Covid-19 News

Quote from Bob#2

To say New York is doing a great job is way too early. It is wishful thinking.

No, it isn't wishful thinking. First, because we know the method works in China, Korea, Japan, Greece and other countries. If it is done right, it has to work, biology being the same everywhere. That's science for you. Second, the project began on April 22. Cases had fallen before that, but they were starting to increase. Soon after the project began you see a continuous, dramatic drop off in cases. This was before the lockdown ended. It cannot be a coincidence. There is no such drop off in states with no tracking and warning, such as Georgia and Texas.

New York:

Georgia, stable; no decrease or sharp increase:

Texas, continuous increase:

The difference is dramatic.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it isn't wishful thinking. First, because we know the method works in China, Korea, Japan, Greece and other countries. If it is done right, it has to work, biology being the same everywhere. That's science for you. Second, the project began on April 22. Cases had fallen before that, but they were starting to increase. Soon after the project began you see a continuous, dramatic drop off in cases. This was before the lockdown ended. It cannot be a coincidence. There is no such drop off in states with no tracking and warning, such as Georgia and Texas.

New York:

Georgia, stable; no decrease or sharp increase:

Texas, continuous increase:

The difference is dramatic.

Display More

Well you are giving track and trace a lot of credit when it is clear New York's decline started well before track and trace was implemented!

According to your graph, New York's general decline started week of April 9th.

Track and trace was not even implemented on April 23rd!

https://www.cityandstateny.com…ace-program-covid-19.html

The announcement had just been made! By the 23rd, the new cases had already decreased nearly 50% and the trend unmistakable. To implement, it would have taken some more weeks. So a majority of that decline had already been seen..... not attributable to track and trace. And a declining new case count can be just as easily attributed to various other causes or combinations as well.

Comparably, here is a chart of New Jersey, which is not tracking and tracing and it looks very similar as New Yorks, parallel time frame.

New Jersey

And similarly, Rhode Island

So with comparable declines from non-tracking states, this gives argument that the declines were not fully or even majorly influenced by track and trace.

Yet, California.....not doing so good and their tracking and tracing in place ....?

https://calmatters.org/health/…contact-tracing-training/

California Daily new cases

And even Alaska... with really, really low cases, should be really, really easy to implement tracking and tracing

Alaska Daily new cases

Well, as one can see, they are going up in spite of tracking and tracing...but then again most states would LOVE to see 15 new cases per day!

(I am not saying Alaska is doing a bad job)

So as stated, tracking and tracing possibly can help....

It is certainly no guarantee....

However, I believe it is way too early to see how "successful" it has been in New York. Surrounding state's decline look very similar without track and trace.

New York's decline started well before track and trace was implemented. It is inconclusive that New York's decline is because of this method.

California seems to suck at it! (Big surprise)

Again, hopefully it will be successful. Touting it as already successful is premature in New York. I could just as easily say not tracking and tracing in RI and NJ is just as successful.... at this point. Time will tell.... perhaps...

Quote from Bob#2

Well you are giving track and trace a lot of credit when it is clear New York's decline started well before track and trace was implemented!

But, as I said, it started to increase again. Furthermore, states that did not implement tracking, such as Georgia, stopped declining after the lockdown ended. Or they did not decline as rapidly and they did not stay down.

Quote from Bob#2

According to your graph, New York's general decline started week of April 9th.

Worldmeters, not me.

Quote from Bob#2

Comparably, here is a chart of New Jersey, which is not tracking and tracing and it looks very similar as New Yorks, parallel time frame.

New Jersey is tracking. It is part of the project headed by Bloomberg, organized by Johns Hopkins. So is Connecticut. (The tristate area.)

Quote from Bob#2

And even Alaska... with really, really low cases, should be really, really easy to implement tracking and tracing

Alaska is doing tracking. There are only 14 cases there. They have some of the most experienced case trackers in the world, who have been doing this for decades with other diseases. I think because Alaska is prone to infectious disease in winter. You can see from the photo they are not using high-tech methods, but it is very effective:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-new…-alaska-coronavirus-case/

Tracking is not a magic panacea. It can fail. Japan was tracking when things got out of hand in mid-April. The pandemic is now back under control. Experts there say that is because of tracking and warning. They say it would not have gotten back under control with cases reduced back down to ~40 per day without tracking. Experts in Korea and China also say that. You should not dispute experts who manage to control the pandemic to this extent. You should grant they probably know what they are talking about, and they are right.

