Jump to content

Co-vid 19: What Is and Isn't Known, Discussion and Debate


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Utah hit its lowest reported COVID cases in two months today, at 263.  See KSL.

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Deaths up.  Positive cases down.  We have been seeing the delayed deaths from the lase spike I promised would come.  At the time, our positive case numbers were high, but deaths were low.  People were saying that it is becoming less deadly.   I said "wait".  Now we are seeing the opposite - positive cases are low and deaths are high.  

These numbers are not likely indicative of actual cases, but are likely  a reflection of low testing rates.  Positive percentage rates and community spread are too high for these low of numbers.

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm seeing a pattern here.  Most of those people who died were either in a hospital or a long-term care facility when they died.

We need to keep people out of those places!!!

 

Agree! Too bad my 91 year old MIL moved out of her home into a retirement apartment facility where all the rooms are in one building. She can't leave, or she can, but would have to quarantine in her room for several days. We recently had a small family reunion with just her children and spouses, and she felt it better if she didn't join us, she didn't want to be stuck in her room and miss Bingo, I'm thinking. I worry about her all of the time. 

Link to post
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Deaths up.  Positive cases down. 

Is "deaths up" somewhat attributable to sampling?  From the New York Times:

lpAdapA.jpg

The "bars" represent the daily fatality count, and the "line" represents a 7-day average.  It looks like the last month has substantial day-to-day fluctuations, but overall seems to be about 4-5 per day.  Am I reading this correctly?

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

We have been seeing the delayed deaths from the lase spike I promised would come.  At the time, our positive case numbers were high, but deaths were low.  People were saying that it is becoming less deadly.   I said "wait".  Now we are seeing the opposite - positive cases are low and deaths are high.  

Why are we seeing low "positive cases?"  

Also, by "positive cases are low" are you referring to raw daily counts, or percentages?

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

These numbers are not likely indicative of actual cases, but are likely a reflection of low testing rates. 

It seems odd for KSL to publish specific daily figures of positive cases, which can fluctuate up or down based on the number of people being tested.  It also seems strange that Gov. Herbert has set a number (500/day by August 1, 400 per day by September 1), which again is contingent on how many people are tested.

"The rolling seven-day average for the positive test rate per day is now 8.9%," and the overall positive test rate is "7.7%."  I think we should focus on these figures, and also on the fatality rate, hospitalization rate, and ICU beds rate.

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Positive percentage rates and community spread are too high for these low of numbers.

From Utah's COVID website:

4u9M2a1.jpg

It looks like the percentage of positive tests is fluctuating, but is down overall from late June and July.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Agree! Too bad my 91 year old MIL moved out of her home into a retirement apartment facility where all the rooms are in one building. She can't leave, or she can, but would have to quarantine in her room for several days. We recently had a small family reunion with just her children and spouses, and she felt it better if she didn't join us, she didn't want to be stuck in her room and miss Bingo, I'm thinking. I worry about her all of the time. 

I'm game for breaking her out of that place if you are.  We would just need to figure out where to take her.  A nice comfy place with a bed, in some family member's home, I am thinking.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm game for breaking her out of that place if you are.  We would just need to figure out where to take her.  A nice comfy place with a bed, in some family member's home, I am thinking.

I keep bringing this up with my husband, wishing so much one of her daughters will move her in. But I keep getting the same answer, no, she likes where she is. But honestly, I don't think so. Her daughters live a few hours away, but they've not mentioned taking her. I guess I could huh!?! But my husband seems to think she's fine to stay there. It's not a nursing home, but very close to it! Added: Also, when I bring it up, my husband says, "Then it's her time to go." It seems to be the sentiment among his siblings as well. My MIL, entered this place like a couple of months before covid hit. She really enjoyed all the activities, but it's narrowed down to Bingo. They even have to eat in their rooms. She's in great shape, minus having macular degeneration, but she's definitely going blind. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post

I read an article written by a reporter that is trying to understand why people are so defiant about not wearing a mask.  Trying to understand those that are resisting may be helpful in understanding their reasons for resisting.  To be honest, most of those reasons are illogical, conspiratorial, paranoid based and certainly not based on science.  But it was an interesting read.  Here is the link.

