Covid-19 News

  • exactly, As I said It is the state that mandates masks, quarantines, tracking.etc. To my knowledge (limited as it is) the Federal government does not have the right to impose those.


    Can you point to any law that says the states cannot (I.e. are "prevented from") impose quarantines, tracking, or masks unless the Federal government orders them to?

    And can you point to any law that allows the Federal Government to impose local quarentines? It can close national boarders and travel but not inner state travel and interstate commerce in a general way (non specific items).


    But you are not correct that Trump is "preventing" tracking or quarantines. And as I said, perhaps "hindering" but not "preventing" as you continue to claim. Tracking and quarantines are happening therefore not "prevented".


    How can you claim that tracking is prevented and in the same post say it is happening in Alaska?



  • I'm not exactly against it, because it may have some efficacy, but I am against the way people here continue to promote it as obviously a magic bullet

    THHtwisted truth.!

    No one here is promoting HCQ obviously as a magic bullet

    but you have more chance of survival with early HCQ + Zn +A than with deathbed dexamethasone

    • Official Post

    I'm not exactly against it, because it may have some efficacy, but I am against the way people here continue to promote it as obviously a magic bullet on such poor evidence.


    Probably splitting hairs, but speaking for myself, I am not promoting HCQ. I just want it available to those like me who feel it might work. Not only available, but also that my doctor feels free to administer without fear of reprisal. Same goes for the Ivermectin, which as you say appears to have a little more going for it than the HCQ. The one is not available for mostly political reasons, and I have no idea why the other (Iver) is not.

  • 2. ~13 million people in Florida are infected, giving the population herd immunity. If that happens, 300,000 of them will die, and another million or so have their health and their lives destroyed. Actually, more than 300,000 would probably die, given the elderly population in Florida.


    Stop worrying! Did you ever look at the Florida CoV-19 death rates?? There was no increase for the first doubling (4 weeks - May 22 .. June 22) after the ease. So if you have more testing this will not bring more deaths. Testing only people with real symptoms is enough. In Sweden - after the first flash that killed some 2000 old people in care homes the death rate did steadily decrease without any lockdown.


    There are specific problems with Florida: Hispanics are more susceptible than European white people and Florida is the the big care home of USA..and Florida has a nice weather with zillions of droplets hanging around everywhere ...

    Up to now about 5500 did die in Sweden so Florida is best half way through - in the worst 1/3.


    It's time to forget your fantasy that case tracking is any help if you are above threshold that is very low in fact. Do you really believe that it works e.g. in China - a country that has forbidden to report cases?? The reality is that you can only track at most 50% of the cases because we have tons of asymptotic spreaders that nobody knows and ever will know!

    Case tracking also failed in Japan as it does not bring down the cases as soon as you have no lockdown...


    We have to learn to live with the present given by Mr. Fauci's financed research. You also have to learn that not only statics says the USA is a threshold country, also that the reality is even worse as one large part of USA is a third world country and a small ("growing" even smaller) part a leading country.


    For your consolation: We all will feel the damage and complaining or painting black future is no help. Try to teach people about medication! Or where to wear a mask.



  • Jed - re Florida continues to increase exponentially, the graph you posted of case numbers is definitely flattening out (not rising as fast as exponential). I think you need hospital admission numbers to be sure of how the current infection rate changes, because case numbers depend on available testing and can vary with this, for example if testing increases, or becomes saturated. With this virus there is a lot we don't know and while the high rates (and high rate of increase) in some parts of the US were predictable, we really don't know what will happen in different places - obviously NY is one not nice example of what happens in big cities where people are crammed close together.


    In the UK we have the ONS survey which tests a random sample of 20K households every week. That is as good as it gets in terms of unbiassed data and it is from where I get the 70% asymptomatic figure


    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep…veypilot/england9july2020


    (for data on how the epidemic is progressing in the UK - more accurate than case numbers).


    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep…-19-over-the-study-period


    The analysis of those reporting evidence of symptoms appears to show that those reporting symptoms are much more likely to have contracted the virus. However, additional analysis shows that, of those who tested positive, only 33% (95% confidence interval: 25% to 43%) reported any evidence of symptoms at the time of their swab test or at either the preceding or subsequent swab test. The share fell to 22% of those testing positive when accounting for those who reported evidence of symptoms only at the time of their swab test.

