Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

[novaveritas]

^ precisely.

couldn't have put it better myself (maybe I did, but hey it doesn't matter)
I will be taking Favapiravir or HCQ if the thing gets me. I hope it doesn't but you just don't know. Remdesivir perhaps but I quite like my liver.

 

[mal3volent]

The last one is most potentially worrisome as a permanent level of individual tracking would be very worrisome. However even this case could very well be a temporary attempt to reduce gatherings at churches, which would indeed be a breeding ground for greatly increasing the spread of the virus.

There have been people threatening to pack churches in Kentucky and other states today. The governors have only a few choices. Let it happen, in which case more people will almost certainly die. Put locks on the doors and/or arrest people...think we can both agree that wouldn't be the best option. Or, let people know there's a chance there will be consequences for their actions if they choose to go against the order.

Allowing people to congregate for Easter in churches would be fine if it only affected those who chose to go there. The problem is, it affects all of us. We've seen proven cases , at least around here, that early on the virus spread through a church from a single person, and now that County has one of the worst outbreaks in the state.

The government already reads your license plates using cameras, and they have for a long time now. Using that technology to keep people from dying is not even approaching nefarious .

 

[JessFR]

If it's being administered by doctors, in hospital where the patient can be monitored, why can't we?

Especially when the alternative is literally letting people die of something which could very well be preventable.

People who were in intensive care made quick recoveries because of this stuff, ignoring it just because "hur dur Trump bad" is absurd.

Ignore Trump. Look at the clinical trials. The success rates are impressive enough to warrant action given this is a novel virus with no approved treatment. Other antiviral drugs such as remdesivir also show promise.

Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro - Cell Research

www.nature.com

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate…

www.sciencedirect.com

I have looked at the trials. I wasn't impressed.

The ones I've seen aren't nearly comprehensive enough.

As for the danger, I think perhaps either you've misunderstood me or I've done a bad job explaining it.

Yes, administering it to someone, with their consent, when there are no realistic other options and survival prospects are already low, can probably be justified.

What's not justified here, is using it as a first line treatment. In individual cases it may be justified in the context of the situation, but not for widespread use. Because if it turns out to be useless, and we know it has side effects, and we know other people really do need it, the danger of doing more harm than good becomes unacceptably high.

The problem is trumps comments have caused it to be used to a degree that is not justified by the existing data.

And if we just did that all the time, if we (as a society) just start treating people with any given drug that shows promise in studies of a few dozen people or no controls. What will happen is all sorts of drugs will get used inappropriately, and that will wind up killing people.

That is my problem with this.

Once there are proper studies, on people, with controls and sample sizes larger than a couple dozen, then it will be justified.

 

[mal3volent]

Yeah I don't believe you. You've talked a lot of shit in the past. I'd have to see some sort of evidence.

Because the video footage I've seen shows quiet hospitals. So there should be some footage of that on twitter at least.

You don't believe the video I posted, you don't believe first hand accounts from doctors and nurses, and you don't believe another poster whose own sister works in the field.

Yet you post ridiculous YouTube videos and articles from hack reporters to back up the stuff you DO believe.

I also like how you post NYT articles when you happen to find one you agree with. Tomorrow if someone posts one you don't agree with, then it's fake news.

 

[Wilson Wilson]

I have looked at the trials. I wasn't impressed.

The ones I've seen aren't nearly comprehensive enough.

As for the danger, I think perhaps either you've misunderstood me or I've done a bad job explaining it.

Yes, administering it to someone, with their consent, then there are no realistic other options and survival prospects are already low, can probably be justified.

What's not justified here, is using it as a first line treatment. In individual cases it may be justified in the context of the situation, but not for widespread use. Because if it turns out to be useless, and we know it has side effects, and we know other people really do need it, the danger of doing more harm than good becomes unjustified.

The problem is trumps comments have caused it to be used to a degree that is not justified by the existing data.

And if we just did that all the time, if we (as a society) just start treating people with any given drug that shows promise in studies of a few dozen people or no controls. What will happen is all sorts of drugs will get used inappropriately, and that will wind up killing people.

That is my problem with this.

No one is advocating widespread use. A few morons attempting to self-medicate don't invalidate the potential usefulness of the drug.

