Took an antibody test last week because I've been exposed literally hundreds if not a thousand or more times through my job at a retail wine and spirits store in an Orthodox Jewish community.
I've taken modest precautions for most of this time - wearing a mask at work, washing my hands 5 or more times during my 6-8 hour work shifts, and avoiding bringing my hands to my face at all times that I am conscious of them.
I don't wear gloves at all since I figure I can carry the virus in a water droplet from a wine bottle touched (or coughed on) by a customer to my face just as easily on a glove as on my bare skin...
I am reasonably knowledgeable about germs, microbes, viruses, disease spread as well as aseptic technique... I've taken college level undergrad or grad level courses in viruses and microbiology both and did well in those courses...
I dont have antibodies, and I've never had any sign of infection of the virus, none whatsoever.
So how easily is this bug transmitted, really?
Later I will go into some historical comparison between the current Covid-19 pandemic and the 1918 H1N1 malaise... So far this current pandemic is honestly weak sauce compared to that one... So far.
That pandemic killed anywhere from 10% to 30% of the world's population, in a world where far fewer people were 65+ years old, the primary mortality target of this current pandemic. I'd throw out the wild guess that we will have a vaccine against Covid-19 well before it reaches the staggering proportion of the 1918 Spanish flu.
Any thoughts appreciated, but let's keep this wholly apolitical, please. Comments from MDs or other healthcare pros especially appreciated in advance.
Quote:
You can quibble about the effectiveness of the peer review, but outside experts noticed some potential issues that they highlighted and brought to the attention of the journal. That is quite frequent in academic literature.
So, let's say that you are correct, and it's 100% a fake on the part of the two studies. Observational data on the part of "hundreds" of doctors has not been verified either (and some of these doctors have been found to be in settings where it's not likely that they saw COVID-positive patients). And academic retraction is much more damning than your favorite social media platform deleting posts.
And, given that the burden is on objective analysis of the null hypothesis, which is that HCQ is not effective, we shouldn't instantly adopt the alternative.
Of course not and that's not my point.
If there was a study that came out and said HCQ with z-pack and zinc proves effective do you think before being shared it would garner a massive amount of scrutiny?
If, you agree, that yes it would, then why don't you think this surgisphere study warranted the same level of scrutiny before esteemed publications like the lancet and NEJM shared it?
It would go through the exact same process.
But given that there is typically a higher burden IN EVERY STUDY when findings reveal a potential rejection of the null hypothesis, it would face similar scrutiny that any other paper would face, if it found an effective drug for a large-scale illness.
Positive findings require much more scrutiny, and for a good reason. That's not biased against HCQ; it's how science has always worked.
Part of me feels there may be some follow the money at play but I am someone who thinks we have lots of corruption in government.
Kicker thanks for that economic data. Like to hear your thoughts on the impact all these businesses going out will have on the financial system. In my city, it seems like 50% of the businesses on the street won't make it.
Link - ( New Window )
It's not unique to most of the research being conducted on COVID right now, but it's an retrospective (after-the-fact) study. Means you know the outcomes before you do the study. Could bias the study.
They have no description of how they assigned patients to the groups, except that those who were COVID sicker got HCQ and an antibiotic. It could be that it works. It could be that those with higher secondary risk factors were not prescribed HCQ. We don't know.
It states that HCQ was not used except in people with "minimal cardiac factors". So, could be that death rates in the "placebo" group are higher because they had bad tickers. Especially if COVID has more severe impacts on the heart than we though in March, April, and May.
The distribution of groups. Typically, randomization will lead to roughly equal groups (not always). 16% of the study received nothing. 78% got HCQ (maybe antibiotics). Smaller groups can have higher variance in outcomes.
There are some other statistical things that you could quibble over (the models they chose to analyze), but that would be more of a restrospective analysis on my end, if they provided the data.
I don't think it's per se a bad study. But at this point, there's nothing causal here. They haven't randomized, they excluded from the treatment those with serious heart issues. They are doing a further, RCT study on this, likely because they realized their deficiencies.
Part of me feels there may be some follow the money at play but I am someone who thinks we have lots of corruption in government.
Kicker thanks for that economic data. Like to hear your thoughts on the impact all these businesses going out will have on the financial system. In my city, it seems like 50% of the businesses on the street won't make it.
Restaurants are going to be a huge hit. Their profit margins hover around 5-6% at full capacity. With the takeout model (or restricted occupancy), there's going to be a lot of wiping out of small, non-chain restaurants. And they employ a disproportionate impact of people.
