Covid-19 (WuFlu) News

  • A recent study has shown that patients treated by Hydoxychloroquine (HCQ) are 40% more likely to develop atrial fibrillation.


    This just means, that this drug is perfectly safe for short term usage (i.e. treatment of coronavirus). Rheumatic patients are taking it for years, yet this connection was revealed quite recently (after fifty years of HCQ at the market). And 40% is not so much, it merely blurs with background (the immunosuppressed patients are taking often antibiotics, which induce palpitations too). I'd affraid of azithromycine more in this connection, being Trump.

  • We need data, bu the data we already have in iceland, in Diamond Princess, in an Italian city, show a different picture


    Perspectives on the Pandemic with Dr. John Ioannidis


    see

    https://nordiclifescience.org/…ary-screening-in-iceland/

    https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1165


    what shocks me is that the interpretation in those articles are in line with current positions,

    but that the data shows big surpise.

    high prevalence of the infection, yet low letality, and it is not noticed in the articles...

    Ioannidis however interpret it as data... Not seeing how data dissent from theory and reinterpreting them under current paradigm is typical in groupthink.


    in French:


    Beside that I have report of few threatments that works :

    * Favipiravir (avigan) seems best candidate with Remdesivir

    * plasma of cured patients works really work on ICU patients (in france)


    #StayAtHome until we have data, and accept them.

    Best hope today is serology test in UK. question is if 0.1%, 1%,10%,30% of the population was infected. I bet on... guess.

  • Although I am not in favor to discuss Covid at this LENR forum,


    These threads are a temporary presence. I hope to see them closed soon, but for now this is a serious topic, and as we have people here with medical, bio-physical, chemical and statistical know-how, and quite a lot of people who won't see 50 again except on a car speedometer, they have a purpose.

  • Is there something about this you still do not understand? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

    I can clearly see the numbers. But they show that it is worse yesterday than the day befoire. Most people would say that having 86496 cases instead of 80589 cases the day before is worse and that having 9134 deaths instead of 8215 the day before is worse.


    You may say it is better than some mathematical model prediction but is still worse for real people in Italy.

    And again stable to most people does not mean some departure from an arbitrary exponential shape but that things do not go to a new state when preterbed. They tend to stay the same. If the cases and deaths stayed the same and not increased then that would be stable. Most people would not want to live with continuously rising case and death numbers no matter what the math form. Don't you value health and life more than your model prediction?


    Don't you understand? Why do you want to twist meaning of words to your point? Stable is not the same as not exponential growth or are you to stubborn to admit that.

  • They feel though, that their recommendations will save the most lives...from their practical, unemotional standpoint. Saving the most lives IMO, is the best way forward. Do you disagree?


    Utilitarian ethics is held by some people but not most. In other words it is not a quantitative matter of lives saved, but how and why they die. Thus in the US 20% of population dying early because of sub-standard health care is fine, whereas other causes of death less so.

  • The University of Bristol paper is very good. What I was looking for. Takes the emotions out of it, and looks at the epidemic from a purely scientific, non political, perspective. After putting a dollar value on lives saved by the various government measures available, they also put a price on the lives lost by those very same measures. Then they look at all the various combinations, and give guidance as to the best option to save the most lives.

    They took but much of speculative.numbers and compared them to another bunch.

    They don't give and estimate of economic death toll why? Sure there is wide body of research on economic impact and this is surely a fact '

    happened following the 2008 financial crash - which leads to a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors from declining living standards to poorer health care.'


    So why don't we use their approach and calculate average life expectancy decrease if 1M people die out of 6B?

  • They don't give and estimate of economic death toll why? Sure there is wide body of research on economic impact and this is surely a fact '

    happened following the 2008 financial crash - which leads to a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors from declining living standards to poorer health care.'


    They don't dwell on it, but they had this to say:


    "However such high spending is likely to come up against the J-value GDP constraint, whereby the measure should not

    decrease GDP per head so much that the UK population as a whole loses more life than it gains from the countermeasure."