The most impressive results come from South Korea where the health authorities have advocated use of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs for COVID-19. You can look at South Korea's super low death rate as evidence of their strategy's effectiveness.

South Korea experts recommend anti-HIV, anti-malaria drugs for COVID-19

South Korean disease experts have begun to recommend the use of a combination of antiviral and anti-malaria drugs for patients of the new strain of coronavirus.

www.upi.com

 

[JessFR]

You don't believe the video I posted, you don't believe first hand accounts from doctors and nurses, and you don't believe another poster whose own sister works in the field.

Yet you post ridiculous YouTube videos and articles from hack reporters to back up the stuff you DO believe.

He follows the evidence wherever it takes him!

It's not his fault that the only evidence that can be trusted just happens to reflect his preexisting beliefs! :D

 

[JessFR]

No one is advocating widespread use. A few morons attempting to self-medicate don't invalidate the potential usefulness of the drug.

The most impressive results come from South Korea where the health authorities have advocated use of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs for COVID-19. You can look at South Korea's super low death rate as evidence of their strategy's effectiveness.

South Korea experts recommend anti-HIV, anti-malaria drugs for COVID-19

South Korean disease experts have begun to recommend the use of a combination of antiviral and anti-malaria drugs for patients of the new strain of coronavirus.

www.upi.com

Correlation is not causation.

Australia's death rate is significantly lower, and here use of the drug has been discouraged by health authorities.

South Korea's results are most certainly in spite of the drug not because of it.

And, you can't argue that nobody is advocating its widespread use in the same post where you argue that it works as shown when south korea advocated its widespread use.

You get one argument or the other.

 

[Wilson Wilson]

Correlation is not causation.

Australia's death rate is significantly lower, and here use of the drug has been discouraged by health authorities.

South Korea's results are most certainly in spite of the drug not because of it.

And, you can't argue that nobody is advocating its widespread use in the same post where you argue that it works as shown when south korea advocated its widespread use.

You get one argument or the other.

Where has South Korea advocated widespread use?

From the article I just linked:

The South Korean groups warned that there is "currently no standard treatment for COVID-19," and urged medical staff to use their best judgment when treating patients. COVID-19 patients showing severe pneumonia-like symptoms, high-risk groups including the elderly and the chronically ill, are target groups for a more "active" administration of the drugs, South Korean experts said.

That's literally the opposite of advocating widespread use. They're saying use it sparingly on those most at risk and displaying severe symptoms.

Your speculation that SK's low death rate is in spite of the meds is just that... speculation. No data to back that up.

 

[novaveritas]

I have looked at the trials. I wasn't impressed.

The ones I've seen aren't nearly comprehensive enough.

As for the danger, I think perhaps either you've misunderstood me or I've done a bad job explaining it.

Yes, administering it to someone, with their consent, when there are no realistic other options and survival prospects are already low, can probably be justified.

What's not justified here, is using it as a first line treatment. In individual cases it may be justified in the context of the situation, but not for widespread use. Because if it turns out to be useless, and we know it has side effects, and we know other people really do need it, the danger of doing more harm than good becomes unacceptably high.

The problem is trumps comments have caused it to be used to a degree that is not justified by the existing data.

And if we just did that all the time, if we (as a society) just start treating people with any given drug that shows promise in studies of a few dozen people or no controls. What will happen is all sorts of drugs will get used inappropriately, and that will wind up killing people.

That is my problem with this.

Once there are proper studies, on people, with controls and sample sizes larger than a couple dozen, then it will be justified.

I think in general there are more things that you and I agree on than disagree but there are some fundamental things that jar and why you are unlikely to speak for me in general. My belief is that people should have the choice. Nobody is administering anything to anyone without consent. In this situation a doctor is going to be very careful to explain things and get informed consent because it is the doctor who gets sued for off label.

The regulatory system is not fit for purpose and it is designed to infatilize everyone and make them dependent on some oxygen wasting bureaucrat, that is something I am very uncomfortable and will stand and fight at every turn with but you seem more accepting of. That is what I meant by you being a conformist, perhaps I should have said staus quo-ist. I don't know what you do for a living and I actually don't care but I wonder where you get the passive acceptance of the wisdom of your owners from given your life history.