A few of the reasons why people give for refusing to wear a mask:

Quote

“I don’t want to be responsible for killing anybody,” Gina, the Pennsylvania real estate agent, told me, though she still insisted the virus is overblown. “If the cases weren’t reported on anymore and talked about, coronavirus would be gone.”

Quote

“There’s definitely some sort of an agenda here to initiate control upon the people and to make people more obedient and compliant, and see which people are going to comply with some directives,” he said.

Quote

During our discussion, he initially claimed police would be going into businesses and homes, checking to see whether people were wearing a mask. When I asked for evidence, he referenced an ordinance against gatherings of more than 10 people — not masks — but claimed they were “part and parcel” of the same issue. When I asked Sabatini whether he personally wears a mask, his initial response was, “Where? In my bed?” I clarified: when he goes out, like to the grocery store. Sabatini, who is 31, told me he doesn’t go to the grocery store because he’s “too busy” and “a millennial,” and therefore eats out all the time. He conceded he sometimes goes to the grocery store, so when I asked whether he wears a mask there, he insisted I name which specific store.

Quote

He believes masks are a step in “getting people into compliance so that they can make vaccines mandatory as well.” His theory: “Soon it will be, ‘take the vaccine,’ or you can’t travel, shop, etc.” Or worse, he said, digital IDs or “health care passports.”

Quote

 

And here are some of his conclusions:

 

Quote

 

So how do you break through? As enticing as it may be for some people to shame and attack people who won’t wear a mask, it’s probably not the answer.

“One of the challenges is that you need to bring people to your side without saying, ‘You’re stupid,’ because when it’s, ‘You’re stupid,’ it’s very hard to convince someone,” said Sanderson, who’s also the author of Why We Act: Turning Bystanders Into Moral Rebels, a book about social norms.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I keep bringing this up with my husband, wishing so much one of her daughters will move her in. But I keep getting the same answer, no, she likes where she is. But honestly, I don't think so. Her daughters live a few hours away, but they've not mentioned taking her. I guess I could huh!?! But my husband seems to think she's fine to stay there. It's not a nursing home, but very close to it! 

Do you have the same MIL that pogi does?  Actually I think you should check with her first to see if she wants to move in with you, or one of her daughters.  But I would only ask her if you were okay with her moving in with you, or one of them.  And it would probably be best if one of her daughters asked her, themselves, instead of you asking for them.  And again only if they were okay with her moving in with them or with one of them.

My wife and I actually took it upon ourselves to ask one of our sons if he would be okay with us moving in with him.  He had been sharing a house with his brother, also our son, but that son recently got married and bought another house and for a while was trying to keep up with the mortgage payments on both houses before getting to the point where it was becoming very difficult financially keeping up with all that, so that son asked us if there was something we could do to help out.  My wife and I had already had a strong feeling that was likely going to happen, and we had a pretty good idea of what we could do to help out, so we have that in the works now. My wife and I will be selling our dream house in the country sometime soon and then moving in with our single son while giving some money to our married son and his wife for their equity in that house. Both sons are physically disabled and the single son can't afford to make the mortgage payment on his own, or keep up with the house, so we'll be doing what is best for everybody involved.  Our married son's house is only a few houses away from the single son's house and our married son and his wife are expecting a baby girl, our first grandchild, sometime around Christmas.  So even though I will miss our dream home in the country, which I have loved for about 14 years, we're ready for some more good times ahead.

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is "deaths up" somewhat attributable to sampling?  From the New York Times:

lpAdapA.jpg

The "bars" represent the daily fatality count, and the "line" represents a 7-day average.  It looks like the last month has substantial day-to-day fluctuations, but overall seems to be about 4-5 per day.  Am I reading this correctly?

Why are we seeing low "positive cases?"  

Also, by "positive cases are low" are you referring to raw daily counts, or percentages?

It seems odd for KSL to publish specific daily figures of positive cases, which can fluctuate up or down based on the number of people being tested.  It also seems strange that Gov. Herbert has set a number (500/day by August 1, 400 per day by September 1), which again is contingent on how many people are tested.

"The rolling seven-day average for the positive test rate per day is now 8.9%," and the overall positive test rate is "7.7%."  I think we should focus on these figures, and also on the fatality rate, hospitalization rate, and ICU beds rate.

