Quote from THHuxleynew

So the question is: do we have any RCT data showing this claimed prophylatic effect?

The problem here is that when a drug only confers a prophylactic effect, so you give it to lots of not ill people in the hope they will stay not ill, is more difficult to evaluate (you need higher numbers) and also the cost of any deleterious effects is much high, because you are giving the drug to many people who do not need it.

HCQ is used for malaria prophylaxis in some places. So it is not an insurmountable barrier, especially for places more accepting of small risks for some gain. In the West you would want very good evidence of the gain.

Where is it? You'd hope we had it by now.

Display More

Let's choose just one --

"Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19"

http://www.ijmr.org.in/article…age=467;aulast=Chatterjee

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Let's choose just one --

"Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19"

http://www.ijmr.org.in/article…age=467;aulast=Chatterjee

This will not be enough for THH...its also difficult to understand that a drug developed for prophylaxis is used for prophylaxis...

Also far to few problems with 6 repeated doses. May be they took just a Chinese candy...

I think the data at this website is accurate.

R_t COVID-19

These are up-to-date values for R_t, a key measure of how fast the virus is growing. It’s the average number of people who become infected by an infectious person. If R_t is above 1.0, the virus will spread quickly. When R_t is below 1.0, the virus will stop spreading.

https://rt.live/

The overall trend for the U.S. sharply up, with a record 40,184 cases in one day. Deaths are down, but I expect they will begin to climb a week or two after infections increased. The deaths per case are down, perhaps because more young people are getting sick. I have read that is mainly because they have to get back to work, not because they are feckless. The ones I know who got sick are not to blame.

The increase is definitely not because of increased testing. The percent of positive tests is way up in hard-hit areas.

The increase is regional. The northeast is falling at the same rate as the EU; the midwest is stable; other regions are increasing rapidly:

Re: HCQ + Azithromycin for treatment

via RT..

Moussa Seydi, Senegal minimal side effects... RCT continuing...

Moussa says he is not sheep of Panurge...from the novels by Rabelais

mouton de Panurge describes an individual that will blindly follow others regardless of the consequences.

This, after a story in which Panurge buys a sheep from the merchant Dindenault and then, a

s a revenge for being overcharged, throws the sheep into the sea.

The rest of the sheep in the herd follow the first over the side of the boat, in spite of the best efforts of the shepherd.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think the data at this website is accurate.

R_t COVID-19

These are up-to-date values for R_t, a key measure of how fast the virus is growing. It’s the average number of people who become infected by an infectious person. If R_t is above 1.0, the virus will spread quickly. When R_t is below 1.0, the virus will stop spreading.

https://rt.live/

Display More

Useful info: how Rt changes over time locally gives you a good idea of what is going on and is not so often reported. The other (more usually reported) figure is the current infection rate of course, since Rt tells you whether to apply positive or negative exponential growth to that over time.

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Let's choose just one --

"Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19"

http://www.ijmr.org.in/article…age=467;aulast=Chatterjee

Right. From the large number of likes I guess lots of people here view correlational evidence as useful in solving this problem. It is not.

For example the very many claims for Vitamin D association with good health are doubtful - because Vit D correlates with youth and sunshine exposure which correlates in various ways with health.

In this case HCQ correlates with COVID survival.

Consumption of four or more maintenance doses of HCQ was associated with a significant decline in the odds of getting infected (AOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.88); a dose-response relationship existed between frequency of exposure to HCQ and such reductions (χ^[2] for trend=48.88; P <0.001).

COVID is particularly bad for such studies. Early on, in my innocent COVID-youth, I posted some observational results from US Vets hospitals negative for HCQ. These were rubbished as being useless. I agree (now). The reason is that adjusting properly for COVID confounders is very difficult.

In this case, the sample size (200+200) is small for observational data, and the number of known confounders (including place and date and highly nonlinear dependence on age) is large. That is recipe for unreliable results. In this case they have binned all age > 50 together. That leaves highly nonlinear relationships inside this bin that can confound the data. I don't claim to be good at understanding this stuff, but I do know, from papers I've linked here before, how easy it is to get bad results throwing multivariate analysis at problems when you bin your inputs wrong.

RCTs please.

THH

More very positive reports on HCQ ---

"Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin

and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1477893920302817

Two video analyses of the report --

Drbeen Medical Lectures: Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin Two Studies

Excerpt: "... and I am a little surprised that nobody in media picked up this study and

talked about it, while the incorrect studies, less than optimal studies had been talked

about again and again, repeatedly and talked about with the pundits, and people who were

not even doctors - and that was weird, and now nobody is talking about these studies ...""