 

[atara]

Why smart people believe coronavirus myths

From students to politicians, many smart people have fallen for dangerous lies spread about the new coronavirus. Why? And how can you protect yourself from misinformation?

www.bbc.com

EDIT: removed

 

[S.J.B.]

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

South Korea CFR: 2% (deaths / cases); 10% (deaths / resolved cases)
US CFR: 0.4% (deaths / cases); 40% (deaths / resolved cases)

The US CFR based on the link given is 4%, not 0.4%. Also, the South Korean deaths out of resolved cases is 3%, not 10%.

 

[atara]

My bad. I misread the chart.

 

[S.J.B.]

Look at the clinical trials. The success rates are impressive enough to warrant action given this is a novel virus with no approved treatment. Other antiviral drugs such as remdesivir also show promise.

Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro - Cell Research

www.nature.com

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate…

www.sciencedirect.com

The first link is only in vitro data and the second has no control arm.

 

[novaveritas]

OK
this is interesting, a randomised serological survey. More will appear in due course. does serious damage to the IC model.

Covid antibody test in German town shows 15 per cent infection rate | The Spectator

This morning we have some data giving a little more insight into the great unknown of the coronavirus pandemic: just how widely among the population has SARS-CoV-2 – the virus which causes Covid-19 – spread among the general population. A team at the University of Bonn has tested a randomised...

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[CFC]

do you want a schooling in medical ethics?

you are one seriously smug individual. as the saying goes Hubris is not a dip.

If you worked for any organisation I controlled or worked with, I admit I would probaly have engineered your dismissal a long time ago. because I think your blinkered uberconformist view leads to you walking down lanes with blinkers on and therefore missing the angles or subtleties and is not constructive.

Actually Jess is the one true lizard ruler of this entire planet, so she may sack you if you don't play nice

 

[JGrimez]

Ease up, it was a legitimately disjointed post. I didn't comment on the veracity of what you posted, only that I found it to be disjointed and couldn't make sense of it easily. No need to be so defensive.

I even separated each section with a line to make it easy for people like yourself instead of spamming posts. It was just an unnecessary comment and you're making yourself look ignorant.

 

[JGrimez]

 

[Xorkoth]

I don't find that video clip at all convincing. So right at that moment, no one is being rushed into the hospital, we can say that for sure. The brief glance into the main lobby doesn't really show much. The guy didn't go inside. I mean this really doesn't show anything one way or the other. Now if he hung out and took video all day and no one was entering or exiting the hospital, then yeah I'd say that would show something. But a 52 second clip that doesn't show activity outside, or give a clear view inside (and even if it did, 52 seconds of not seeing people rushing around)... means nothing.

 

[atara]

you are one seriously smug individual.

This may be the most ironic thing ever posted in CEPS

OK
this is interesting, a randomised serological survey. More will appear in due course. does serious damage to the IC model.

Covid antibody test in German town shows 15 per cent infection rate | The Spectator

This morning we have some data giving a little more insight into the great unknown of the coronavirus pandemic: just how widely among the population has SARS-CoV-2 – the virus which causes Covid-19 – spread among the general population. A team at the University of Bonn has tested a randomised...

www.spectator.co.uk

A number of such studies have come out. IIRC one in Italy showed a 38% antibody rate; one in rural Colorado showed a 2% antibody rate.

One reason not to be too optimistic about these analyses are the data showing that there are multiple strains of SARS-CoV-2 and that we're not sure if patients who have recovered develop a good immunity. Exposure to one strain might not indicate immunity to all of them.

Another issue is that there are a lot of other coronaviruses which carry peptides similar to peptides in SARS-CoV-2. Antibodies target a specific substructure or protein, not the whole virus, so an antibody the body develops in response to one virus might happen to bind to another.

 

[JGrimez]

I also like how you post NYT articles when you happen to find one you agree with. Tomorrow if someone posts one you don't agree with, then it's fake news.

Yeah I like it too because it gives me hope for some of mainstream media (the best stuff is almost always op-eds though, I guess so the source can distance itself if necessary). And unlike some people who refuse to even look at content if it comes from a specific source I'll assess each one as it comes and be aware that sources and people change their stances on topics over time.