From Utah's COVID website:

4u9M2a1.jpg

It looks like the percentage of positive tests is fluctuating, but is down overall from late June and July.

Thanks,

-Smac

Deaths are definitely up from late June early July, when people on here were celebrating the low death rate at 1-2/day on average despite the spike in positive cases.   You can clearly see a delayed spike in deaths which corresponds with the spike in cases earlier.  

Quote

Why are we seeing low "positive cases?"  

Why are positive cases low?  Anybodies guess.  My guess is that it is associated with the decrease in testing and not necessarily associate with fewer positive cases. 

Quote

Also, by "positive cases are low" are you referring to raw daily counts, or percentages?

Yes, I am referring to raw daily counts. 

Quote

It seems odd for KSL to publish specific daily figures of positive cases, which can fluctuate up or down based on the number of people being tested.  It also seems strange that Gov. Herbert has set a number (500/day by August 1, 400 per day by September 1), which again is contingent on how many people are tested.

I agree that these numbers are contingent (to an extent) upon how many people are tested, but they are the only actual accounting of confirmed cases that we have to go off of.

Quote

 "The rolling seven-day average for the positive test rate per day is now 8.9%," and the overall positive test rate is "7.7%."  I think we should focus on these figures, and also on the fatality rate, hospitalization rate, and ICU beds rate.

 These numbers are definitely helpful in the big picture.  

Quote

It looks like the percentage of positive tests is fluctuating, but is down overall from late June and July

It is hard to tell from this graph.  There is a better one here (sorry, can't seem to copy it.  Click on the "Trends" tab and scroll down to the "Laboratory Testing Trends" graph and look at the orange line).  It does appear that there is a very subtle downward trend.  It looks more like a plateau from the earlier spike than an appreciable downward trend to me.  But fingers are crossed that it continues to go down for some inexplicable reason.  Of course, there will be a huge spike here shortly when school starts.  It's gonna get ugly, I think. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you have the same MIL that pogi does?  Actually I think you should check with her first to see if she wants to move in with you, or one of her daughters.  But I would only ask her if you were okay with her moving in with you, or one of them.  And it would probably be best if one of her daughters asked her, themselves, instead of you asking for them.  And again only if they were okay with her moving in with them or with one of them.

My wife and I actually took it upon ourselves to ask one of our sons if he would be okay with us moving in with him.  He had been sharing a house with his brother, also our son, but that son recently got married and bought another house and for a while was trying to keep up with the mortgage payments on both houses before getting to the point where it was becoming very difficult financially keeping up with all that, so that son asked us if there was something we could do to help out.  My wife and I had already had a strong feeling that was likely going to happen, and we had a pretty good idea of what we could do to help out, so we have that in the works now. My wife and I will be selling our dream house in the country sometime soon and then moving in with our single son while giving some money to our married son and his wife for their equity in that house. Both sons are physically disabled and the single son can't afford to make the mortgage payment on his own, or keep up with the house, so we'll be doing what is best for everybody involved.  Our married son's house is only a few houses away from the single son's house and our married son and his wife are expecting a baby girl, our first grandchild, sometime around Christmas.  So even though I will miss our dream home in the country, which I have loved for about 14 years, we're ready for some more good times ahead.

Good for you! I'm impressed with your helping your children like that. Many probably wouldn't give up their dream home like that. I wanted to move into the least expensive place, so that if our children needed financial help we could offer it. My husband wasn't so willing, so far no one needs us yet, knock on wood. 

About my MIL, they've asked if she likes it better there than her previous home and she said she is, but if they ask her if she'd like to move in with them, I don't know what she'd say. None to my knowledge have asked yet. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good for you! I'm impressed with your helping your children like that. Many probably wouldn't give up their dream home like that. I wanted to move into the least expensive place, so that if our children needed financial help we could offer it. My husband wasn't so willing, so far no one needs us yet, knock on wood. 

About my MIL, they've asked if she likes it better there than her previous home and she said she is, but if they ask her if she'd like to move in with them, I don't know what she'd say. None to my knowledge have asked yet. 

