Covid-19 News

Quote from THHuxleynew

Context: discussion of this retrospective cohort-matching study.

OK - I'd like Navid and W here to justify their statements - they seem very uninformed to me - and wrong in may key aspects of what they say. In fact I'd like both to apologise. Just as I did above to Bob.

Display More

What about their process prevents patients with cancer who could have a positive test (but didn't die from Covid), or could die from complications "that look like Covid" (pneumonia) from being considered a statistic?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Difficult to do that except for those in hospital. Equally, I've seen no evidence for HCQ as a prophylactic. The ecological studies (essentially Dr. R's argument) have so many confounding variables it is quite impossible to draw any conclusions from them. It might work as anti-viral within 48 hours of symptoms. But what is the evidence for this please? Timescale for that is quite tight since people need to be ECG tested.

The main problem today is that at least 99% of all doctors that work in the field have no time to write papers. The majority that follows the early treatment protocol sees strongly positive effects. Others that tried HCQ after 5-10 days of first symptoms barely see no change. But all this is done uncontrolled.

The paper you linked does not separate age groups and uses global data. E.g. 70 years in Russia is the same as 80 years in most of the west and may still young compared to Africa. Thus mixing data is bare nonsense. First requirement of any study is a homogenous test group. The more differences you introduce the lower its value. Medicaments can work for Europeans but not for Japanese etc...

I would only recommend HCQ (combo!) if you have no Ivermectin/Heparin for early treatment. But definitely it's the most cheap and may be also the most safe approach for early medication! (If you add zinc add some antibiotics fo course. )

As I said, no evidnece.

I agree getting evidence is difficult. The more specific you try to be the more difficult it is to get significant results. The paper I linked was about as good as it gets without a large RCT.

If you had that, you would still have 10 different treatment regimes you wanted to try.

No evidence is what you would see from any number of inactive drugs. Why the blind faith in HCQ?

https://www.newsmax.com/health…han/2020/05/20/id/968164/

Coronavirus Patients in New Chinese Cluster Have Different Symptoms

patients in the northeastern cities of Jilin City, Shulan, and Shengyang, suffer from mostly lung damage and not the heart, kidney, and stomach ailments the COVID-19 sufferers in Wuhan presented.

Chinese researchers from Zhejiang University revealed last month that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 already had mutated genetically 30 times, making one vaccine less likely to be effective, said the study authors.

Transit services, schools and residential compounds have been locked down to try and contain the outbreak in the northeastern provinces that already has sickened over 68,000 people.

Quote from Navid

What about their process prevents patients with cancer who could have a positive test (but didn't die from Covid), or could die from complications "that look like Covid" (pneumonia) from being considered a statistic?

What about it? No expectation that it is biassed HCQ/non-HCQ. Nor that it would happen much.

Complications (secondary infection pneumonia) are one of the main reasons for COVID deaths. Why would you want to exclude them from mortality statistics?

That is like saying that mortality from war should be restricted to death on the battlefield and not include subsequent secondary wound infections.

Nothing in medicine is perfect. it is the most approximate science there is. if you call it science. That is why it is relatively difficult to get evidence of treatment efficacy, and what often happens is treatment based on hope and bias. In the past, before modern medicine and RCTs, that happened all the time. Now only sometimes, as in fads for specific drugs in epidemics.

Do you think Republicans are the only "rich" politicians, therefore corrupt and not to be trusted? Who do you think the richest politician in the US is? Not Trump

It is Governor JB Pritzker at about $3.5 Billion in net worth. A liberal democrat. Trump is listed at $2.1 billion by some estimates.

Bob - this criticism is not fair: you are misunderstanding me. I'm not criticising Republican presidents for this more than Democrat, and I agree it is everywhere in the US. Trump was an interesting case where a personal fortune allowed him to break into a system but he would not have won without being popular. That was clear, and it is still true, and it is deeply regrettable that so divisive (in every way) figure should be popular. It happens when people feel they have not been listened to for too long. My comment after about money was nothing to do with Trump, and related to the whole system.