And, from Peak Prosperity --

Covid-19: Is The Worst Behind Us?

Were thousands of deaths unnecessary?

Quote from Shane D.

In this poisoned atmosphere, anyone prescribing it, and having their patient have a bad outcome, would run a high risk of lawsuit.

I read somewhere that the Congress passed emergency legislation saying you cannot sue a doctor or hospital for malpractice when treatments for coronavirus do not work. I don't recall the details.

The New York Times reports that young people are being infected more often.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…s-cases-young-people.html

As Virus Surges, Younger People Account for ‘Disturbing’ Number of Cases

People in their 20s, 30s and 40s account for a growing proportion of the cases in many places, raising fears that asymptomatic young people are helping to fuel the virus’s spread.

CHICAGO — Younger people are making up a growing percentage of new coronavirus cases in cities and states where the virus is now surging, a trend that has alarmed public health officials and prompted renewed pleas for masks and social distancing.

In Arizona, where drive-up sites are overwhelmed by people seeking coronavirus tests, people ages 20 to 44 account for nearly half of all cases. In Florida, which breaks records for new cases nearly every day, the median age of residents testing positive for the virus has dropped to 35, down from 65 in March.

And in Texas, where the governor paused the reopening process on Thursday as hospitals grow increasingly crowded, young people now account for the majority of new cases in several urban centers. In Cameron County, which includes Brownsville and the tourist town of South Padre Island, people under 40 make up more than half of newly reported cases.

“What is clear is that the proportion of people who are younger appears to have dramatically changed,” said Joseph McCormick, a professor of epidemiology at UTHealth School of Public Health in Brownsville. “It’s really quite disturbing.” . . .

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

And, from Peak Prosperity --

Covid-19: Is The Worst Behind Us?

No, it isn't.

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Were thousands of deaths unnecessary?

Yes, most were unnecessary.

Quote from Shane D.

So, for various reasons, some having nothing to do with good science, the issue seems to be settled here in the US. Too bad, because there may still be something to this. One promising observation that runs through many of these studies/trials, and that the authors in this report highlight, is that one of the most noted benefits has been that patients on HCQ experience higher virus shedding, or some call it "reduced viral loading". If it does that, and it is safe, then it would follow that it must have some benefit.

A factor of 3 in reduced overall mortality with 7 days HCQ+AZT versus 0 for the Gilead crap is not very bad. The French study should now definitely finish all controversy.

But be aware that not all people are equal and what saves the live of Jim might not work for Joe. We have no clue how good the old classic corona anti bodies do protect us. This - old classic corona anti bodies - are by far the most important and still completely unknown factor.

Since 6 weeks now we are below 60 new cases/day. Deaths are low between 0..2/day.

https://www.srf.ch/news/schwei…fallzahlen-in-der-schweiz

Even the USA with increasing case numbers (new hot spot Florida the US "youth hotel" ) sees a decline in deaths or a stable ongoing situation. All doctors seem to know at least of blood thinners now.

But compared to Europe the USA is still in the middle of an uncomfortable situation that will last for some more months. 120'000 deaths are equivalent to a very bad flu but still not a historic number like the one from the Spanish flue ( 2 waves).

Switzerland is also back to an overall below average mortality. Where as New York had peaks with 7x average our single peak month April) was + 25%.

Thus no two places are equal. And may be we all need now HCQ prophylaxis if we want to travel around the world. Not a very pleasant outlook for the next year....

I definitively would sell all airline shares as long as these still do have a value...

It appears we are at an R of 1.1 or a bit higher here in the U.S. Florida is running ahead of that.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Dexamethasone Enhances 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3

Effects by Increasing Vitamin D Receptor Transcription

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196110/

Quote from Shane D.

Can I be less concerned, since the R>1 is because younger people are getting infected more?

You should be concerned because it is inevitable that the young people will infect older people, obese people, people with cancer, pregnant women, and others who are in grave danger from coronavirus. It is not possible for a woman to have a baby without coming into contact with other people. If many of those people are infected, she will be too. Also you should be concerned because 5% of young people who get the coronavirus are hospitalized. That is a much higher percent than, say, influenza. The disease is much more severe for that 5%. They suffer for weeks, coughing up blood. They are weak and have difficulty breathing. They may suffer for life. So even if they do not die, they may not be able to have normal lives, taking long walks, exercising, or having sex.

You should be concerned because when 40,000 people per day get sick, the economy cannot recover.

That R>1 applies to older people as well, although it is higher for young people than it was in the last few months.

For all those reasons, and many more, you should be concerned.