I can relate to your husband's feelings, I think.  This place is more my dream home than my wife's, although she does really like it out here too, and she will also miss things here, but for me it is going to be harder to leave this all behind.

I think your MIL will respond better if her daughters tell their Mom that they really would like her to move in with them, if they really want her to.  Maybe they haven't asked yet just because they haven't thought about it.

Link to post
8 hours ago, pogi said:

 I love how this article diminishes the deaths of those 80 years old and over by suggesting 'quite a few would have died this year anyway".  No biggie!

Yes.  Every death is a tragedy.  But who would want to live forever in a fallen world?  Don't you believe in the Plan of Redemption?  We are supposed to have a limited life span.  Those of the aged group tend to pass away with several comorbidity factors.  It is ridiculous for you to say anyone would diminish a tragedy.  It is a fact of life.  The way of the world.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

If the curve is flattening in Sweden, it is not because of herd immunity:

Oh really?  Please explain why the curve is flattening.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

And of course, the idea of "herd immunity" is a fools approach when immunity is thought to be short lived.  

What about statements by some that covid is continually mutating?  If there are antibodies, then it is proof positive that the immune system is working.  Which would indicate that herd immunity can and does increase in the population.  For a medical professional to say herd immunity is  "a joke" is surprisingly unscientific.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

Enough with the Chloroquine.  I think that has been discussed to death.  Yes it is a highly politicized medicine.  We all agree with that.  That is not justification for taking it.  If only the politicians would have kept out of it from the beginning!

If you had read the article you would know that several trials are still ongoing in England.  Unfortunately the US trials were stopped from being completed.  I recall from other reports that there are many trials around the world that are in process.  How sad the scientific inquiry is being brutally censored in a number of places.

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Calm said:

Longview, please do not sneak in purely political news (the last) with the partially political news.  Please edit the Taiwan bit and include links for the other two and don't do a purely political post again or I will ask that you be banned from the thread permanently if possible.  

The concern is not political but the tremendous confusion that occurred in the early stages of the covid pandemic.  If the World Health Organization had been more cautious and diligent about acquiring and verifying data from the Wuhan outbreak, the world might have had a better chance for containment.  I was hoping Newsweek would be considered an acceptable reporting source.

Link to post

Interesting article on New York deaths. 

https://apnews.com/212ccd87924b6906053703a00514647f?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

‘New York’s coronavirus death toll in nursing homes, already among the highest in the nation, could actually be a significant undercount. Unlike every other state with major outbreaks, New York only counts residents who died on nursing home property and not those who were transported to hospitals and died there.’

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, longview said:

News from around the world - - -

Newsweek article BY ARISTOS GEORGIOU ON 8/7/20:  "British scientists have said hydroxychloroquine may still have promise as a preventive treatment for COVID-19 but the drug has become so politicized that studies investigating whether or not it is effective are being hampered.
"A large trial known as COPCOV being led by the University of Oxford, U.K., the Wellcome Trust and the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Thailand is aiming to enrol more than 40,000 frontline health care workers and staff who have close contact with COVID-19 patients.
"The goal is to investigate whether or not hydroxychloroquine and the related drug chloroquine are effective in preventing or reducing the severity of COVID-19 infections. But one of the scientists involved, Nick White, a professor of tropical medicine at Oxford University told Newsweek that conducting hydroxychloroquine studies has become more difficult because the drug has been politicized like no other medication."

And who started the politicization by lying about it? I remember first hearing about it before it went big with the first study. In days flaws in the study were uncovered. More testing was needed but the prognosis did not look good. Then a certain head of state started touting it as a miracle cure. Suddenly support for the drug was tied to which team you are on. We did the same thing with masks.

We are very dumb people.

