The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Undone]

5 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I think the key takeaways that don't invade into that space are

1. Lincoln area hospitals are doing well and not overwhelmed by COVID in the least at the moment 

2. Tests are coming back false negative on a regular basis.

3. A potential reason for the false negatives is the idea there are 3 strains circulating the area. 

 

Yeah, I think it's a good summary.

 

There was also mention - which was more of an opinion, I guess - that a third wave in the fall was likely. 

I think all of us that follow the data closely already knew this. It's depressing. To me it seems relatively clear that these strains will become endemic and will probably be with us basically forever, similar to the flu. Which is also really depressing, given how much more harmful it is than the flu.

[Landlord]

On 7/28/2020 at 1:34 PM, knapplc said:

Great that you survived COVID. Hydroxychloroquine did nothing to help you. It's ineffective against this virus. 

 

That's a massive overstatement.

 

 

3 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

Sorry but ignoring experts and sound medical advice has consequences. Who could've guessed.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Harvey A. Risch, Professor of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, recently published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology, analyzing five studies (7 more have come out since then) showing that when hydroxychloroquine is given early in high-risk patients, especially in combination with azithromycin or doxycycline and zinc, it's highly effective.

 

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

 

Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media, and outpatient trials results are not expected until September. Early outpatient illness is very different than later hospitalized florid disease and the treatments differ.

Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease. Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.

 

https://watermark.silverchair.com/kwaa093.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAArEwggKtBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKeMIICmgIBADCCApMGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMMWjvMWnLTR_KwAkNAgEQgIICZCfHFws7vw2Q7jRFJkwJen5FLZkNS2OcBS7vYz_QDt1W1Dcror2yNH7KRpI-neY7InOcvAOMseJ-oMf7gGUJGQJ2uFlUF8iacyN1g1MdxfTnSFv0kaZKPBJzen_KTm8yMCDa6COESBHk1rpLhuyghRrchNI6H10uFycuO_g5PJZ4wAEOATMFkGlvmI37dEhoBwkYgqX2Ho1tKTowhstaBERjmWekeMqWKNERX4TiE9l5HjHB40hInU-wXYnoj-KB0xCegainrftt56X-hNZF5kCeP6Ckbl1hDccIPeKVrZPArTay7ma9tYh0wYcjynDokKeQKQ9l8OE5D-ZQohOCbwK1wMt2nALrzwWmuN3-gI_geZVU4UOA6fGwMbM2CbY9mRxy7UUkV8Kmz2cVxWNHMWilZY4XcdbZYxgk5iGHMWkAEIE2hAMyuXfr1RJ8fGQ_dzSIT5mrz_wNvWD2bLQdFskPwEtZ8iysaybQ6RIm1er8ni6zdv4opVKXoBYiO8OTgSmtekiMomfSwNcwXayMhlcdrBABOd7V4Kp2wzNtgBiRM4z8OwV93ILroik9jUxeyHKVfvGVzPWCgmhQye1j6E48uD7IAs08WZblxJPtrfZcTWQdhgIXPIgympfltdFTOMLVJlZI3EMs9yMZVeVbhPMw1-sRKGw0UYSZxDbvFlXfLqYsY69MUSThdPLeUgAP1yaon7uyuDm81KD4yOfWmd_fQlX77U6As8mDJJ6zekxFFbo7poH7HAlIUqcv79CDrJY7Icm9Dci_5i22x4Ww_3VOua2ZQMphDjFpo_oc-Fcig0Y2yg

[Nebfanatic]

10 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Yeah, I think it's a good summary.

 

There was also mention - which was more of an opinion, I guess - that a third wave in the fall was likely. 

I think all of us that follow the data closely already knew this. It's depressing. To me it seems relatively clear that these strains will become endemic and will probably be with us basically forever, similar to the flu. Which is also really depressing, given how much more harmful it is than the flu.

Without a doubt this will be endemic. It will become less serious as time passes and science catches up but its going to create issues forever pretty much. Also considering the misinformation that will surround a vaccine causing people to not get it will only worsen the issue. Its a tough reality we are going to have to get used to. 

[Landlord]

I'm not claiming that guy is RIGHT, but accomplished and distinguished professionals greatly differ in their conclusions still. So in the spirit of that, here's the dean of Yale not necessarily agreeing with him, and an op ed that calls him out as dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/07/24/harvey-risch-defends-hydroxychloroquine/

[Undone]

39 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Without a doubt this will be endemic. It will become less serious as time passes and science catches up but its going to create issues forever pretty much. Also considering the misinformation that will surround a vaccine causing people to not get it will only worsen the issue. Its a tough reality we are going to have to get used to. 

 

I've been thinking a lot lately about whether there will be a push for a federally mandated vaccine. Mandating vaccines doesn't line up with my own personal political/ideological preferences. I don't think the government should mandate what you put into your own body (nor what you can't put into your own body). I know that gets dicey when it comes to the really hard drugs like meth, etc.