    The remaining 67% of positive cases either did not report having any of the specific or general symptoms on the day of their positive swab test, preceding swab test or subsequent swab test, or did not answer both questions. While this suggests there is a potentially large number of asymptomatic cases, it is important to note that symptoms were self-reported rather than professionally diagnosed, and those without any evidence of symptoms will include instances where the questions relating to symptoms were not answered.

    This analysis is based on 115 individuals in the sample who tested positive for COVID-19. This is a very small denominator, meaning the confidence intervals are wide. Additionally, with such a small number of cases included in this analysis, if any of these are false positives this would have a large effect on the results.

    • Official Post

    Did you ever look at the Florida CoV-19 death rates??


    Florida is seeing a legitimate increase in cases, although it may not be as bad as it appears:


    https://justthenews.com/politi…irus-days-may-have-been-0


    The article is not implying some deep state conspiracy to make the numbers look up to 30% worse than they are, but explains the data collecting, and recording bureaucratic process can make it look that way. I would assume if it can work that way for the worse, at some point the process may make things look 30% better.

  • THHtwisted truth.!

    No one here is promoting HCQ obviously as a magic bullet

    but you have more chance of survival with early HCQ + Zn +A then with deathbed dexamethasone


    Well something that is cheap, is well tolerated, and decreases mortality amongst severe cases by a lot is welcome. I agree though that just as significant would be data on how much it decreases serious long-term continuing disability - something that we are only starting to track with COVID and the thing that makes me very much not want to get it.


    And the data on dexamethasone is clear and undisputable. The data on early HCQ + Zn + A is very unclear. Take for example Zelenko:


    (1) Has an apparent political interest (writing to Trump) - not that I think this is primary, but such biases can affect things. This is a straw in the wind however, (2) is my main objection.

    (2) He has an outpatient catchment area with auniquely young age profile, and therefore whose patients will be uniquely less likely to suffer severely from COVID. This unusual demographics make observational studies from him very unhelpful in determining the merit of any treatment unless they are randomised and controlled. The reports don't go into this in the detail that needs to be done to extract any possible real information from his work. Propensity scoring etc with age bands really does not work well unless there are enough bands, and a linear fit is done to correlation with age in each band. The right multivariate analyses will do that but by that point you have so many variables that you need an awful lot of data to determine them to a statistically significant extent. Z's population is relatively very healthy, since young, so difficult for his trials to be informative.


    There is enough data from some of the best observational studies to reach conclusions - but only with very careful analysis. With less careful analysis you can reach any conclusion you like and we all know the file drawer effect.


    I am not experienced enough to be sure which studies can be trusted. I'd like anyone here who is an expert on these analyses (they are fairly standard things) and knows how in specific circumstances they go wrong, to go through them for COVID studies. these studies have a particular issue with age which correlates very non-linearly with outcomes. Therefore to prevent that from confounding results you need to model correlation by age as a set of stratified bands each having its own separately detrmined correlation, to model the nonlinearity. You can see why if you don't do this you have a classic things go wrong setup, but if you do do it you need much more data to be statistically significant.


    These questions i'm asking are knowable. A good statistician could go through the details of any observational study and say how likely confounders are. All I can do is say that extreme age dependence makes it much more difficult to get believable results from multivariate studies than if the age correlation were less strong or more linear.


    Anyone up for this? I'm not a statistician but I can understand the theory well enough if led through it?


    THH

  • Florida is seeing a legitimate increase in cases, although it may not be as bad as it appears:


    https://justthenews.com/politi…irus-days-may-have-been-0


    The article is not implying some deep state conspiracy to make the numbers look up to 30% worse than they are, but explains the data collecting, and recording bureaucratic process can make it look that way. I would assume if it can work that way for the worse, at some point the process may make things look 30% better.

    There is a significant lag between testing positive and death. Takes about a week to go to hospital or even and in sweden death is whithinn 10 days from hospitalisation to death in all maybe three weeks delay. We can no see an increase of deaths around 100 cases a day and we will maybe see 2x-3x that at the peak perhaps, Yes it looks like Florida is reaching a platau. Sweden is half of Florida and we had around 100 deaths a day at the peak. Looks like Florida will do something similar.

  • No, I mean that Trump prevented it. As far as I know it is not happening. (Perhaps it is happening but I have not heard. Can you point me to a news article describing a Federal tracking program?)


