Covid-19 News

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Addenda --

Some additional evidence in favor of HCQ --

"Treatment Response to Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir–Ritonavir, and Antibiotics for Moderate COVID-19:

A First Report on the Pharmacological Outcomes from South Korea"

Looking at the details here the results look positive, because the baseline disease, comorbidities, and age etc of the control group are worse than of the HCQ group, but the numbers are very small so this is not very significant:

(brackets are percentages). All patients have classified moderate baseline disease though the

exact figures are slightly worse for HCQ than conservative.

L/R HCQ Conservative

Patients 35 22 40
Age, years 49 (13.9) 42.5 (15.1) 36.1 (14.3)
Sex, female 25 (71.4) 21 (95.5) 33 (82.5)

Hypertension 5 (14.3) 1 (4.5) 5 (12.5)
Diabetes 1 (2.9) 1 (4.5) 0 (0)
Dyslipidemia 2 (5.7) 1 (4.5) 2 (5.0)
Thyroid 0 (0) 2 (9.1) 2 (5.1)

But the endpoints that are positive have relatively little relevance for patients themselves, and in fact even the reduced times are highly suspect since measured from start of treatment

that might be later in conservative case than HCQ case?

Hospital stay after initiation of treatment, days
19.9 (5.8) 16.5 (4.0) 20.7 (7.8) 0.025 0.063

time from treatment initiation to viral clearance, days
19.1 (5.7) 15.3 (3.8) 20.7 (10.3) 0.011 0.011

time from treatment initiation to Ct value > 35, days
15.4 (2.9) 12.6 (2.5) 14.5 (3.1) 0.001 0.005

Notable that one of the HCQ patients went to ICU vs none of the conservative.
Refer to tertiary hospital/ICU 4 (11.4)

1 (4.5) 0 (0) 0.375 0.189

Mortality (no-one died)

Recent study by Geleris et al. that analyzed 1376 patients concluded no beneficial effect of HQ
on patients’ mortality and progression to severe disease [17]. It should be noted that primary
endpoints and population of our study differ from that of Geleris et al.; we mainly focused on
viral clearance and symptom duration in moderate patients, whereas the study by Geleris et al.
focused mostly on mortality and and intubation rate in severe cases is clinically important, expediting viral clearance in

moderate COVID-19 patients are as much relevant for immediate application in many areas
around the world, and several RCTs have been conducted in this regard [14, 18, 19].

This looks to me like desperately trying to find something positive about the drugs and not really succeeding.

Quote from stefan

For ifr nerds, checkout the Norwegian antibody study. I think they found 2-2.5% has antibodies and they have about 40-50 deaths per million

yields ifr 0.16%-0.25% close to the swedish figure I tried to caclulate above.

Interesting. But not correct!

From worldometer:

Norway: Active cases 7992. Recovered cases 32. Deaths 43.

Those active cases (currently only 18 are classed serious, but as we know with COVID this can change) will either recover or become deaths...

A little more detail on the Bangladesh Ivermectin +Doxycycline results..

" it was not a formal regulatory approved study but rather an ongoing, hospital-specific,

approved off-label use of medication for some COVID-19 patients with escalating conditions.

More specifically, they are combining a dosage of ivermectin 200 mcg/kg once orally with Doxycycline.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/…ation-targeting-covid-19/

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.04.15.20067074v3

Interesting analysis estimating IFR in Italy from total population fatality rate, which gives a lower bound.

They also find that age dependence is worse than previously thought - though maybe that is due to everyone dying at home without hospital intervention?

We estimate that the number of COVID-19 deaths in Italy is 49,000-53,000 as of May 9 2020, as compared to the official number of 33,000. The Population Fatality Rate (PFR) has reached 0.26% in the most affected region of Lombardia and 0.58% in the most affected province of Bergamo. These PFRs constitutes a lower bound to the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). We combine the PFRs with the Test Positivity Ratio to derive a better lower bound of 0.61% on the IFR for Lombardia. We further estimate the IFR as a function of age and find a steeper age dependence than previous studies: we find 17% of COVID-related deaths are attributed to the age group above 90, 7.5% to 80-89, declining to 0.04% for age 40-49 and 0.01% for age 30-39, the latter more than an order of magnitude lower than previous estimates. We observe that the IFR traces the Yearly Mortality Rate (YMR) above ages of 60 years, which can be used as a model to estimate the IFR for other populations and thus other regions in the world. We predict an IFR lower bound of 0.5% for NYC and that 27% of the total COVID-19 fatalities in NYC should arise from the population below 65 years. This is in agreement with the official NYC data and three times higher than the percentage observed in Lombardia. Combining the PFR with the Princess Diamond cruise ship IFR for ages above 70 we estimate the infection rates (IR) for regions in Italy. These peak in Lombardia at 26% (13%-47%, 95% c.l.), and for provinces in Bergamo at 69% (35%- 100%, 95% c.l.). These estimates suggest that the number of infected people greatly exceeds the number of positive tests, e.g., by a factor of 35 in Lombardia.