Quote from Bob#2

Again, hopefully it will be successful. Touting it as already successful is premature in New York.

"Touting" is the wrong word. It means:

1: to make much of : PROMOTE, TALK UPtouted as the summer's blockbuster moviethe college's much touted women's studies program

2: to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately

I am pointing to data. That is not importune. I am telling you what the experts say in several countries that have indisputably brought the pandemic under control. You have not disputed them. You have merely said that people are different in different countries. That's sort of true. But not relevant, because people, culture, the government and laws are vastly different in China versus Japan, Korea, Greece or New Zealand, yet these countries all used this strategy successfully. Some had lockdowns, but others did not, or they were limited to a tiny fraction of the population. So, lockdowns did not accomplish this. Tracking did.

It is not premature to point to New York. Or even if it is, it is certainly not premature to point to China, Korea, Japan or New Zealand.

In the article I linked to above, you see that Alaska is a showcase for case tracking. The experts there say it is essential. Quoting the article:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-new…-alaska-coronavirus-case/

. . . Contact tracing involves sussing out all close human contact an infected person has had during their infectious period, creating a detailed timeline of their daily life in order to identify and advise the people exposed that they need to self-quarantine or isolate, in hopes of arresting the chain of transmission spreading the virus, said McLaughlin.

It is low-tech, detail-heavy work that involves asking strangers probing questions by phone for hours at a time, and methodically checking back with exposed people to ask about their symptoms, nurses say.

Alaska public health officials say it’s one of the best weapons they have in corralling the coronavirus.

“Every single person who has tested positive for coronavirus has had this tracing process done,” said Tim Struna, the Juneau-based head of the Division of Public Health’s statewide public nursing section. “It is part of what’s keeping the curve down in Alaska.”

Projected exponential growth in coronavirus cases in Alaska has not materialized, said Struna.

“I think that can be attributed to these two strategies: People in Alaska doing the best they can to social distance,” he said. “And the contact tracing.”

On Wednesday, Alaska’s chief medical officer Anne Zink called “aggressive contact investigations” one of a handful of practices that could stop localized outbreaks. The following day, she suggested that Alaskans keep a log of daily interactions to make it easier for public health workers to track down who they may have been in contact with if they were exposed to the virus. . . .

Quote from JedRothwell

"Touting" is the wrong word. It means:

1: to make much of : PROMOTE, TALK UPtouted as the summer's blockbuster moviethe college's much touted women's studies program

2: to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately

I am pointing to data. That is not importune. I am telling you what the experts say in several countries that have indisputably brought the pandemic under control. You have not disputed them. You have merely said that people are different in different countries. That's sort of true. But not relevant, because people, culture, the government and laws are vastly different in China versus Japan, Korea, Greece or New Zealand, yet these countries all used this strategy successfully. Some had lockdowns, but others did not, or they were limited to a tiny fraction of the population. So, lockdowns did not accomplish this. Tracking did.

It is not premature to point to New York. Or even if it is, it is certainly not premature to point to China, Korea, Japan or New Zealand.

Display More

OK, my last word on the issue.

I am not against tracking and tracing..... (now tracking and warning? not sure what changed the description)

I am not saying that tracking and tracing / (new warning description) is invalid nor helpful.

I am saying it is too early to say New York's decline is because of strictly tracking and tracing!

I did give facts that the decline was well under way before the tracking program started.

I did give facts that it would have taken a few weeks for tracking to be implemented and the impact seen, by then the new cases had dropped even more.

Some adjoining states showed declines that were not tracking. (You did state New Jersey was tracking and I have no reason to doubt you, I have not looked.) However it appears that R.I and a few others are not and their drops are similar, which gives some evidence that New York's drop could be from other reasons as well.

California's rate is increasing... one can excuse track/trace as not being done correctly... or one can say it is near impossible to implement there with the riots, and various other issues... or simply that what works for one does not work for all.

I also simply stated that the US is much different in culture and social construct than China, S. Korea and likely Japan. Alan has responded Japan is very metropolitan. However, I have also seen photos of Japanese wearing masks long before Covid broke out. There certainly are some differences, but as he points out, probably less likely than I might imagine.

So my biggest point is that what works for one, does not automatically mean it will work for all and that it is too early to say :

JedRothwell wrote:

New York is doing a great job.