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

When you look at the CDC statistics on the flu vaccine efficacy, you see a roughly 50% seasonal efficacy rate. This comes largely due to strain mutations; vaccine production seems to lag behind strain mutations - as well as the difficulty in forecasting which strain will be the worst. It's probably too early to tell what COVID will do there, IMO.

 

It would be amazing if vaccine effectiveness was so high that one could feel more or less "sure" that they'd personally be safe by being vaccinated, regardless of whether others are/aren't. I'm not sure if anyone has ever done statistical models on how much less prevalent the flu would be if every single American was vaccinated for it - I'd be really interested in knowing if such models have ever been created by a statistical analysis.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, Undone said:

 

I've been thinking a lot lately about whether there will be a push for a federally mandated vaccine. Mandating vaccines doesn't line up with my own personal political/ideological preferences. I don't think the government should mandate what you put into your own body (nor what you can't put into your own body). I know that gets dicey when it comes to the really hard drugs like meth, etc.

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

When you look at the CDC statistics on the flu vaccine efficacy, you see a roughly 50% seasonal efficacy rate. This comes largely due to strain mutations; vaccine production seems to lag behind strain mutations - as well as the difficulty in forecasting which strain will be the worst. It's probably too early to tell what COVID will do there, IMO.

 

It would be amazing if vaccine effectiveness was so high that one could feel more or less "sure" that they'd personally be safe by being vaccinated, regardless of whether others are/aren't. I'm not sure if anyone has ever done statistical models on how much less prevalent the flu would be if every single American was vaccinated for it - I'd be really interested in knowing if such models have ever been created by a statistical analysis.

I doubt they mandate it just because of the conspiracy theories. More trouble than its worth when I think it will be about as effective as a flu vaccine. Imo enough people get the vaccine that it will greatly help the situation. While I'm sure 100% vaccination would limit the flu(and COVID) much more, you hit a point of saturation. Once 70% of people are vaccinated/immune that slows the spread quite a bit 

[teachercd]

51 minutes ago, Landlord said:

I'm not claiming that guy is RIGHT, but accomplished and distinguished professionals greatly differ in their conclusions still. So in the spirit of that, here's the dean of Yale not necessarily agreeing with him, and an op ed that calls him out as dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/07/24/harvey-risch-defends-hydroxychloroquine/

That was interesting.  Thanks

[knapplc]

Oh, so we're doing this now.  OK.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/16/hydroxychloroquine-studies-show-drug-is-not-effective-early-treatment-mild-covid-19/

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

 

 

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Oh, so we're doing this now.  OK.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/16/hydroxychloroquine-studies-show-drug-is-not-effective-early-treatment-mild-covid-19/

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

 

 

 

Why would/does it bother you that HCQ has/might work for some patients? They wouldn't get it without physician oversight and approval, so if it works then great...and if not then on to something else. (I don't know how to do your shrugging emoji)

[knapplc]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

Why would/does it bother you that HCQ has/might work for some patients? They wouldn't get it without physician oversight and approval, so if it works then great...and if not then on to something else. (I don't know how to do your shrugging emoji)

 

Because it's being pushed for purely political reasons, by the same guy who said C19 would just "go away" by April, and who's shrugged his way through 150,000 American deaths. People grasping at straws for any way that Trump may be correct (or in Landlord's case, just finding my posts and being contrarian) aren't paying attention. 

 

 

[Landlord]

Just now, knapplc said:

Because it's being pushed for purely political reasons

 

By Trump, not by everyone.

 

We've got studies showing it's effective. We've got studies showing it's not. We've even got one study (since redacted I guess) showing it causes a steep increase in deaths.

 

It's probably not effective in any meaningful way. I don't believe it is. But everyone is in a rush with so much pressure, there is also push against it for political reasons not just for it, there's plenty of room for error in methodology of food & drug testing, and consensus takes time.

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Why would/does it bother you that HCQ has/might work for some patients? They wouldn't get it without physician oversight and approval, so if it works then great...and if not then on to something else. (I don't know how to do your shrugging emoji)

It's not the fact that it can work for some patients.  It's the fact that we have non-scientists in very powerful positions promoting the drug as a great cure for the disease when real scientists have repeatedly said just the opposite.  That is dangerous.

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Landlord said:

It's probably not effective in any meaningful way. I don't believe it is.

 

So not a "massive overstatement?" 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Landlord]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

So not a "massive overstatement?" 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

I'll rescind 'massive'.

[knapplc]

Just now, Landlord said:

 

 

I'll rescind 'massive'.

 

Rescind "over" as well and we're talking. It was a statement, backed by thorough studies, with sound logic. 

 

I'll take multiple studies by teams of doctors/analysts and the peer review process over single studies and single doctors' opinions. Because as we know, some doctors and some institutions have political biases as well. That's why it's best to base our opinions on the preponderance of evidence.