Proposed doxycycline trial... 80 days PLUS..

Doxycycline (most commonly dosed at 100mg twice daily) thas been selected based on its

1) ability to inhibit metalloproteinases (MMPs), implicated in initial viral entry into the cell as well as in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) associated with severe COVID-19 infection.

2) potential to inhibit Papain-like proteinase (PLpro) responsible for proteolytic cleavage of the replicase polyprotein to release non-structural proteins 1, 2 & 3 (Nsp1, Nsp2 and Nsp3) all essential for viral replication.

3) potential to inhibit 3C-like main protease (3CLpro) or Nsp5 which is cleaved from the polyproteins causes further cleavage of Nsp4-16 and mediates maturation of Nsps which is essential in the virus lifecycle.

4) activity as an ionophore help transport Zinc intracellularly, increasing cellular concentrations of Zinc to inhibit viral replication.

5) ability to inhibit Nf-kB which may lower inflammatory response to COVID-19 infection, and lower risk of viral entry due to decreasing DPP4 cell surface receptor.

6) ability to inhibit (specifically low-dose doxycycline) expression of CD147/EMMPRIN that may be necessary for SARS-CoV-2 entry into T lymphocytes

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.05.11.20098525v1

And another take on doxycycline:

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1252/rr-20

I would like to propose that frontline NHS healthcare workers take the antibiotic Doxycycline (1) prophylactically to prevent COVID-19 infections in hospital and GP settings nationwide. For example, they could take 100-mg of Doxycycline per day.

Doxycycline is widely and readily available in the United Kingdom and world-wide. The cost would be minimal, less than 10 pence a day per person. Since it is already MHRA-approved for bacterial infections, it can also be prescribed legally by consultants and GPs, in an off-licence fashion.

Doxycycline has previously been shown to inhibit the replication of other viruses, such as the Dengue virus (2), among others, because it is an inhibitor of protein synthesis. It also inhibits the production of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 (3), that are activated in COVID-19 patients.

Doxycycline is a very safe drug, which was first FDA-approved in 1967, over 50 years ago. It is already used for the prevention of acne and malaria, as well as many other bacterial infections. Bacterial super-infection is a major complication of viral infections and was the major cause of mortality during the influenza pandemic of 1918 (4, 5).

So, you'd use it anyway for pneumonia, and that is a likely complication of severe COVID.

robert bryant nice find, definitely replace azithromycin with doxycycline then. This would suggest a clinical trial with hydroxychloroquine 200 mg, ivermectin, 50 mg, doxycycline 100 mg, and Zn sulphate 200 mg, D3 100 microgram. Even without other herbals and supplements like quercetin and curcumin this should knock the Corona virus on the head if used for MFT (Mass Fever Treatment) on the first appearance of CO VID 19 symptoms. WHO has done this many times in Third world, what is the problem of doing the same here? This pharmaceutical combo could be formulated into a single pill of Anti Bat to be taken twice daily. HCQ hysteria will swept aside eventually.

Can even double the dose of doxy, 200 mg is also quite safe Don't need prophylaxis though if Anti Bat is on hand to be taken on first sign of symptoms. Doxycycline is now stockpiled and probably soon to be unavailable. Just as well as have abundant veterinary ivermectin which can be simply repurposed Then there's other tetracyclines.. Nice to see some common sense returning after all this BS media hysteria. All those biochemical pathways need to be explored in more detail and direct invitro/in vivo animal testing on any anti bat prescription is urgently needed, the synergic or potentiating actions of components might be the game changer, not the individual actions studied in isolation.

Quote from Dr Richard

HCQ hysteria will swept aside eventually.

The mechanism of action of doxycycline (and other tetracyclines) for bacterial pneumonia

is thought to be inactivation of the 30S ribosome in bacteria..

stopping them making proteins..

This is the rationale behind its use for community acquired bacterial pneumonia..

but penicillins/cephalosprins/ macrolides and even one old sulfa drug are also used.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal…munity-acquired-pneumonia

Apparently six different doxycycline mechanisms might work against coronavirus viral pneumonia..

But combination with ivermectin, Zn , HCQ might prove useful

Hopefully Trump does not say doxycycline is a game changer..