    I think the way it works in the US is that the CDC and HHS give funding to the individual states to perform their own testing and tracing.

    The first funding was in April from the CDC:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com…s-federalfunding-testing/

    Then in May, from HHS:

    https://www.hhs.gov/about/news…s-territories-tribes.html

  • One thing to notice about sweden is that we count death as death with corona, not death because of corona, if we compare with the surplus of death a normal year for a specific week it turns out that this statistic is quite spot on.

  • Yes, the tests are a blunt tool, especially because (in the Uk) the false negative rate is around 30%, so if you test negative it does not mean you don't have it and in fact you are still required to self-isolate.

    That seems very high. At any rate, in the UK if you test negative you do not have to self isolate unless there are some unlikely scenarios.

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/…t-your-test-result-means/

    PS - the virus is just as deadly if caught from someone not at all affected by it! The jury is out on how much less infectious such people are.

    Asymptomatic people are in all probability far less infectious. If they were shedding the virus like crazy they would have symptoms, almost surely.

  • To my knowledge (limited as it is) the Federal government does not have the right to impose those.


    Yes, it does. It has done this since the 18th century. It has imposed tracking and quarantine for many other diseases such as AIDS and ebola. Here is a list of diseases that must be reported to state and federal authorities:


    https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001929.htm


    Reportable diseases


    Reportable diseases are diseases considered to be of great public health importance. In the United States, local, state, and national agencies (for example, county and state health departments or the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) require that these diseases be reported when they are diagnosed by doctors or laboratories.

    Reporting allows for the collection of statistics that show how often the disease occurs. This helps researchers identify disease trends and track disease outbreaks. This information can help control future outbreaks.

    etc.

  • I am not experienced enough to be sure which studies can be trusted.


    Take dexamethasone..then Hail Mary.. the 28d mortality is still 20%

    dexamethasone was being used in plenty of hospitals before the Recovery 'discovery' RCT

    Dexa is a common option for all kinds of serious inflammatotry conditions..


    but there is a problem ... it reduces the immune response of the body..

    so its a balance between reducing the immune reponse and reducing the inflammatory process


    The response of doctors in the field

    .. So .. 6000 patients, 2,000,000 sterling of RCT and Oxford proves Dexamethasone works.. sometimes???

    and late HCQ doesn't work.....

    "Is that it?

    Then we look at the Landray HCQ botchup,, HCQ given at toxic doses and its used for amebic dysentery?????

    http://covexit.com/oxford-prof…soir-newspaper-denies-it/


    99.9 % of our lived lives are based on nonrandomised unblinded evidence.

    The RCT evidence for early treatment of community acquired Covid with HCQ + Zn + Azithromycin is at least 6 months away

    because of the difficulty of coordinating community based doctors with separate and small varying patient numbers..


    the closest thing to it is Costa Rica.. where they are getting community suspects into hosptial ASAP and treating ASAP..


    As Zelenko said... like the Marine in war we act on the best availbale evidence at the time and we adjust.. tactically

    the problem with the imposed governmentl restrictions on a well-tolerated drug with few side effects like HCQ

    is that this freedom for adjustment has been curtailed..


    The only reason I am not worried is that the people close to me in NZ, Sydney and Japan don't need HCQ..right now

    we are not at war

    but if I was in the UK with the current death rates I wouldn't be just sitting around on LF ,

    I'd be outside Downing St with a placard.

    • Official Post

    However, as I said, the federal government is not doing any tracking or quarantining of coronavirus. Every other first world national government is, and the reasons it would be good to have a federal role in this are obvious to the experts.


    Really, does it matter whether it is the state governments doing the tracing with Federal (taxpayers) money, or the Feds doing it themselves?


    And few other countries have a set-up like ours, where 50 mini-nations (states), under the umbrella of a Fed gov, have such autonomy. Just because "every other first world governments" does it their way, does not mean they do it better.


    Like I and Mark have said, while it has not been reported on for some reason (hmmm), each state seems to have a fairly effective contact tracing program.

  • Bob - I'd never want to stop you from doing what you think is right, and placebo effect has some validiy (though how much is debatable). Certainly the immune system response interacts with feelings in a complex way.