And given the potential flight back to suburbia, a lot of the reurbanization trends could be halted pretty quickly.
At this point, I see a lot of potential for defaults and bankruptcies, with pretty significant potential for urban blight if people are wary about going back to shopping.
Quote:
Sweden never lockdown - where's the smoke from their massive funeral pyres?
Sweden has one of the highest per-capita rates of COVID deaths in the world. Higher than the U.S., higher than France, an order of magnitude higher than their Scandinavian neighbors. I think only Spain and Italy have had a higher rate*, so there's quite a bit of smoke there.
*With the caveat that I think most of us distrust the figures from China and Russia, and NK hasn't even released data.
Italy Spain and UK are all higher... it’s like criticizing a team losing 2-0 in the 4th inning, this is something that won’t be Clear as far as best strategies for 2-3 years ... and deaths per 1mm pop is just one metric. If a country is more dense than another, if grandparents live with young families which coming into this made a lot of practical and moral sense .. those kinds of Things unfortunately drive higher death counts.
Nitro has a lovable posting style lol but is making a lot of sense some of the embellishments aside
Quote:
as you are much more educated on this than I am can you please let me know what is wrong with the Henry Ford Health Systems study link below. Link - ( New Window )
It's not unique to most of the research being conducted on COVID right now, but it's an retrospective (after-the-fact) study. Means you know the outcomes before you do the study. Could bias the study.
They have no description of how they assigned patients to the groups, except that those who were COVID sicker got HCQ and an antibiotic. It could be that it works. It could be that those with higher secondary risk factors were not prescribed HCQ. We don't know.
It states that HCQ was not used except in people with "minimal cardiac factors". So, could be that death rates in the "placebo" group are higher because they had bad tickers. Especially if COVID has more severe impacts on the heart than we though in March, April, and May.
The distribution of groups. Typically, randomization will lead to roughly equal groups (not always). 16% of the study received nothing. 78% got HCQ (maybe antibiotics). Smaller groups can have higher variance in outcomes.
There are some other statistical things that you could quibble over (the models they chose to analyze), but that would be more of a restrospective analysis on my end, if they provided the data.
I don't think it's per se a bad study. But at this point, there's nothing causal here. They haven't randomized, they excluded from the treatment those with serious heart issues. They are doing a further, RCT study on this, likely because they realized their deficiencies.
Thanks.
Now please tell me why the linked study was used widely to discredit the use of the drug?
Was the science so much better?
Link - ( New Window )
2. All the first study found was a correlation. The authors even articulated this point in the last (or second to last) sentence in their paper. They "may" have found something, but need an RCT. Or, in other words, they have found an association, but is it spurious or causal?
And therein lies the rub. You have one finding with a null result (HCQ doesn't help). That is the baseline; no change in activity. You need much stronger evidence to reject the null; namely, causality. They went halfway there in the first study; but because of how they set it up, they have no statistical evidence that HCQ helped to cure COVID. So, they acknowledge they need to follow it up with a proper study to assess the relationship they have found.
All the null needs is a relationship, not a causation.
Italy Spain and UK are all higher... it’s like criticizing a team losing 2-0 in the 4th inning, this is something that won’t be Clear as far as best strategies for 2-3 years ... and deaths per 1mm pop is just one metric. If a country is more dense than another, if grandparents live with young families which coming into this made a lot of practical and moral sense .. those kinds of Things unfortunately drive higher death counts.
The data I've seen shows the UK lower, but whatever, there are a lot of sources which don't all agree. You think the data tells an incomplete story, which is probably at least somewhat right, but you sure seem to cite data a lot when you think it supports the point you're trying to make, which I guess seems a little odd.
Where it is slightly better than the former study is it focuses on more outcomes than "death".
I'm not going to spend time breaking apart every paragraph and responding one by one - we'll do this all weekend if I start responding that way.
The most revealing part to me was where you admitted that you had the virus, it wasn't that bad for you, and you fully recovered.
No wonder you feel the way you feel!
Not only was your own experience mild, reinforcing the idea that this isn't anywhere near the big deal it's being made out to be globally, but now you're also carrying antibodies and are at extremely low/no risk of reinfection.
So, no shit you want everything to open back up. Because like I said, it suits you personally. What do you have to lose? Essentially nothing. You're almost certainly not going to get sick again. What's the risk for you? Mostly nil.