  • Utilitarian ethics is held be some people but not most. In other words it is not a quantitative matter of lives saved, but how and why they die. Thus in the US 20% of population dying early because of sub-standard health care is fine, whereas other causes of death less so.


    Clearly there is a medical strategy that each country needs to decide upon.

    There is also a political strategy - because it is also a political problem to get the populace to stick to the lockdowns (and also personally for those politicians who want to "survive" Coronavirus at the next election).

    There is also an economic strategy to be decided as to how to best limit the economic fallout.


    I don't think anyone should want to just be guided only by economists on this (apart from some greedy sociopaths who focus only on the stock market or their personal wealth, surprisingly there are quite a few of those).

    As Dr Fauci said - the virus dictates the timeline.

    As Jed said above, and I said a week or more ago, if goverment does not control the lockdown then fear will make it happen anyway and government risks things spiralling into chaos. So lockdown it is.

    Having read the link to the Bristol University study I now see more clearly that Shane D and others who have raised the economic aspect have valid concerns.

    Clearly it is not a choice of one strategy, we need a joined up approach for all 3 strategies so they support each other.


    Reassuringly Jerome Powell said this;

    "We are not experts in pandemic ... We would tend to listen to the experts. Dr Fauci said something like the virus is going to set the timetable, and that sounds right to me," Powell said, in reference to Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who is on the White House's coronavirus task force.

    "The first order of business will be to get the spread of the virus under control and then resume economic activity."

  • The owners of the printing presses will just have to keep printing. Hyper inflation to come.


    Ideally, after the crisis, say in 18 months, the whole world should have a coordinated 50% devaluation. Thus all assets and debts would reduce to 50% of previous value. The debt burden incurred by the crisis would thus become quite manageable. People with assets would pay equally. What is wrong with this?


    Otherwise, we get the same thing, with inflation, and also higher borrowing costs (problematic for all countries).


    THH

  • Ideally, after the crisis, say in 18 months, the whole world should have a coordinated 50% devaluation.

    Only criminal states did this like Russia 3x in the past.


    All the owners of property are safe. Even better their loan is reduced.... Al the small people with just a little money loose halve of everything they own especially pension funds. Nobody will accept this but I agree that's exactly what the small circle of people hopes that did lend the 1'000'000'000'000'000 the central backs did print over the last 10 years and they turned into property!

  • U.S. new cases today increased by a factor of 1.1. That is much better than 1.3, which has been the factor for most of this month. In absolute numbers it was 18,691 where as 1.3 increase would have been 22,391.


    This is a basic error you do. You have to subtract New York from the data as they have far stronger measures than the rest of USA. You should heck the data of the rest! May be it makes no sense to use a single figure for USA.

  • I can clearly see the numbers. But they show that it is worse yesterday than the day before.

    Yes, that is obvious. No one disputes that. They are a little worse than the day before. But you are missing the point! The point is: These numbers are far better than they would have been if the trend a week ago had continued. If the trend had continued, there would be 32,000 new cases today, and even more the next day, and the next. Instead, there are 6,000. About the same as the peak.


    That's all there is to it. That's what the Min. of Health and I are saying. I cannot understand why you find that difficult to grasp, or why you are arguing about this.


    Even though the numbers are increasing slightly, this is still good news, because it means that ~26,000 people who would have gotten the disease today did not get it. The curve has been flattened. The hospitals will be less overwhelmed. As patients recover, and hospitals expand capacity and get more ventilators, they might be able to keep up with 6,000 new cases a day. They could not possibly cope with 32,000 new cases.

  • They don't dwell on it, but they had this to say:


    "However such high spending is likely to come up against the J-value GDP constraint, whereby the measure should not

    decrease GDP per head so much that the UK population as a whole loses more life than it gains from the countermeasure."

    Now what exactly did they mean? Not much. What they mean is that it is not clear and probably won't be if ever but we are scientist and we.have to warn yada yada

  • This is a basic error you do. You have to subtract New York from the data as they have far stronger measures than the rest of USA.

    I am aware of that. I have another spreadsheet for that, but the New York data is not accumulated so I don't have all the values. So I cannot keep track of it properly.