12 hours ago, longview said:

August 10, 2020 Sweden shows how to flatten the Wuhan virus curve By Andrea Widburg (HERE😞 "In contrast to America, there is a place in which the infection rate is zero, and that's not because it sealed its borders and locked everyone in his home.  That place is Sweden.
"To its credit, Sweden decided to ignore the experts and aim for herd immunity.  Britain had initially intended to go this route.  However, when Neil Ferguson, the man who has been wrong about every new infectious disease for decades, predicted millions dying, Britain backed off the idea and embraced lockdowns, too.  Even though Ferguson eventually admitted that his Wuhan virus estimates were wrong, by then, governments at home and abroad were locked into their lockdowns.
"But not little Sweden.  Sebastian Rushworth, a doctor who works in a Stockholm emergency room, has written about the Swedish experiment:
      "Unlike other countries, Sweden never went in to complete lockdown. Non-essential businesses have remained open, people have continued
       to go to cafés and restaurants, children have remained in school, and very few people have bothered with face masks in public."
"Admittedly, the virus walloped Sweden in March.  The people who showed up in the E.R., no matter the reason they appeared (stomach aches, nosebleeds, etc.), tested positive for the virus.  Only a few months later, though, everything has changed: no one is showing up in his E.R. with a positive test result.  Sweden has gone from 100 deaths per day out of a population of 10 million to 5 deaths per day and dropping steadily.
"There's a dose of hard realism in there, too, which is that many of those who died were bound to die soon anyway:
     "In total covid has killed under 6,000 people in a country of ten million. A country with an annual death rate of around 100,000 people.
      Considering that 70% of those who have died of covid are over 80 years old, quite a few of those 6,000 would have died
      this year anyway. That makes covid a mere blip in terms of its effect on mortality."

Herd immunity is still a LONG way away. To get a very substantial decrease in cases you need about 50% immunity. To hope for eradication you need at least 75% and probably more around 90%. Serology tests in Sweden show they are in the mid teens range. Some have argued it is higher but there is little to support this. If they continue with the herd immunity approach you can expect the number of total dead to at least triple before the virus burns out. Herd immunity is also a terrible "strategy". It is basically code for doing little to nothing. Sweden never declared it as their policy. The British flirted with the idea.

It is also worth noting that while Sweden's official steps were less than most the situation on the ground had a soft lockdown. It was just not government enforced. Businesses voluntarily went work from home, people canceled time with friends, and a lot of people limited shopping trips and other group activities. They also generally followed the restrictions on occupancy of businesses that were put in place. They are similar to the ones still in place in most of the US that are almost completely ignored. Despite this they are doing much worse than their two neighbors. Norway and Finland both have heavy restrictions on the border and Sweden's government threw a bit of a fit over it. Sweden held to soft regulations better than the US did to enforceable ones. It is mostly a cultural thing. The Swedish people complain about their government (they have democracy so that is assumed) but they largely trust it. In the US we culturally distrust government and have a substantial segment of the population with a "You're not the boss of me" attitude. Our culture of individualism is also horrible at fostering discipline in self-restraint for the good of others. Sweden also did not have the disadvantage of federalism the US has where states act like their own little nations especially when there is little to no federal guidance.

I suspect part of the leveling Sweden is seeing is due to their vacation policy. It is mandated that all employers give their employees four consecutive vacation weeks in the summer. The preferred time for many is late July to early August. In addition those who can afford it often go to a summer home for at least part of the summer. People I know there are going on vacation and basically isolating in family and/or friend groups which would explain the dip. I worry that when summer ends and their vacation slowdown ends that their numbers will climb again.

12 hours ago, longview said:

Edit: Political Garbage mostly irrelevant to Covid

Edit: Boring comments from me pointing out the irrelevance.

12 hours ago, longview said:

Hopefully this "light at the end of the tunnel" will indicate cessation of lockdowns sooner than later!

What "light at the end of the tunnel"?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

Yes.  Every death is a tragedy.  But who would want to live forever in a fallen world?  Don't you believe in the Plan of Redemption?  We are supposed to have a limited life span.  Those of the aged group tend to pass away with several comorbidity factors.  It is ridiculous for you to say anyone would diminish a tragedy.  It is a fact of life.  The way of the world..

Live forever?  No, I just don’t like it when people write off anyone over 80 as highly likely to die within 1 year.  What a pity to write off President Nelson at 80!

2 hours ago, longview said:

Oh really?  Please explain why the curve is flattening.

I have already offered a couple possibilities, but it is anybodies guess at this point.  One thing for absolutely certain however, is that it is not due to herd immunity.  Yes really.  