I believe you did promote it (tout) and are giving track and trace (now warning) all the credit or at least most of it.

There is much dispute New York's over all handling of the Covid19 Pandemic as anything but "great". so that is certainly open to opinion.

https://www.businessinsider.co…-new-york-disaster-2020-4

https://news.yahoo.com/the-mis…s-epidemic-090040375.html

https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/…g-homes-amid-coronavirus/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…irus-response-delays.html

(and I did not include a single Fox story!)

(But I will state that it is a very hard job running any state and I do not envy a governor's position. Likewise on the federal level as well)

My last thoughts on this as it is likely an endless debate.

Thanks.

Quote from Bob#2

I am not against tracking and tracing..... (now tracking and warning? not sure what changed the description)

I am not saying that tracking and tracing / (new warning description) is invalid nor helpful.

"Warning" refers to the fact that tracking alone has no effect. The people doing the tracking have to contact people and warn them they may have been exposed to the disease. Then they urge the people to be tested. If this step is not taken, testing and tracking are useless. In the U.S. the administration and others have said the nation is now doing a record number of tests. That is true, but it will have no effect on the epidemic, and it will accomplish nothing unless it is combined with case tracking and warning.

"Tracing" has the same meaning as "tracking."

Quote from Bob#2

I am saying it is too early to say New York's decline is because of strictly tracking and tracing!

Yes, you are saying this, but experts in epidemiology say the opposite. Unless you happen to be an expert, you are wrong. I am confident that the expert in Alaska who said case tracking is “part of what’s keeping the curve down in Alaska" knows more about this than you do. I am 100% sure the experts in Japan in charge of their program know more about this than you do. They say case tracking is essential. I think you should stop contradicting these experts and ignoring the data.

Quote from Bob#2

I did give facts that the decline was well under way before the tracking program started.

You did indeed, and I pointed out why the decline was underway. Because of the shutdown. The graph also shows that the decline was reversed until case tracking again pushed the curve down. Comparing this curve to other states that have not implemented case tracking such as Georgia and Texas shows that cases do not decline without tracking. They stay at the same level, or they go up. Comparing this curve to other states that have implemented case tracking, such as New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts shows that all of these states have fallen to a level far below states like Texas that did not implement this. They are 3 to 10 times lower. They are still falling, whereas most states that have not implemented this are increasing.

This data from the U.S., plus the data from China, Japan, Korea and other countries is indisputable proof that case tracking works, and the pandemic cannot be controlled without it. If tracking is not implemented nationwide, roughly 200,000 more people will die before a vaccine becomes available, assuming that happens around March 2021. That is the price we will pay because people like you assume you know better than the experts, and you ignore the data, and ignore what other countries have done. It is caused by ignorance, hubris and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Those are also, by the way, the main reasons cold fusion research has been derailed.

More debunking of fake science promoted by the fake "news" --

Researchers Overdosing COVID-19 Patients on Hydroxychloroquine,

States Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS)

https://www.biospace.com/artic…s-and-amp-surgeons-aaps-/

EXCERPT:

- Doses of HCQ in some trials, such as the UK's "Recovery" trial and the multinational World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial may be toxic or even lethal, and much higher than recommended for any medical condition. The cumulative dose of this long-acting drug in the "Recovery" trial (9.6 grams) is four times as high as used in India.

- A Brazilian study published in JAMA is being investigated by Brazilian governmental authorities for ethical reasons: investigators were giving seriously ill patients a lethal dose of chloroquine. HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) is much safer than chloroquine but like all drugs is toxic in too-high doses.

- Americans are being urged to "follow the science." But AAPS asks: "How can we trust the established authorities or prestigious journals when, in this perilous time, trials of an available, inexpensive, long-established drug appear to be designed to fail, while risking the lives of their subjects through deliberate or negligent drug overdoses?"

For once AAAS seems right.

AAAS (yeah, yeah) point out that some of the 'bad' trials have been
giving LETHAL doses.

<https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/researchers-overdosing-covid-19-patie
nts-on-hydroxychloroquine-states-association-of-american-physicians-and-amp-surg
eons-aaps-/>

CQ :
<https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=391&sectionid=42069865
>

>  the lethal dose of chloroquine for an adult is estimated at 30–50
mg/kg.  