    This is only a crude approximation. I am using it mainly to learn more about the professional on-line models. I put in some of the parameters they suggest, to see how it shapes past data. My approximation is starting to fall apart as more parameters begin to play a significant role. Such as the effect of recovered patients. The people in New York are predicting a peak at the end of April. I cannot do that with this simple model, but the on-line models show how it is done.


    A peak at the end of April is a disaster, by the way. It is too soon.


    With a separate column I am also predicting the daily number of deaths, assuming it takes an average 2 weeks to die after infection. That's what the Chinese data shows. I am sure it is a coincidence, but those numbers have lately come out close to the actual totals. It is uncanny. Frightening. Yesterday I predicted 344 deaths. The actual number was 401. That's close. The day before that I predicted 267, and the actual total was 268. Yikes! You don't want to know what I predict in a few weeks. I hope my model completely falls apart before then. I think it will.


    Predicting the case mortality rate while an epidemic is in progress is difficult. I am not capable of doing the mathematics, but I can understand the issues. You don't know how many currently ill people will survive. There is a ~2-week lag between the infection and death. This page describes the methods:


    https://www.worldometers.info/…s/coronavirus-death-rate/


    See especially the section titled, "How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak."

  • why you are arguing about this.

    Exactly why are YOU arguing about this. You seem to do that often and to many people to push your point. You want to recast your statement of a "stable" situation to a lowering of the multiplier factor instead of saying that your use of "stable" was wrong and misleading. You want to form everything based on your model predictions which you said earlier was over simplified to the point of you not giving your excel methodology. .


    You still have not said what "stable" is to you and why you thing that a multiplier over 1 is "stable".

    Any value over1 still has a slope and thus cannot be "stable". Yes we might be at an inflection point on the curve but it was never thought to be exponential but logistic. Models assuming exponential for all points in perpetuity are not very realistic and only an approximation.


    I for one would not label a multiplier of 1.1 times the death or cases as "stable" or flat. It will not be flat until the multiplier is 1 or less for the cases.


    You are still only basing your stability(sic) on you projection of a weak model.

    I instead of trying to justify your error of calling multiplier over 1 "stable", why not just say that the multiply appears lower based on one day's value and that there is hope that Italy is starting slow the expansion rate.

  • Only criminal states did this like Russia 3x in the past.


    All the owners of property are safe. Even better their loan is reduced.... Al the small people with just a little money loose halve of everything they own especially pension funds. Nobody will accept this but I agree that's exactly what the small circle of people hopes that did lend the 1'000'000'000'000'000 the central backs did print over the last 10 years and they turned into property!


    Perhaps I have not properly described this. Basically, everyone agrees that all consumable prices and wages go up be 50X. Historic debt would stay the same but be worth only 1/2 of what it was before.


    Little people would be fine. It is true that savers would be disadvantaged in proportion to their savings, debtors (e.g. hose with mortgages) would have a corresponding advantage. Pension funds are floored by the QE bv low interest rates otehrwise needed to satbilise large debt economies, so I doubt this would be worse.

  • Someone posted that both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have adverse effects on heart rhythm. But in the case of hydroxychloroquine, it may happen only after a longer period of time than required to treat COVID-19. And in the case of azithromycin, at least one paper suggests the determination is in error. Someone said the problem is atrial fibrillation? I did not see that. I did see concern about "prolonged Q-T interval" on the EKG. This issue, if really present, can cause lethal arrhythmias due to a phenomenon of cardiac conduction called "torsade de pointes" (from the French I suppose) and also ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. These are very very unlikely in short term use in people who do not have pre-existing heart disease. People who do must consult their cardiologist for advice including how to monitor their heart if they take the drugs.


    I will post links when I have more time. Anyway, the issue is a bit moot. There is, as of yet, no persuasive evidence for taking the drugs to prevent COVID-19. And if they are tried experimentally to treat progressive COVID-19 infection, the presumed benefit to risk ratio has to be considered. That's a tough one. It just isn't known yet.