It doesn't suit the person who is immunocompromised. Doesn't suit the elderly. And doesn't suit demographics that have been deemed to be at significantly higher risk than others.
This is why I tried to make the point that your perspective isn't likely to be someone else's and that you can't box it in and look at it from your viewpoint only. I mean, you can - but it's short-sighted and quite frankly, selfish.
Freddie Freeman thought this was going to kill him. He had a fever near 105 - he's a 30 year old professional baseball player who is in good shape by all accounts.
His reaction to this is going to be significantly different than yours. Heck, forget assuming, here's what he said himself...
"That was the scariest night for me," Freeman said. "I spiked to 104.5 fever. So thankfully ... two minutes after that, I gunned my forehead again, I was 103.8, I was 103.2 then 103.6. I was like, 'If I go above 104 again, I'll probably just start ringing the phone, try to figure this out.'
"But I said a little prayer that night, cause I've never been that hot before. My body was really, really hot so I said, 'Please don't take me.' I wasn't ready."
He wasn't even sure he was going to survive. This is a 30 year old pro athlete. He's urged people to take it seriously since dealing with it himself.
This hits everyone differently, people have significantly different susceptibility levels and there's simply just a ridiculous amount of information we still don't have.
I'm not one of the people who take everything Fauci says as gospel - but I am fairly certain I'd be better off generally following his recommendations as opposed to winging it or pretending I know better than he does. I don't.
Anyway, I just took exception to the notion that people want to lock everything down forever because I see frustrated people throw out that hyperbolic argument over and over again and it's just silly. No one wants that.
Also the suggestion that we should just open everything immediately and throw caution completely to the wind. I think that would be an enormously risky proposition that could have severe consequences if it overlaps with flu season and a 2nd wave. I am all for progressively continuing reopening phases. It's been going fine in New York where I live for the most part. I just don't think we need to blow through the rest of the speedbumps and risk erasing so much of the progress that was made.
If you don't agree, that's fine. No need to go around in circles about it. We can leave it at that.
Man, would you have enjoyed this place in March + April.
Compare the Flu Pandemic of 1918 and COVID-19 With Caution - ( New Window )
Get laid?
Wait, you meant due to COVID...
Thanks, Geomon, that Smithsonian article was a good read and certainly spelled out a couple of things quite clearly, dispelling myths.
1) Covid-19 is NOTHING LIKE a flu virus so far as mutability is concerned.
Of course at least one post above claimed it is very mutable (wrong!) So that's very good news re producing a stable vaccine.
2) At least partly due to that rather lack of mutability, but also due specific war related factors that helped propel the spread of infections of the great Flu of 1918-1919, we are unlikely to see the pattern of "waves" of outbreaks.
Obviously, that hasn't prevented scores of folks from speaking about Covid-19 in "waves" from media pundits to medical experts!
It's nice to read a solid piece penned jointly by a virologist and historian, both out of Pittsburgh, one of the institutions at the forefront of the medical battle.
Lastly, a couple of people offered snarky replies to the OP regarding "how medicine has advanced over the past 100 years."
Hubris, fellas, doesn't fight viruses. We will get a vaccine to this bad boy, maybe several, but so far the biggest weapons in our toolbox against this nasty little bug are masks and social distancing.
THE SAME NON-PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNIQUES WE USED TO LIMIT THE SPANISH FLU EPIDEMIC 100 YEARS AGO.
Arrogance is useless then, now, and always. (Although perhaps I prolly shouldn't be the guy to point this out.)
But the notion we are employing the same medical approach from a hundred years ago ignores the advances in oxygen therapy, intubation, therapeutics, testing, early treatment, and up to recently pretty good medical data sharing — that has unequivocally saved lives and slowed this disease.
Obviously entire countries have gone much, much further in the use of some of these technologies than the US has.
The US, where the use of masks was and is still hotly debated.
The NFL and other sports leagues are taking the tracing thing to a different level, obviously.
I think it was PJ that said earlier. Follow the science that proves what you believe.
In science, you have to disprove the null hypothesis (“reject”). The same burden is not required for “proving” the null.
So, if you want HCQ to be recommended, that’s what you need to “prove”. And that threshold obviously has not been close to being met.
If your doctor wants to recommend HCQ, more power to them. But, there is no evidence to suggest HCQ causes reductions in negative COVID outcomes, so it’s no better than a placebo on average. There could also be negative side effects, and it has caused some shortages for people who need it.