Quote from Alan Smith

stefan

I should point out that in a previous post you said 'children are immune' - No they are not, they are often asymptomatic, which is NOT immunity, it just means they don't always get noticeably sick.

true but I think it's fair to say that they are immune and contribute such to the ifr, so you get an percepted correct ifr from a decition standpoint more then a technically correct one. I think that if Norway with their very good

elderly care could reach a perseptive ifr of 0.05% if they took over our methods.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Interesting. But not correct!

From worldometer:

Norway: Active cases 7992. Recovered cases 32. Deaths 43.

Those active cases (currently only 18 are classed serious, but as we know with COVID this can change) will either recover or become deaths...

Display More

Well something is wrong in the data if what you say is true No Ifr calculation from any country would be valid. I've been following them (death rates lags typically say two weeks, and should be good enough to use for Norway) note Norway have been stationary for a very long time with low number of deaths. Their study was a thorough and that ifr i quite robust measure but I would use 40 something + - 10% as I do not know the time point of sampling. The swedish study I use for basing calculations however is not a proper randomized sample. For that we need to wait. But a perseptive IFR of 0.2% (needed for calculating fraction of people ho got corona oexcludng childs) or even 0.05% if we remove elderly care. for sweden is reasonable as it is coherrent with other calulations. And now that match Norway as well in magnitude which would be reasonable because of similar population, quality of care, health of population (I would say Norwegians are very healthy), genetic composition of the population, and close meaning proably the same strain of the virus. This IFR is also reasonable with the lack of fear for the virus you find here. The problematic cases are very rare in normal population, I know of none at my job, none of my elderly friends or family have gotten it thank god and I only know someone that knows someone that got it and needed medical care. Sure it can be is nasty but people are not afraid which a perseptive ifr of 0.05% would explain. Sweden has a pretty flat population curve. Itally should have a higher ifr because they have a much elderly population and often live generational. Now also note that excluding children is a good measure as children is known not to spread the desease, the cases of teachers getting corona is due to contact with their collegues and not the children. Actually children was exclluded in the calculation I did. If you do that we get in sweden a decrease of about 20% due to 20% lower population count, but because the study was from a sample of the working population a safe measure is to increase it again with 20% to include the old ones in all ifr 0.2% is a good measure to use to analyze e.g. herd immunity. excluding children then Stockholm today have 40% or close to immunity. probaly 25% in the whole country.

Quote

Flu vaccines are not 15% effective. They are close to 100% effective for the strains they target.

This is nonsense - for example it's known, they don't work for elderly - they therefore cannot be 100% effective even theoretically. For example last year flu vaccine was only 17% effective. Canadian paper suggests that the vaccine is only 17% effective against H3N2, the strain that’s causing 80% of flu infections. Worse, in those aged 20 to 64, it’s only 10% effective.

Number of flu cases has increased from 9 million during the 2012 season to 49 million during the 2018 season despite the record number of flu shots US had record flu deaths last year, says CDC despite $4 billion business of flu vaccination and despite the number of influensa shots is steadily growing (source).

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics The proponents of vaccination like to neglect fact, that many infectious diseases (like scarlet fever) disappeared by itself without any vaccination (or even just because of it, because more polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus. See also: 1, 2, 3

Quote from Wyttenbach

Vaccines need at least 2 years of extended tests until they can be "safely" deployed to a larger set of population.

Obviously this can be sped up, by spending a lot more money and doing testing and the construction of mass production equipment in parallel. The risk is that the equipment will be the wrong kind and it will have to be modified or scrapped. That would cost money. That's a risk worth taking. This is a dire emergency. People's health, their lives, and the whole economy is in jeopardy.

Quote from Wyttenbach

If COV-19 would be as deadly as SARS/MERS then a speedup would justify the risk. But currently we see only a total mortality between 0.3 .. 0.7% with < 0.1% for people younger than 65.

This is nuts. 90,000 people have died in the U.S., in 6 weeks. That's 780,000 a year. 40 years of typical influenza deaths compressed into one year! Of course the risk is justified.

For that matter, the economic damage alone justifies the risk. I oppose early ending of the shutdowns, because no preparation has been made in Georgia and other states. No monitoring or case tracking, and not enough testing. If we had these things, I would be 100% in favor of reopening, even though that is bound to kill some people. There is always a trade-off. We drive at 65 mph on highways. Limiting the speed 55 mph would save many lives. But it would cost time and money. We are willing to make that trade off. Even I am willing, although I strongly favor improving the technology with self-driving cars to reduce accidents.

