis by Osterholm.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

Didn't someone say something like.
"Perfection, is the enemy of the good ?

Here we say “perfect is the enemy of good enough” but same idea.

 

[dfwatt]

On the flip side, Michael Osterholm (The director of CIDRAP, author and an infectious disease epidemiologist), said in one of his latest podcasts that between 5%-15% of the U.S. has been infected, so maybe IFR will come in at about 0.3%.
He’s one of the leading experts I’ve been listening to, since he did that first interview on Joe Rogan.

By the way that's a Delta of 300% so that's not exactly a helpful statement. Was he talking about the differences between various States? Because I'm sure there are states where the penetration is actually under 5% and then there's New York where it looks like it's probably at least overall 15%. And a fatality rate of 0.3% is roughly where New York City is right now with only partial infection penetration (20-25%) so that's wildly optimistic. If a quarter of New York City has been infected, that means infection fatality rate is likely 4 * 0.3%. If that's what he's saying I think that becomes part of concerning evidence that Osterholm is outside the lines of what the science really supports. And I say that with great caution because I'm sure he knows a boatload more about infectious disease than I do. Orders of magnitude more, but that's why his statements are concerning both about masks and now about IFR.

 

[renim]

Seems like a good chance they have no idea what they're doing or just made up their numbers. We’ll have to see if they ever publish their methodology.

Thr australian data set is kinda available. Coronavirus (COVID-19) current situation and case numbers

The individual bars give the actual numbers when you hover the cursor over them, so i had transposed fatality over infection case by age decile and gender.
For the australian context it became obvious that for the under 60 age bracket that the cfr and ifr are really low and not worth bothering about, so i stopped. For 70 and up its serious.

If i inverse the metric so its deaths per 1000 or deaths per 100,000. About half the categories are invalid (division by Zero).

So why the difference in potency, if the genetics of both the human and the virus and pretty similar between aus and uk/usa?

My guess is that australia has much lower initial dosing due to, less concentration of cases, better ventilation, more outdoor society.

 

[TEG]

Yes. And there is this amazing and constant discrediting of partial protection, just because it's not bulletprooof. Studies have shown that masks block a significant and perhaps variable fraction of outgoing virus, and perhaps a lesser percentage of incoming. But it's still blocking a lot of virus!! So why are people always looking a gift horse in the mouth? It's like my colleagues in AD research looking at the 60-70% reduction in downstream risk of AD from diet and exercise and complaining, "gee, that's not so impressive! We want 100% protection." LOL! Like a lot of things, perfection is in the mind, but not in the real world. For most of us, most of the time, it's shades of gray, or as I like to put it to students, residents and fellows "you're shaving points off something deadly - Take it and quit complaining!!"

Perfect is the enemy of good - Wikipedia

 

[RandomJohnny]

Regarding HCQ + Z pack.
My dad is a cardiologist as well, although I come from the moron-cave.
I saw mentioned here that there is a cardiologist on the forum concerned about HCQ? It’s bullshit.
What can cause arrhythmia is the Z Pack. Show me a proper study WITH control group saying otherwise.ill gladly get an experts opinion on it maximum by tomorrow when we go to the beach and enjoy life. They prescribe it to any bacterial respiratory disease since forever. And The probabilities are still so widely known and small that it’s normal that you give Z Pack to these respiratory patients and NOT even do a ECG scan. Why would that be?
I have no idea if it’s effective to treat CV19 but while talking to my dad about this matter he says it’s strange people are worrying about hearth related problems to something that’s so widely studied already.

Yup, obvious. How many z paks dispensed daily? How much HCQ dispensed daily? It is A LOT.

Whether HCQ is effective remains to be seen despite what the Big Pharma Trolls here say. Follow the money folks. Follow the money. This is not rocket science and it happens ALL THE TIME.

 

[ZeApelido]

Couldn't disagree with you more.

You're taking a broad brush and saying HCQ is bad period. The Lancet study shows that as it has been used in the past can produce net negative outcomes, but that doesn't mean that used properly with the right patients it cannot be a very positive treatment. Include zinc with the HCQ and only give to patients early enough in the disease progression for there to be time to knock down the viral counts and prevent the massive battle in the lungs. The NYU study shows enormous benefit of including zinc and also shows that for good results the treatment needs to begin before the patient is transferred to ICU.

View attachment 544225

Let's talk about this excerpt from Chart 4 of the NYU study. When HCQ+azithromycin+zinc was given to patients before ICU admission, 6.9% of patients either died or were moved to hospice. In contrast when zinc was excluded in that same scenario 13.2% of patients died or were moved to hospice. The .449 number gives the gains in preventing death that came from adding zinc when given before the patient reached the ICU.

Regarding the possible heart issues from HCQ, it really comes down to administering the treatment in a fashion that minimizes the risks and maximizes the benefits in order for the improved outcomes to significantly outweigh the risks of the treatment. As a patient becomes more severe with COVID19, the heart issues can become more apparent, both because of the patient's condition and other medications given that promote heart arrhythmia. This is a big part of the reason why the Lancet article showed negative results from HCQ. Given too late in the progression, the risks of the treatment clearly outweigh the benefits.

Why then give HCQ at all and take a risk? It's because for certain groups of at-risk patients, COVID19 can be a very deadly disease. You don't want to give the HCQ and zinc treatment to a young person who is not in an at risk group, but you may well be saving the patient's life by giving the treatment upon first indication of the disease when the patient is in an at risk group..