The only correct statement is that HCQ has not been proven to be any more effective (on average) than eating a sugar pill.
@VincentRK
There are at least 4 possible reasons why some people with COVID have little or no symptoms.
1) A rapid immune response that conquers the virus
2) Pre-existing cross reactive immunity
3) Genetic factors
4) Low viral load at time of infection
We have emerging data for each.
https://twitter.com/VincentRK/status/1294404193294442502 - ( New Window )
If your doctor wants to recommend HCQ, more power to them. But, there is no evidence to suggest HCQ causes reductions in negative COVID outcomes, so it’s no better than a placebo on average. There could also be negative side effects, and it has caused some shortages for people who need it.
The only correct statement is that HCQ has not been proven to be any more effective (on average) than eating a sugar pill.
It has also been shown to have potentially dangerous side effects correct?
It’s pretty clear testing, data sharing, early detection, and the availability of viable treatment (and not just sitting home waiting to die and having to be cared for by your vulnerable family) — are all orders of magnitude better in 2020 than 1918 and cutting down on transmission.
Given we now know COVID can attack the heart, I’d be even warier if taking it.
Quote:
better know as Big ahole. You know what gets you banned, but you would have to have a brain to figure that out.
Actually pretty clear what you do. Cloak your political comments in obscure ways and watch others take the bait and watch the chaos and sometimes others get banned because of you. You are really a cowardly miserable piece of shit. Not sure how many others have noticed. I also see your total heartlessness in your football comments toward players who are just trying to make a living. What I hate most on here is mean spirited people and you are currently the worst one of those currently posting. I really hope you are better than that in real life.
everyone notices, most people ignore.
A lot of people want to know it is safe before they take it, i am not anti vacc, but my kids will not get it until i know it is safe, sorry not sorry...
People feel like it is being rushed and you cant blame them..
I certainly am not going to be taking a brand new vaccine that is probably getting rushed to market and I'm not some anti-vaxx nutter. To me, the risk isn't worth it. I think everyone needs evaluate their own health situation and make their own decision on this one.
Quote:
In comment 14950064 XBRONX said:
Quote:
better know as Big ahole. You know what gets you banned, but you would have to have a brain to figure that out.
Actually pretty clear what you do. Cloak your political comments in obscure ways and watch others take the bait and watch the chaos and sometimes others get banned because of you. You are really a cowardly miserable piece of shit. Not sure how many others have noticed. I also see your total heartlessness in your football comments toward players who are just trying to make a living. What I hate most on here is mean spirited people and you are currently the worst one of those currently posting. I really hope you are better than that in real life.
everyone notices, most people ignore.
Exactly. I’m sure everyone here knows what XBRONX is all about. The clown is a disaster that is better off being ignored.
Yeah, people are not properly educated (indoctrinated) to take a new vaccine. I’m not getting a new vaccine and neither are the majority of people I talk to either. They are all educated and informed. They are well aware of countless drugs, etc. that have been pushed as safe by the government and corporations with a financial interest, only to later determine that they have serious side effects. Sorry, but I’ll let others be the guinea pig’s first.
Quote:
Troubling number when you consider that vaccine efficacy is expected to be in the 50-75% range. Unless nearly everyone gets vaccinated we won’t achieve herd immunity and a return to normalcy. A major public education campaign is needed.
I certainly am not going to be taking a brand new vaccine that is probably getting rushed to market and I'm not some anti-vaxx nutter. To me, the risk isn't worth it. I think everyone needs evaluate their own health situation and make their own decision on this one.
Bingo. I was in the Army and have every vaccine and shot known to man. My children are vaccinated. I am not an anti-vaxxer. But also concerned about a rushed vaccine
How can people predict an efficacy rate when there are numerous different vaccine candidates, none of them having any efficacy data yet, and the parameters of infection still poorly understood?
How can a town make a plea for help from the courts and the mayor be the lawyer for the opposing side?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02335-z?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20200813&utm_source=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20200813&sap-outbound-id=8240501891EEAFBFB3E4F025A1D63D9913E190F3 . Click and read all of them. Stop listening to BS about it.
Why would they halt trials of it due to risks involved with taking it if it works?
Spare me the "Pharmaceutical companies are greedy" because that doesn't fly logically
Quote:
In comment 14950075 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 14950064 XBRONX said:
Quote:
better know as Big ahole. You know what gets you banned, but you would have to have a brain to figure that out.