As you can see, I strongly dislike Trump for the important reason that he is divisive, in the US, and also in the international community. I think strongly emotive divisions, where sides don't respect each other, make for worse decision-making at every level. In the US both the parties are guilty of this: Trump elected as a President makes it worse. Perhaps Sanders would have been equally divisive, he was also not my favourite candidate, we will never now know.

In addition, I strongly dislike Trump's personal character and style. That I try to ignore, since a personally deplorable politician can be publicly a good statesman. But Trump's character defects are clearly in evidence affecting his public policy and his running of the administration. That is a bad sign independently of whether I like or dislike his politics. But the fact that he treats women so deplorably in his language, and in the way that he responds badly to women who challenge him, while I hate it, does not directly make him a bad President, although it might cause problems in his making good relationships with female leaders such as Merkle. I'm trying to find aspects of his (to me) appalling character that do not affect his Presidency and only partly succeeding.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What about it? No expectation that it is biassed HCQ/non-HCQ. Nor that it would happen much.

Complications (secondary infection pneumonia) are one of the main reasons for COVID deaths. Why would you want to exclude them from mortality statistics?

That is like saying that mortality from war should be restricted to death on the battlefield and not include subsequent secondary wound infections.

Nothing in medicine is perfect. it is the most approximate science there is. if you call it science. That is why it is relatively difficult to get evidence of treatment efficacy, and what often happens is treatment based on hope and bias. In the past, before modern medicine and RCTs, that happened all the time. Now only sometimes, as in fads for specific drugs in epidemics.

Display More

There is a world of difference from having 200 patients with Covid who symptomatically have Covid and a positive test - and then separating them into 2 groups.

Pulling EMR data on 200 patients with a Covid code is not even in the same ballpark. It means that literally all 200 could not have died from Covid at all. Covid codes are being used on everyone suspected or with a positive test even if they don't die of it. The State Health Director of Illinois said that publicly.

Maybe someone can help you understand the difference. The study is methodologically flawed, you don't have to to discuss bias or intent even.

Quote from JedRothwell

After 1600 or so, no successful government in history has done that, as far as I know. No major corporation has done that either. They always spend more than they take in. Any company that does not go into debt will soon go bankrupt. That is the iron law of commerce.

It does not look that way. Companies issue stock and sell bonds. A bond is essentially borrowed money. In the old days you could see this happening right outside your door. The phone company issued stock or sells bonds, and used the money to buy a bunch of telephone poles. It would erect them, string wires, and THEN after all that work and expense, it would start to make money from phone calls. There would be no revenue without poles, and no poles without debt. No company ever makes enough to sustain expansion without borrowing. Not even IBM did in their heyday when they bet the company on developing the IBM 360 computer, in 1964. That cost more than the Manhattan Project. They could not have done it without debt, and if they had failed, they would have gone bankrupt.

Nowadays you do not see the physical results of corporate debt as much, when they develop new software. Although in my neighborhood, trucks and excavators disrupted things for months when Google put in their Google fiber network. I do not know if they are making a profit from it. I could see it was costing a fortune. Even Google does not make enough current income to support such a massive undertaking.

The trick is to borrow money, spend it wisely on ventures that will make a profit, and then make a profit that you use to retire old debt while you incur new debt. The U.S. government did this many times, for example when it loaned money to build the Transcontinental Railroad; when it paid for the WWII GI bill, educating a generation; and when it paid for the development of semiconductors, integrated circuits, and the internet. Those were arguably the most successful investments in history. Uncle Sam made a killing on them. Uncle has never operated without borrowing. Here is what governments and corporations should NOT do: Borrow a bunch of money and then hand it over to wealthy people. That is more or less the tax policy of the Trump administration. The idea is that wealthy people invest the money and the profits will trickle down to the rest of us. That doesn't happen.

Display More

Certainly off topic so I will not push this to any great extent,.

A line of credit is certainly different that spending out of control and printing money.

Many companies borrow money and are in "debt" but the amount they can borrow is closely tied to their income, showing that they can maintain payments.

Again, a far cry from 5 Trillion dollar spending possible in the next few months, making our total debt increase to well over 20 Trillion dollars!

Tell the Greeks to simply skip their debt, or print money, or keep spending... no problem? I do not think so.