2 hours ago, longview said:

What about statements by some that covid is continually mutating?  If there are antibodies, then it is proof positive that the immune system is working.  Which would indicate that herd immunity can and does increase in the population.  For a medical professional to say herd immunity is  "a joke" is surprisingly unscientific.

If it is constantly mutating, then that is even more reason to dismiss the idea of herd immunity.

No, antibodies do not equal immunity.  Sorry, a “working immune system” doesn’t guarantee long-term immunity either.  Strike 2.

Your comment about herd immunity increasing in the population due to working immune systems is incoherent.  With highly infectious diseases like Covid, herd immunity is not achieved until around 80% of the population is infected.  With less contagious diseases, it starts to have effect around 50%.  What was Sweden at with their antibodies? 6% to 7%?  And this all only works IF the disease causes long-term immunity AND the virus is not mutating rapidly.  Lots of studies are showing that this disease doesn’t provide lasting immunity unfortunately. 

2 hours ago, longview said:

If you had read the article you would know that several trials are still ongoing in England.  Unfortunately the US trials were stopped from being completed.  I recall from other reports that there are many trials around the world that are in process.  How sad the scientific inquiry is being brutally censored in a number of places.

Great.  Let’s talk when the studies are complete.  Why do you presume I didn’t read the article?  I simply said that the fact that it is politicized is not justification for taking an unproven medicine.  The fact that there are still studies proves my point.  It is unproven.  There are risks.  Why are we still discussing this?   :beatdeadhorse:

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

The concern is not political but the tremendous confusion that occurred in the early stages of the covid pandemic.  If the World Health Organization had been more cautious and diligent about acquiring and verifying data from the Wuhan outbreak, the world might have had a better chance for containment.  I was hoping Newsweek would be considered an acceptable reporting source.

Remove the last section or I will ask you to banned...and no more asking you to remove things in the future before asking you to be banned since you are noncooperative and the longer your post has it, the more likely a derail.

Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

Yes.  Every death is a tragedy.  But who would want to live forever in a fallen world?  Don't you believe in the Plan of Redemption?  We are supposed to have a limited life span.  Those of the aged group tend to pass away with several comorbidity factors.  It is ridiculous for you to say anyone would diminish a tragedy.  It is a fact of life.  The way of the world.

If it is a tragedy then why risk more death by opening everything back up?

2 hours ago, longview said:

Oh really?  Please explain why the curve is flattening.

Saying it is random variations in infection rates or my vacation rationale or even just people being more careful are all more logical reasons for the shift in the curve than your assumption that if no one can come up with a better explanation it must be herd immunity. There have not been nearly enough infected according to the latest antibody testing samples in Stockholm for herd immunity to start tanking case numbers.

2 hours ago, longview said:

What about statements by some that covid is continually mutating?  If there are antibodies, then it is proof positive that the immune system is working.  Which would indicate that herd immunity can and does increase in the population.  For a medical professional to say herd immunity is  "a joke" is surprisingly unscientific.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Herd immunity is real. We are just not anywhere near it being a factor. That also assumes immunity lasts a long time. That there are antibodies does not prove there will always be antibodies. Wait 20 years after getting a tetanus and step on a rusty nail if you want to test the eternal antibodies theory. If immunity is short-lived then yes, herd immunity is a joke which is exactly what Pogi said.

2 hours ago, longview said:

If you had read the article you would know that several trials are still ongoing in England.  Unfortunately the US trials were stopped from being completed.  I recall from other reports that there are many trials around the world that are in process.  How sad the scientific inquiry is being brutally censored in a number of places.

Many studies were shut down due to ethical concerns. One study in Brazil found a quarter of the patients in a trial were developing potentially deadly changes in the electrical system that regulates the heart beat. The FDA shut down several trials. The initial trial that showed promise was flawed because patients that died were excluded from the results. 

The reality is we have much more promising treatment drugs already. Continually re-adjudicating the data on this one gives the impression it is either a miracle cure or a death sentence. Neither are true.

Remdesivir is a current frontrunner for treatment. While it is not an official treatment yet in the US and the FDA has not yet approved it tests are promising for severe cases though they need larger sample sizes in studies to determine if the benefit is substantial. The first study saw almost a halving of the death rate but the sample size was small enough that that fell in the margin of error.