    Placebo effect? =O That is actually insulting and I would expect better from you! :rolleyes:


    I could say that some become really conceited and narrow minded in their "scientific" mind prison. Jed has in the past, posted how many of the "leading scientific" leaders ridiculed powered flight as impossible. Many scientist said people could not survive the 50+ mph of early trains. Einstein was ridiculed for his "fringe" theories from people who thought they knew because their training and their data were formulated by their scientific mind to lay the basis that they were right.


    They were wrong none the less.


    Sauks polio vaccine was almost scrapped because fairly early on, an outbreak of polio was caused by his vaccine. Many researchers said "I told you so" that the vaccine could not work and tried hard to stop it's use! If they had succeeded in stopping the vaccine use, how many thousands of children would now be paralyzed or have died? All because of conceited "I know better" attitude. It turned to be faulty vacinne processing.


    There are many other examples where "science knows better" was simply "wrong".


    You may be getting close to that same attitude, where the "process" of making a decision is more important than the "outcome"!:/


    There are just as many educated and skilled people who are actually practicing medicine that are publishing their view that HCQ indeed works.

    Why should I believe you over them? Because you say no RCT has been done, therefore HCQ should be dismissed? THAT is narrow minded and truthfully conceited. (Not that all doctors are infallable, but they sure know more about patients than you do)


    You dismiss observational evidence simply on theoretical practice. While there have been a FEW published results that showed no effect of HCQ, it seems they have had rebuttals as being poorly designed or even intentionally flawed.


    But in any case, do not talk to me about placebo effect.... that is stooping to ignorant lows. Now a psychological expert as well? ?(





    Placebo effect my a$$!

  • notices that reporting a disease is not the same as tracking contacts.


    https://www.npr.org/2020/04/02…al-quarantine-experts-say

    Fact Check: A Blanket National Quarantine Is Likely Not Legal


    Polly J. Price, a professor of law and public health at Emory University, tells NPR: "If you're talking about quarantine in terms of encouraging people to stay home or closing businesses — and that's what public health folks talk about as social distancing measures, really — I think from the White House that can be advisory only and that those are exclusively state powers."


    Moss, a Washington attorney specializing in national security issues.

    "It is unclear, absent congressional approval or every state in the union collectively agreeing to it, how any president would have the authority to impose a federal or national quarantine," Moss says. ..


    Moss, a Washington attorney specializing in national security issues.

    "It is unclear, absent congressional approval or every state in the union collectively agreeing to it, how any president would have the authority to impose a federal or national quarantine," Moss says.


    most legal attorneys say states can but presidents cannot.....


    -------

    https://www.americanbar.org/ne…gal-approach-to-pandemic/


    Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions. The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.


    While some say such a centralized federal response would be more effective and needed, any executive order to that effect would be unprecedented and would likely lead to a court challenge on constitutional grounds.

    ……………………..

    https://www.factcheck.org/2020…er-to-open-up-the-states/


    ……………..


    sure looks like a president cannot force state quarantine nor the opening from lockdowns. The CDC may be able to (most states allow that by their state laws) but not the president.

  • Placebo effect? =O That is actually insulting and I would expect better from you! :rolleyes:

    But in any case, do not talk to me about placebo effect.... that is stooping to ignorant lows. Now a psychological expert as well? ?(


    The mind and soul together make a powerful force that impacts the body. So to talk about the placebo effect as some hocus pocus thing is comedy. It comes from the base materialism of modern "science" (rather scientism).


    If stress is a major cause of disease, then surely the mind and perception can impact the body so why would the reverse be something lowly - instead of masterful and high?

  • More anecdotal evidence for.. HCQ..

    https://www.usatoday.com/story…oquine-column/5397728002/

    Warning;)

    look away .. those who live and die by randomised controlled trials only


    "My father, who is 96 years old, felt suddenly fatigued back in March

    with some shortness of breath and fever.

    He laid down on his couch and said he didn’t think

    he was going to get up again. He has heart disease and a pacemaker,

    and his cardiologist weighed the options

    and agreed to start him

    on hydroxychloroquine. He was much better within a day.


    "Dr. Marc Siegel, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors

    and a Fox News medical correspondent,

    is a clinical professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Health



    Of course, informed opinion is the lowest level of evidence

    Is it surprising how much of medical practice is NOT based on Level 1.?

    Not really ..Level I evidence is expensive and time consuming.,,


    But maybe it was just the placebo effect????

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.