You say that you proved that the 44% improvement in fewer deaths is something you've already shown. I watched closely, and all you said was you have to use the study instead of the article. So, I read the NYU study and the chart 4 comes from that study. It backs up what the article says.

I ask you to show with data why this significant improvement really isn't an improvement. Don't descend to belittling the person with an opposing view. Keep this discussion professional. Thank you.

Do you have some vested interest in this or something? What is with the obsession?

 

[bkp_duke]

Yup, obvious. How many z paks dispensed daily? How much HCQ dispensed daily? It is A LOT.

Whether HCQ is effective remains to be seen despite what the Big Pharma Trolls here say. Follow the money folks. Follow the money. This is not rocket science and it happens ALL THE TIME.

@dfwatt - we have a candidate for moron spray 2.0.

I never knew a Fox News rep would stoop to trolling a Tesla forum. Things must be really bad over there.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Thr australian data set is kinda available. Coronavirus (COVID-19) current situation and case numbers

The individual bars give the actual numbers when you hover the cursor over them, so i had transposed fatality over infection case by age decile and gender.
For the australian context it became obvious that for the under 60 age bracket that the cfr and ifr are really low and not worth bothering about, so i stopped. For 70 and up its serious.

If i inverse the metric so its deaths per 1000 or deaths per 100,000. About half the categories are invalid (division by Zero).

So why the difference in potency, if the genetics of both the human and the virus and pretty similar between aus and uk/usa?

My guess is that australia has much lower initial dosing due to, less concentration of cases, better ventilation, more outdoor society.

I would guess that it is just as deadly to Australians as it is to Americans. We know that younger people without preexisting conditions are very unlikely to die from COVID-19. The majority of Australian cases are from travel (only 10% was from unknown contacts). Unhealthy people are much less likely to travel.
Anyway, the CDC numbers for over 65 are far less than the observed CFR in Australia where you likely caught a significant majority of cases (0.6% of PCR tests coming back positive is probably the lowest in the world).

 

[dfwatt]

@dfwatt - we have a candidate for moron spray 2.0.

I never knew a Fox News rep would stoop to trolling a Tesla forum. Things must be really bad over there.

I missed that one! Where is that on this thread? I wonder if I've got the author on ignore!

 

[Daniel in SD]

Follow the money folks. Follow the money.

Who the hell is making money off this debacle?
What's the theory? A worldwide conspiracy to make tens of billions dollars on a vaccine? How are they possibly going to pay everyone involved enough to make it pencil out?

 

[bkp_duke]

I missed that one! Where is that on this thread? I wonder if I've got the author on ignore!

I'm sure you do. As they are about to enter my extremely limited ignore list as well.


In other news, for those that ACTUALLY CARE about science:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764?query=featured_home
Remdesivir alone is not enough, researchers conclude in first major Covid-19 trial of the drug - CNN

This falls in line with what I said previously about Remdesivir about a month ago. It will help, but it is not ever going to be a "cure". All antivirals we have, with the exception of the Hepatitis C ones, show marginal activity against their target viruses.

It would be great if they were the same level of efficacy as antibiotics are against bacteria, but viruses are simply more evolved and diverse than bacteria. For antivirals, this is probably as good as we are going to get for COVID-19. Our focus and research dollars should continue to be for a vaccine.


EDIT - As a "paid pharma troll" I must not be very good at my job. You know, for pointing out that Remdesivir isn't the fountain of youth and all.

 

[renim]

....Anyway, the CDC numbers for over 65 are far less than the observed CFR in Australia where you likely caught a significant majority of cases (0.6% of PCR tests coming back positive is probably the lowest in the world).

 

[RandomJohnny]

Who the hell is making money off this debacle?
What's the theory? A worldwide conspiracy to make tens of billions dollars on a vaccine? How are they possibly going to pay everyone involved enough to make it pencil out?

Do you live on planet earth? Are you capable of doing any research on your own? You seem clueless about alot.

 

[bkp_duke]

Who the hell is making money off this debacle?
What's the theory? A worldwide conspiracy to make tens of billions dollars on a vaccine? How are they possibly going to pay everyone involved enough to make it pencil out?

Apparently not RandomDouche. That must be why he's so angry (or is it hangry because his favorite restaurants are closed?)

 

[bkp_duke]

Do you live on planet earth? Are you capable of doing any research on your own? You seem clueless about alot.

ROFL - this from Captain Clueless himself. Whatever douche. To the ignore bin for you.

 

[Doggydogworld]

On the flip side, Michael Osterholm (The director of CIDRAP, author and an infectious disease epidemiologist), said in one of his latest podcasts that between 5%-15% of the U.S. has been infected, so maybe IFR will come in at about 0.3%.
He’s one of the leading experts I’ve been listening to, since he did that first interview on Joe Rogan.

Osterholm is on TV/radio almost non-stop these days, not sure how much time he has for reading. I saw him say the White House was using the wrong kind of test - they should use a PCR test instead of the Abbott test, lol.

All evidence says 5% or less of the US has been infected. Serology studies outside of hotspots like NYC and Boston all come in under 5%, usually around 1-3%. The exception was a Miami study at 6% positive, but their test produced 10% false positives in the lab rendering the result useless.

 

[RandomJohnny]

Hell, you even have a cardiologist on this forum going WTF when HCQ is mentioned. Need I say more?

The anecdotes of anecdotes coming from none other than, you guessed. Talk about some proof. You said you were a Gilead shareholder...how many shares you got?