Dexamethasone is another frontrunner. When used on those on ventilators it had a significant impact on the number of deaths. More studies are being done.

Plasma transfusions from those who have survived the infection are being studied but the data is very mixed.

There are dozens of additional treatments being examined and many have a better track record than hydrochloroquine so acting like the studies were stopped for political reasons is unlikely. It is more likely they focused on more promising treatments. The people most influenced by the politicization of the treatment are those who are influenced primarily by political news and see in the drug the vindication or condemnation of the people who politicized it in the first place.

 

 

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)

Everyone responding to Longview's political clip about Taiwan, please stop and if you have time, please edit your post to remove that part, especially where you are quoting him.  In the future, please don't quote or respond to anything that looks primarily political and instead report it...if you respond assuming it is sticking around, quote just enough to identify what part of the post you are responding to, please.

Edited by Calm
Link to post

A count shows about 30 vaccines currently in human trials with over 100 others being investigated. Dr. Fauci stated that we are more likely still at least a year away from a vaccine.

Of the 30 vaccines I found 10 are still exclusively in Phase 1 trials, 14 are in Phase 1 and 2 exclusively, and 6 are in all three phases.

Phase 1 usually involves 20 to 100 participants. Typically this phase takes several months.

Phase 2 involves several hundred people. This phase takes several months to up to 2 years.

Phase 3 usually involves thousands of people and usually lasts at least a year and sometimes as long as 4 years or more.

Restrictions are being relaxed to some degree so it may not take quite that long and many trials are moving forward faster than usual. Historically about 70% make it through Phase 1, 33% make it through Phase 2, and about 25% make it through Phase 3. This means normally a vaccine has about a 6% chance of making it all the way through. It looks like some beat the odds disproportionately but this may be due to rushing the vaccines through the stages and we may see more disqualifications in later phases due to later results from earlier phases.

Russia is skipping ahead and is planning to authorize a vaccine tomorrow (August 12th). The WHO and many other nations question the efficacy and safety of the vaccine due to the rushed trials. Russia still plans to produce enough to start a mass vaccination of the populace in October.

 

Edited by The Nehor
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Everyone responding to Longview's political clip about Taiwan, please stop and if you have time, please edit your post to remove that part, especially where you are quoting him.  In the future, please don't quote or respond to anything that looks primarily political and instead report it...if you respond assuming it is sticking around, quote just enough to identify what part of the post you are responding to, please.

Sorry, fixed.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Just a general reminder: The 2020-21 flu vaccine is out. If you do not have any health conditions that make it unwise to get it I recommend doing so. Not only does it mitigate the risk of getting ill it also means it is less likely you or anyone you would infect if you did not get it will take medical resources needed for the pandemic. It also protects infants, toddlers, children, and the elderly that you spend time around. On a selfish note it means you are less likely to get flu-like symptoms and be unsure if it is a conventional influenva flu or caussed by Covid.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sorry, fixed.

Thank you. 

Link to post

We often see stories about a large group of people going to a party and after being tested many positive tests showing up. My question is , do we know how many were positive before the party? There are probably ethical and legal hurdles , but are there any studies that took 50+ random volunteers and tested them , but not releasing the results, then having the people mix at a party and retesting to see how the transmission went? 

Also, I am concerned about false positives and false negatives . A relative went to a party in a neighboring province and tested positive upon her return. A few days later she tested negative and it was assumed the first test was incorrect. How often does this happen? 

Let's assume that 15% of the population will get Covid so out of 100,000 people  15,000 will get Covid

now we do the test and assume it is 97% accurate        those who have covid -15000                      those who don't have covid - 85000

                                                                                                 test positive - 14550  test negative - 450             test positive - 2550   test negative - 82450

What is the chance that a random person tests positive but doesn't have the disease ? 2550/17100 = 14.9%

what is the chance that a person tests negative but actually has the disease ?  450/ 82900 = 0.54 %

So, if you test negative you can be pretty sure you don't have covid, but if you test positive , you should probably get a second test a bit later. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

We often see stories about a large group of people going to a party and after being tested many positive tests showing up. My question is , do we know how many were positive before the party? 