Quote from JedRothwell

Obviously this can be sped up, by spending a lot more money and doing testing and the construction of mass production equipment in parallel. The risk is that the equipment will be the wrong kind and it will have to be modified or scrapped. That would cost money. That's a risk worth taking. This is a dire emergency. People's health, their lives, and the whole economy is in jeopardy.

And more than anything it's about messenger RNA (or mRNA), which is a different kind of vaccine where essentially the vaccine directs the body to make the medicine that protects it from the virus. It's interesting and unproven technology - article below. If Moderna can get it to work (or one of the other groups) they probably will win a Nobel Prize for it. It would speed vaccine development by years.

In terms of the time it takes for approval (here in the U.S.) it's really up to what the FDA is comfortable with. They can approve any drug they want. Moderna will have a test later this summer on a 1,000+ people. The key will be if that test produces antibodies in that larger group, so it's effective with no side effects. If it does (and who knows if it will) then it's just a matter of how long the FDA will wait before giving it the green light. I would think it would be 6 months tops if everything looked ok. So in the early part of 2021. That would be a bit of a miracle in terms of getting a vaccine that quickly.

The issue of making it and distributing it is another story. Getting it to billions of people would be another major accomplishment that would take many months if not years.

https://cen.acs.org/business/s…rupt-drug-industry/96/i35

Quote from seven_of_twenty

The other issue in the store, senior hours or not, is people who are infected coming too close or coughing near or even on you. People are not reliable. Why be near the general public when you don't need to?

There are fewer people during senior hour. It is two days a week starting at 7 am. The grocery store was practically deserted at 7 am this morning. Close to 8 it gets crowded. They limit the total number of people by limiting the number of shopping carts, which is clever.

Quote from JedRothwell

There are fewer people during senior hour. It is two days a week starting at 7 am. The grocery store was practically deserted at 7 am this morning. Close to 8 it gets crowded. They limit the total number of people by limiting the number of shopping carts, which is clever.

FWIW - I saw a commentator with a medical b/g on an interview where they said that if Georgia opening back up were to lead to an increase in new cases, we would likely see it happen in the last week of May. That was their estimation of the time it would take for the virus to spread and people to show symptoms, get tested for them and get the results. GA essentially went first with the opening up, so it will be interesting to see what their daily new cases are in about a week.

Spain and Italy seem to be doing pretty well so far.

Quote from JedRothwell

Obviously this can be sped up, by spending a lot more money and doing testing and the construction of mass production equipment in parallel.

OK: Then try it you can speed up your live by drinking a bottle of Whisky/ day and that way deliver an early feedback result...

Quote from JedRothwell

This is nuts. 90,000 people have died in the U.S., in 6 weeks. That's 780,000 a year.

So what ? Even THH now posts the correct IFR's from Italy he didn't believe a week ago. COV-19 is harmless for people younger than 50 or even 65. 70'000 out of these 90'000 US deaths will give a negative feed back next year and will be missing in the statistics.

No problem to vaccinate the vulnerable ! but this is not the big business the mafia is targeting! (OK in your country with all the obese it's not so small ...)

So what ? Even THH now posts the correct IFR's from Italy he didn't believe a week ago. COV-19 is harmless for people younger than 50 or even 65.

W - I know you like to wind us up saying nonsense but this is so obviously a joke why do you bother?

https://www.statista.com/stati…eaths-by-region-in-italy/

1200 deaths is not harmless.

A few links I haven't seen here

1. worldometer -- The Covid-19 pandemic has catapulted one mysterious data website to prominence, sowing confusion in international rankings

<https://www.cnn.com/interactiv…ter-coronavirus-mystery/index.html>

2. Sweden : Coronavirus: What's going wrong in Sweden's care homes?

<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52704836>

Quote

More than half of elderly Covid-19 victims in Sweden have died in care homes. Some healthcare workers believe an institutional

reluctance to admit patients to hospital is costing lives.

...

"They told us that we shouldn't send anyone to the hospital, even if they may be 65 and have many years to live. We were told not to send them in"

3. Sweden -- why is the daily case/million and daily deaths/million still so much higher than Norway?

https://91-divoc.com/pages/cov…rway#countries-normalized

4 Ga. church closes two weeks after reopening as families come down

with coronavirus

https://www.christianpost.com/…-with-coronavirus-236899/

Quote

...

During that time, officials noted that “all modes of social

distancing were practiced and followed by the families attending.”

Seating was marked to only permit sitting within the six foot

guidelines, all doors were open to allow access without the touching

of doors, and attendees were asked to enter in a social distancing

manner and were dismissed in a formal manner as well to ensure that

the social distancing measures were adhered by all,” the church

said.

...

Display More