I am not saying that you cannot borrow or "have debt responsibilities" but to say debt is inconsequential and does not matter how high that debt goes, is incorrect.

And by the way, " No major corporation has done that either. They always spend more than they take in. Any company that does not go into debt will soon go bankrupt. That is the iron law of commerce." I have NEVER read this "iron law of commerce" and I am in business....not some arm chair.

Here is a quick list of "over 1 billion dollar corporations" that have more cash than debt. I.E. the have NOT spent more than they take in as a practice.

https://www.retirebeforedad.co…ompanies#debt-free5-table

Quote from Navid

Looks like the VA leadership was at the White House said that the "VA Study" wasn't their own and it was essentially fake "scientific" news.

And they use HCQ.

One set of paid disinformants gone, hundreds more to go -- including most of the media -- when will you pay attention to who's pulling your strings?

Link please?

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

More on the politically motivated demonization of HCQ ---

Coronavirus: Politicized "Medicine"

Soon, Lou, it won't matter. You can't politicize well performed, accurate, large, properly designed and peer reviewed, published medical studies. Those should be available soon (weeks or months). Most doctors do not jeopardize the care of their patients on the basis of politics. When were you ever asked your affiliation while visiting your care provider?

Quote from oldguy

Hope

Siwwie wabbit. Hope is about as effective as prayer.

Quote from Alan Smith

This is not the case here AFAIK. This is government debt to the bank of england at bottom. They can stiff themselves if they like. A lot of it is contango btw- negative interest rates.

I'm no economist but I read that the long term result of the debts and low interest rate could be runaway inflation with all the pain and destruction of assets that this entails.

Quote from Alan Smith

Maybe not - but you can certainly monetise them.

I suppose so but hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and zinc sulfate are all cheap generics. Maybe they can be monetized due to the huge volume? If they work, of course, which unfortunately is seeming less and less likely with every new report.

Quote from sam12

10 unanswered questions.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/…ll-can-t-answer-1.4944990

That is a really good list and article. Thank you.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Maybe they can be monetized due to the huge volume?

Not to the same extent as Remdesevir of Viagra...

Indian or Ugandan chemists have much less greed/need than Gilead or Pfizer..

Quote from Bob#2

Certainly off topic so I will not push this to any great extent,.

A line of credit is certainly different that spending out of control and printing money.

That depends on whose line of credit it is. Many failed silicon valley companies had gigantic lines of credit which they squandered by spending out of control. Such as Juicero:

https://www.theguardian.com/te…icon-valley-shutting-down

Some companies are wise, and others are foolish. IBM spent money wisely on the IBM 360 in the 1960s, but in the 1980s it almost put itself out of business by spending out of control, and spending on the wrong things.

Companies cannot print print money, but they have other ways of conjuring it up.

THHuxleynew Now you are being ridiculous saying there is no evidence. This is not some didactic intellectual discussion in the way you have been sceptical about cold fusion dissecting every little detail of calorimetry. The evidence is biochemical and clearly established. Clinicians are always terrible at doing rigorous RCT studies and usually end up in a mess. Remember medicine is an art, furthermore they are not trained in science, the title Dr is only honorary, MD. Mentally Deficient? (Joking). Or even to think in a logical way, especially when under stress of dealing with hosts of suffering patients. Don't get me wrong they are trying their best, but they need supervision by say someone like yourself to obtain the hard clinical evidence. No doubt it will arrive eventually, controlled, double blind, RCT. Meanwhile lets try and save lives by using these drugs in Anti Bat which have the highest probability of success. Also hypotheses can only be disproven and until the theory that HCQ, ivermectin etc are effective has been disproved at the scientific, objective biochemical level they should all be clinically used as our best hope yet along with vaccination, of ending this pandemic.

We got the result from a randomized seriological study of antibodies => IFR = 0.4, this reduces the fraction immune in sweden

so much that we today have 20% immunity in Stockholm and perhaps slightly above 10% in the country. The researchers are scratching their

head because the reproduction numbers are trending down with more and more careless individuals. So the spread is as we have a much

higher immunity then the study indicates. Let me correct though with the note. 25% of pop is between 0-20 assume all is not transmitting the descease. Then the effective immunity is 45% in Stockholm and 35% in the country.