It's generally pretty easy to determine this.  Epidemiological tracking of an outbreak event is largely based on symptom onset dates.  A positive case is only considered associated with the event if symptom onset began within 2 weeks (incubation period) after the event.  If a person was symptomatic before the event, then they are considered an index case, or source, for the outbreak.   Asymptomatic cases are a little more tricky for obvious reasons, but are also much less common.  We can't know for sure if they were or were not positive before an event, but the fact that they are associated with an outbreak and tested positive after attending the event, they are considered highly likely to have been infected at the event. 

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Also, I am concerned about false positives and false negatives . A relative went to a party in a neighboring province and tested positive upon her return. A few days later she tested negative and it was assumed the first test was incorrect. How often does this happen? 

There is no reason to conclude that the first test was false or incorrect.  It could have just as easily been a false negative.  Your relative could have been on the upswing or recovery of a previous infection and had very low viral load.  Often times, people will test positive up to a month after infection as the test can pick up tiny viral fragment residue in the body.  A person can test positive one day and negative the next.  It is not a problem with the test.  

Or, it could have been a false positive.  There is no way to know for sure without doing further testing, but it is not safe to just assume it was incorrect without testing further for antibodies etc.

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Let's assume that 15% of the population will get Covid so out of 100,000 people  15,000 will get Covid

now we do the test and assume it is 97% accurate        those who have covid -15000                      those who don't have covid - 85000

                                                                                                 test positive - 14550  test negative - 450             test positive - 2550   test negative - 82450

What is the chance that a random person tests positive but doesn't have the disease ? 2550/17100 = 14.9%

what is the chance that a person tests negative but actually has the disease ?  450/ 82900 = 0.54 %

So, if you test negative you can be pretty sure you don't have covid, but if you test positive , you should probably get a second test a bit later. 

  Your math lost me.  A 97% accuracy rate means that "any random person testing" has a 97% chance that it is right and a 3% chance that it is wrong.  How you go from 3% to 14.9% chance of being wrong or a 0.54% chance is beyond me.  

The other problem is that you are assuming that 100% of the population tests at any given moment.  That is not how testing works.  People don't test unless they have reason to - they are symptomatic, or have had close contact with a positive case.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3
Link to post
25 minutes ago, pogi said:

It's generally pretty easy to determine this.  Epidemiological tracking of an outbreak event is largely based on symptom onset dates.  A positive case is only considered associated with the event if symptom onset began within 2 weeks (incubation period) after the event.  If a person was symptomatic before the event, then they are considered an index case, or source, for the outbreak.   Asymptomatic cases are a little more tricky for obvious reasons, but are also much less common.  We can't know for sure if they were or were not positive before an event, but the fact that they are associated with an outbreak and tested positive after attending the event, they are considered highly likely to have been infected at the event. 

There is no reason to conclude that the first test was false or incorrect.  Your relative could have been on the upswing or recovery of a previous infection and had very low viral load.  Often times, people will test positive up to a month after infection as the test can pick up tiny viral fragment residue in the body.  A person can test positive one day and negative the next.  It is not a problem with the test.  

Or, it could have been a false positive.  There is no way to know for sure without doing further testing, but it is not safe to just assume it was incorrect without testing further for antibodies etc.

  Your math lost me.  You are assuming that a 97% accuracy rate means that there is a 3% chance a person will test negative AND a 3% chance they will test positive.  That would make it 94% accurate.  You are assuming that 3% of the positive cases will have false negatives, while 3% of the negative cases will have false positives.  That makes no sense whatsoever.   It is probably more likely that there is a 1% chance for false positives and a 2% chance for false negatives. 

Somehow you are magically turning a 3% chance into a 14.9% chance and a 0.54% chance.  If there is a 3% chance of a false reading, then the chance of having a false reading for "any random person" can't be higher or lower than 3%.  More accurately, it is more like a 2% chance of a false negative, and a 1% chance of a false positive.  No amount of number manipulation can change that chance. 

The other problem is that you are assuming that 100% of the population tests at any given moment.  That is not how testing works.  People don't test unless they have reason to - they are symptomatic, or have had close contact with a positive case.

i am continually impressed with your knowledge of and reasoning ability regarding this virus, pogi!  I hope you never get it yourself!

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...