* 62 kg (The average weight of an adult human is 137 pounds (62 kg)
) 

= 30 * 62 =  1.8g  to 50 * 62 = 3.1g

Brazil paper :
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v2>

high dose CQ (600mg CQ twice daily for 10 days or total dose 12g);
or low dose CQ (450mg for 5 days, twice daily only on the first day,
or total dose 2.7g). 

Obviously one needs to look at the elimination rate over 10 days  
  <https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00608>
   The half life of chloroquine is 20-60 days.

HCQ :
<https://www.medintensiva.org/en-hydroxychloroquine-potentially-lethal-drug-arti
culo-S2173572717300577> 
Although the lethal dose has not been well established, the clinical
series suggest that 4g of hydroxychloroquine is potentially fatal in
adults.

A 200mg oral dose of hydroxychloroquine has a half life of 537 hours
or 22.4 days in blood, and 2963 hours or 123.5 days in plasma.

AAAS : The cumulative dose of this long-acting drug in the
"Recovery" trial (9.6 grams) is four times as high as used in India.

Recovery Study
<https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/recovery-protocol-v6-0-2020-05-14.pdf>

(I used 'code' instead of quote because I copied that from a post I made on an 80-column text site -- well.com
Sorry for any formatting foo
)

Does Alan Fletcher know the half-life of chloroquine or HCQ? And the steady state level as opposed to single dose level?

Does Covid related liver injury affect drug clearance/toxicity?

Does Covid related gastrointestinal damage increase or decrease the effective dose?

Do respiratory or cardiac damage in later stage Covid patients change safe dosing levels?

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Does Alan Fletcher know the half-life of chloroquine or HCQ? And the steady state level as opposed to single dose level?

Does Covid related liver injury affect drug clearance/toxicity?

Does Covid related gastrointestinal damage increase or decrease the effective dose?

Do respiratory or cardiac damage in later stage Covid patients change safe dosing levels?

Display More

None of us know that stuff.

But, I am 100% certain that the NHS team in charge of RECOVERY do know it, and chose dosage based on science balancing what was known about effectiveness against what was known (more reliable) about toxicity.

Frankly, these pro-HCQ op-eds are just whinging. Nastily. No doubt all over the world there are many bad trials.

It is very easy writing an op-ed to say:

(1) dosage long-term is toxic and too high

(2) dosage for 5 days or whatever is too low to be effective.

If it does not work than one of other of those will be true at all dosages.

You can always claim that some different dosing regime etc would work better. Or (more plausible) that the drug only works if given as prophylactic.

There is a consensus of opinion based on what we know now (it might change, but we know quite a lot) that the drug probably does not work as treatment on patients already in hospital.

Still some wiggle-room about whether it works as prophylaxis. And this is being trialled.

What annoys me from these guys claiming the testers are all idiots is:

(1) they are not idiots

(2) they have good of their patients as primary concern

(3) they do not (in UK) have any political axe to grind. Unlike the people writing this stuff.

So I see this disinformation as being just nasty. I do not like it when people are nasty in this way.

Also, I'm not arguing we know HCQ does not work as treatment. (Read above carefully). We know more about it than most other treatments, and so far results are negative, but we still have limited information and can't be sure.

Those doing trials have to make balance of probabilities judgements based on available info, sometimes they are wrong.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am 100% certain that the NHS team in charge of RECOVERY do know it,

Opinion posting helps nobody in this case:

How about asking these folks for the protocol details?? In fact these should be published by WHO if it was a regular official study!

Quote from THHuxleynew

So I see this disinformation as being just nasty. I do not like it when people are nasty in this way.

APS are not idiots but many doctors obviously are. Dr.Richard did post the HCQ dosage information early on and may be you could exceptionally do some work by checking them as certainly APS did too.

Just to remind you: It took them (the average hospital doctor) now about 6 months to understand why they should early give blood thinners to patients that could soon show potential signs of trombosis! I'm pretty sure that now they will prescribe the most expensive new one instead of the best suited Heparin.

Where are your warnings in the British hype case of Dexamethason ?? It is far more dangerous than HCQ! (That is of no use in progressive case!s)

Because an apparent association has been suggested between use of corticosteroids and left ventricular free-wall rupture after a recent myocardial infarction, corticosteroids should be used with extreme caution in these patients. /Corticosteroids/

Because glucocorticoids increase susceptibility to and mask symptoms of infection, the drugs should not be used, except in life-threatening situations, in patients with viral infections or bacterial infections not controlled by anti-infectives. Manufacturers state that glucocorticoid oral inhalation therapy should be used with caution, if at all, in patients with untreated systemic fungal, bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections.

/SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Glucocorticoids may cause fetal damage when administered to pregnant women. One retrospective study of 260 women who received pharmacologic dosages of glucocorticoids during pregnancy revealed 2 instances of cleft palate, 8 stillbirths, 1 spontaneous abortion, and 15 premature births.

All this can be avoided by just giving Heparin/Ivermectin + AB (Doxy) in progressive cases leading to a much higher survival rate!

For people interested in the time of origin and mutations of CoV-19

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…301829?via%3Dihub#bbb0125

Also UK: Confirming China did cheat about the October outbreak date

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitst…df?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

More bad news from UK ... if you have blood group "A" as I do have.... --> higher CoV-19 risk!

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/…20283?query=featured_home

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Does Alan Fletcher know the half-life of chloroquine or HCQ? And the steady state level as opposed to single dose level?

No ... I identified half-life as a potential problem, and gave a couple of first-google-hit estimates of half-life of CQ and HCQ -- which at face value are longer than the treatment period, allowing build-up to toxic levels. I don't have access to medical-grade dose calculators.

I was fact-checking the AAPS letter vs two studies they quoted. (In left out the referenced Brazilian scientists letter of concern and went directly to the underlying reports.)

In the sixteenth-century Swiss scientist Paracelsus said:

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy."

some what old news but worth repeating.

Study: There May Be No Immunity to COVID-19

https://www.newsmax.com/health…han/2020/06/18/id/972880/

According to the South China Morning Post, the scientists said that at least 25% of the workers could have been infected at some point during the pandemic, but only 4% developed antibodies. This information dashes hopes that people who recover from COVID-19 could be issued “immune certificates,” which would allow them to work and travel freely.

University of Texas in Galveston showed that more than 10% of the people in their study lost antibody protection within a month

I don't know what to think of this report-

Radiation, Covid-19, and Longer Life Spans

https://canadafreepress.com/ar…-19-and-longer-life-spans

Human medical trials have begun on severely ill Covid-19 patients using low doses of radiation. Although a very small sample size, the results were quite extraordinary.

Researchers at Emory University Hospital, led by Dr. Mohammad Khan, treated five Covid-19 patients with severe pneumonia who were requiring supplemental oxygen and whose health was visibly deteriorating. Their median age was 90 with a range from 64 to 94, four were female, four were African-American, and one was Caucasian. ¹…

Within 24 hours, four of the patients showed rapid improvement in oxygenation and mental status (more awake, alert and talkative) and were being discharged from the hospital 12 days later....

Quote from oldguy

I don't know what to think of this report-

Radiation, Covid-19, and Longer Life Spans

https://canadafreepress.com/ar…-19-and-longer-life-spans

Human medical trials have begun on severely ill Covid-19 patients using low doses of radiation. Although a very small sample size, the results were quite extraordinary.

Researchers at Emory University Hospital, led by Dr. Mohammad Khan, treated five Covid-19 patients with severe pneumonia who were requiring supplemental oxygen and whose health was visibly deteriorating. Their median age was 90 with a range from 64 to 94, four were female, four were African-American, and one was Caucasian. ¹…

Within 24 hours, four of the patients showed rapid improvement in oxygenation and mental status (more awake, alert and talkative) and were being discharged from the hospital 12 days later....

Display More

Wow,

After discharge, are they still improving?

https://news.google.com/articl…=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Coronavirus antibodies may last only two to three months after infection, study suggests

Researchers in the Wanzhou District of China compared the antibody response of 37 asymptomatic people with that of 37 symptomatic people. The researchers found people without symptoms had a weaker antibody response than those with symptoms.

Additionally, within eight weeks, antibodies fell to undetectable levels in 40% of asymptomatic people, compared with 12.9% of symptomatic people, according to the study’s findings.

A person can get Covid 19 as frequently as he can get the common cold.

“When you look at the history of coronaviruses, the common coronaviruses that cause the common cold, the reports in the literature are that the durability of immunity that’s protective ranges from three to six months to almost always less than a year,” he said during an interview on June 2 with JAMA Editor Howard Bauchner. “That’s not a lot of durability and protection.”