Actually pretty clear what you do. Cloak your political comments in obscure ways and watch others take the bait and watch the chaos and sometimes others get banned because of you. You are really a cowardly miserable piece of shit. Not sure how many others have noticed. I also see your total heartlessness in your football comments toward players who are just trying to make a living. What I hate most on here is mean spirited people and you are currently the worst one of those currently posting. I really hope you are better than that in real life.
everyone notices, most people ignore.
Exactly. I’m sure everyone here knows what XBRONX is all about. The clown is a disaster that is better off being ignored.
Why is XBRONX being singled out when you have similar stupid shit being posted by Nitro?
Quote:
Troubling number when you consider that vaccine efficacy is expected to be in the 50-75% range. Unless nearly everyone gets vaccinated we won’t achieve herd immunity and a return to normalcy. A major public education campaign is needed.
How can people predict an efficacy rate when there are numerous different vaccine candidates, none of them having any efficacy data yet, and the parameters of infection still poorly understood?
Fauci and others with insight on the preliminary data from the various projects have said this the range they are expecting.
Quote:
In comment 14950092 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 14950075 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 14950064 XBRONX said:
Quote:
better know as Big ahole. You know what gets you banned, but you would have to have a brain to figure that out.
Actually pretty clear what you do. Cloak your political comments in obscure ways and watch others take the bait and watch the chaos and sometimes others get banned because of you. You are really a cowardly miserable piece of shit. Not sure how many others have noticed. I also see your total heartlessness in your football comments toward players who are just trying to make a living. What I hate most on here is mean spirited people and you are currently the worst one of those currently posting. I really hope you are better than that in real life.
everyone notices, most people ignore.
Exactly. I’m sure everyone here knows what XBRONX is all about. The clown is a disaster that is better off being ignored.
Why is XBRONX being singled out when you have similar stupid shit being posted by Nitro?
You’re right. Nitro is a disaster too.But the difference is I don’t see Nitro on 6 Million threads spreading his bullshit. He also come right out and says what he thinks. XBRONX thinks he’s being sly by continuously dropping one liners and leaving. Both suck. But only one is a coward.
Will be available for public, 10 dollars a person and could add millions of tests, plus make sports a lot safer to compete..
Nor the transmission of learnings through their largely verbal transmission through disconnected bureaucracies.
Many of the policies advocated are generated upwards to relieve pressure on a bottlenecks Nd misallocated delivery system and peak load supply constraints
Just another set of factors to consider when commenting on individual constraints vs community well being
Quote:
Why is XBRONX being singled out when you have similar stupid shit being posted by Nitro?
You’re right. Nitro is a disaster too.But the difference is I don’t see Nitro on 6 Million threads spreading his bullshit. He also come right out and says what he thinks. XBRONX thinks he’s being sly by continuously dropping one liners and leaving. Both suck. But only one is a coward.
Fair enough BBS, I see your point
Just one week in, Covid is ripping through the dorms. Her roommate is already in quarantine and there are clusters of students in her dorm who have already tested positive.
I don’t know whether any student is suffering anything other than mild symptoms, but it seems amazingly infectious to me. I don’t know what the answer is — I vacillate between well, if the kids are asymptomatic then we should press on (because there seems to be no end in sight, with the vaccines likely not a magic bullet) or whether we should just move to a new paradigm of online life. But I gotta tell you, if it doesn’t work in a non-scofflaw wear-your-mask peer pressure culture at UNC, I can’t see it working in any non-bubble group setting (if the threshold for failure includes asymptomatic positives). Oyy.
Just one week in, Covid is ripping through the dorms. Her roommate is already in quarantine and there are clusters of students in her dorm who have already tested positive.
I don’t know whether any student is suffering anything other than mild symptoms, but it seems amazingly infectious to me. I don’t know what the answer is — I vacillate between well, if the kids are asymptomatic then we should press on (because there seems to be no end in sight, with the vaccines likely not a magic bullet) or whether we should just move to a new paradigm of online life. But I gotta tell you, if it doesn’t work in a non-scofflaw wear-your-mask peer pressure culture at UNC, I can’t see it working in any non-bubble group setting (if the threshold for failure includes asymptomatic positives). Oyy.
The only way to prevent spread is testing, you can clean, go half capacity all you want, 1 person brings it in then all that is for nothing..
Now if that person was tested and we know that person has it they can be qiarantined before anyone else comes in contact eith that person..
Rapid testing is key