Covid-19 (WuFlu) News


  • Bob - obviously we cannot renege on debts. But printing money is quite possible. You are right - those Nations who have done this unreasonably have caused hyper-inflation. No-one sees that as desirable. But, in the last 10 years, inflation has consistently undershot central bank targets. To the extent that money (and debt) now is worth some 10% more than it would be had those targets been met.


    Setting inflation targets at a sensible level and sticking to them is the way to manage large debts. That exponential, over several decades, dominates. Exactly what is a sensible level is surely a trade-off, and it would not be stupid say for that to go up from 2% to 3% to speed up debt forgiveness.


    Indeed, this has been political. Yet please show me per your statement where Trump HIMSELF ever made unwise and incorrect claims. I have seen his interviews where he said it was interesting, showed promise, could be a game changer. These are all statements various MEDICAL and other sources have said as well.

    The media (and statements such as yours) are putting words in his mouth. (Not that he needs any help with that!) It is the MEDIA making this a big deal, not Trump. Yet you blame HIM and not the MEDIA. Again, show me proof otherrwise.


    SOT said that Trump should shut up about HCQ. Well, I challenge people here to show actual quotes or interviews where he has politically pushed this and pushed it in quantity. The MEDIA went crazy when they found out he was taking HCQ and broadcast it.... not Trump. How come we are not demonizing the MEDIA for their "incorrect", "unwise" and political reporting? Such as saying Trump said to drink bleach..... a complete fabrication and intentional political ploy.


    Ok, so mea culpa, you are right that Trump's original remarks were roughly in line (though expressed less cautiously) with what we were hoping at that time. But we are not making policy for countries, nor setting expectations for people. In that case caution is advisable. For example, Trump's recent comments abut the safety of HCQ (not true) may well lead many people to take it without the necessary checks - which Trump himself no doubt gets, every day. And Trump, unlike us, appears not to revise his expectations based on evidence.

  • Context: discussion of this retrospective cohort-matching study.



    You're being nice. Go read the actual study, at first brush (I spent 120 seconds) looks like a great fake news study. The people could have had a positive covid test and being dying of cancer. It's data from an EMR.


    Once more THH references an old study discussed many times. The folks do say nothing about the single crucial factor:


    How many days after first symptoms did the patients get the medication ?? HCQ works best as we we said 100x times now latest after 48 hours of first symptoms. We know since more than a month that after day 7 already a small percentage is "underground" ...Very old people can die even faster after e.g. only 3 days.


    Anyway THH is also citing meta studies about HCQ, what tells all you need to know about his intentions!


    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.


    (N fail) from the study "All hospitalized adult patients (> 18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 20, 2020, and May 1, 2020, were identified using COVID19 specific diagnosis and laboratory findings following the WHO and CDC COVID-19 guidelines (N=3618)".


    (N fail) "120s reading and it looks like fake news". No evidence, no serious reading. It looks like an academic study. Now, one of these might indeed be fake news but you would need to spend more than 120s to determine that.


    (W fail) This study is not old. It had a data collection cutoff of May 13, published May 18.


    (W fail) It is not a meta-study. It is an observational study looking back at recent hospital records. Now, in absence of RCT the best evidence we have comes from clinical practice. The best way to get signal, short of an RCT, is to take a large cohort of patients and match them very carefully for propensity on baseline (admission) measurements by selecting suitable subsets. If I were a clinician in the US wanting quickly to get evidence for HCQ this is exactly what I would do.


    (W fail) My intentions here, notwithstanding acknowledged political views (I think Trump's presidency is disastrous for the world and hope it stops soon) are to find the best possible evidence about HCQ. It is a powerful drug that might help. It would be great if it did. It is well tolerated, in hospital setting there are no problems from its widespread use. But it is not clear whether it helps or hinders COVID patients. Unlike many, who jump on every bit of evidence, i can't say (and if you read what i wrote did not say) that HCQ is known ineffective. I guess if the hypothesis is that HCQ is a prophylactic I don't think there is any ethical evidence to determine that - patients need proper monitoring to be given HCQ long-term as you all know. 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.


    Continual transparently wrong arguments about science do the reputation of this thread no good.


    THH


  • 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?


  • 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.

  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.



    1ABMDAbiomed6.498B27.05--
    2ALGNAlign Technology12.834B29.47--
    3CMGChipotle Mexican Grill15.328B44.59--
    4ANETArista Networks12.268B15.09--
    5EXPDExpeditors Intl of Wash9.836B17.091.001.53%
    6FBFacebook427.297B23.31--
    7FFIVF5 Networks5.855B14.73--
    8FTNTFortinet13.297B41.22--
    9GRMNGarmin13.571B14.262.243.15%
    10ISRGIntuitive Surgical48.071B35.92--
    11JKHYJack Henry & Associates11.554B41.171.61.11%
    12MKTXMarketAxess Holdings11.812B57.682.040.76%
    13SWKSSkyworks Solutions12.447B15.311.642.12%
    14TROWT. Rowe Price Group24.108B11.743.043.35%
    15TTWOTake-Two Interactive12.523B37.33



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

  • 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?

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.