More evidence lockdown contains the disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
Printable View
More evidence lockdown contains the disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
Sweden would disagree. Seriously we close again for two weeks and the what? Think as a country we are passed that as we can’t afford to. That’s why you see countries like Australia opening up again. You can’t remained closed forever.
Look at Sweden’s curve used in this article. It’s a lot more promising than anyone else’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...w-cases-plunge
Yeah it’s called life. This thing is here to stay so might as well get on with it. We will see about long term damage. I know several people who have had it and none of them had many issues with it and so far nothing since they got over it. Those that want to lock themselves in a room, enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
I’m not arguing for another lockdown, I was just replying to this:
Lockdowns halt the spread of the disease. Now, whether they are the best option for society is a completely different argument. Sweden made their decision to not implement a full lockdown. I hold the opinion that we could not implement that here for many reasons - logistically, culturally, and reasons touched upon months ago several pages back. What’s right for Sweden may not be right for us and vice versa. So comparing our curve to Sweden is not fair to us. Comparing Sweden’s curve to their Scandinavian counterparts though? That’s probably more fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
You can certainly draw a conclusion based on an extremely small set of people you know. I will do the same with the small sample size I have, which leaves some questions on long term issues. For example, a younger male in his 30’s I know who had COVID in March is not able to exercise to the same degree as he did before the illness. It turns out his heart has experienced some degree of damage which is presumed to be due to some sort of myocarditis. The cardiac tissue was damaged, and it is unknown whether that is permanent or not. I’m not locking myself in a room by any means, but I’m also not going to be quick to make a conclusion that more cases are a good thing to obtain immunity. I would rather obtain immunity through a vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by xavierj
This is pretty amazing... It’s actual real life value is probably low but still impressive!
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-020-05281-3
Results
The dogs were able to discriminate between samples of infected (positive) and non-infected (negative) individuals with average diagnostic sensitivity of 82.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.02–83.24%) and specificity of 96.35% (95% CI: 96.31–96.39%). During the presentation of 1012 randomised samples, the dogs achieved an overall average detection rate of 94% (±3.4%) with 157 correct indications of positive, 792 correct rejections of negative, 33 incorrect indications of negative or incorrect rejections of 30 positive sample presentations.
Am I missing something? It looks like uncited data from a guy who runs a Buckeyes sports podcast? Several others have pointed on the flaws in that analysis, including:Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
1. The "research" dates back to May which is almost 2 months before the most 'open' states started to see cases surge - an updated analysis might likely point to a different outcome
2. Severity of lockdown, particularly initially, was somewhat directly correlated to the severity of outbreak. The places that hadn't (yet) had outbreaks didn't lock down for as long (if at all). Of course not locking down looks more effective.
3. There are dramatic differences in population density among the states. Look at Group 5: AR, IA, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY. There are no major cities in those states.
Finally - everyone holds up Sweden as an example, but ignores most of the rest of Western Europe who are doing substantially better than the US right now. They are much closer to returning to normal life. It's not entirely clear how much of their recent success in reopening is due to a thorough lockdown and how much is due to masks and precautions post-lockdown.
We did the worst thing we could possibly have done, IMO. We half-ass locked down and then squandered it by re-opened without masking and put people back in bars, restaurants, and Gyms. Now here we are.
Western europe is also a month or two ahead of the US so they should be closer to "normal" life. Locking down the whole country because of two or three city's problems was the dumbest thing we did in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
I guess we could check back in a month or so, or look at there they were a month ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
I'm actually with you that I think locking down the whole Country at the time we did may not have been prudent. The problem (I think) was that we didn't really know where the hot spots were at that point and we were afraid of a major outbreak. The unintended consequence is that a bunch of people in the South and Midwest locked down for no reason and then all convinced themselves COVID was fake which led to little / no precaution upon reopening.
I actually think that the dumbest thing we did was not mandate masks everywhere and allow bars and indoor dining to re-open. Hindsight is 20/20, but in retrospect the following would probably have been better:
1. Lockdown high infection rate cities and limit travel in/out as much as possible
2. Masks for everyone - the whole country. This is probably the most important part.
3. Outside of hotspot cities keep business and retail open
4. Develop extensive rapid testing and contract tracing
5. Bonus Points: Provide places for people who tested positive to voluntarily quarantine away from family if their situation requires it. For example if I test positive and live with a high risk individual it many benefit all for me to stay in a COVID hotel for a week or two. Asia is doing this, although It's not always voluntary. I'm not in favor of forcibly quarantining people in hotels.
Wait. Are you saying this guy may not be credible about a pandemic? A Buckeye sports podcaster?Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
OK then. Here's an idea.
We're in the middle of a pandemic. Let's change the in-place (for years) reporting system of hospitals, and bring in a (maybe) no bid contract for one of the president's friends.
Maybe the numbers will look better.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/29/89664..._medium=social
We almost had a national strategy and plan for testing and dealing with the virus.
It was mapped out and perhaps would have had a chance at greatly reducing the deaths we have experienced.
It was cancelled at the last minute by Trump, and it was decided to let the states handle it.
One of the calculations was that it would be politically beneficial, because blue states were (at that time) the hardest hit.
I am having a lot of trouble getting my mind around the inhumanity of that calculation.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...-into-thin-air
Someone can correct me if I got bad info, but I just read that Sweden was the only western country that had an economy that grew last quarter.
I've lived in this country my entire life, and I find this very easy to get my head around. Like it or not, that's how a lot of people roll here.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
If it's not my problem, then it's not a problem. If it's a problem for those who are in opposition to me, then it is a benefit. That's how many in the United States have always looked at things. Trump claims to be a businessman, and he is by no means the first businessman to look at his competition and think 'How can I eliminate my competition?' rather than 'How can we successfully coexist?'
I'd really like to see that change, but I'm not overly optimistic that it ever will.
That may be for the first quarter of the year, when they grew 1/10th of 1 %.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
I believe the forecast for the second quarter is a contraction.
If hydroxychloroquine actually works, then Trump needs to immediately come out and say that it does not work. That way, people will start to trust it.
Enough of the political crap dude. If hydroxychloroquine actually does work, medical professionals need to come out and say that it works. Trust the professionals, not the political hack jobs in Washington.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
You may want to specify WHICH medical professionals should come out and say that it works....
I think I'll trust the one who has demons having sex with people during their dreams.
Maybe that'll spice up this quarantine thing some (if I don't tell mrspaulxu).
Good Point. In this case, Medical professionals plural who are distinguished (have credentials) in the field of medicine and infectious diseases. Does Donald Trump have a medical degree? Not sure how he or any politicians have the credentials to preach what is effective and what is not effective. Isn’t trump the one who said that people should ingest disinfectants as a way to cleanse the body of COVID-19? That Alone should tell you why politicians should not be given a platform to speak on these issues. Leave it to the professionals as to the correct way to handle this pandemic.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Wow, huh. The last couple dozen posts have been very educational for me. Let me see if I've got this right:
1) The medical opinion of a group of doctors is invalid if one of the doctors is crazy.
2) Comprehensive data analysis presented by a Buckeye fan carries no validity.
3) It's not necessary to read information before rendering an opinion
4) You can't compare geographies that locked down to ones that didn't to evaluate effectiveness of lockdowns.
What am I missing... OHH yes, the most profound of all. BLM doesn't apply to a Republican that supports Trump, in which case his death should be used for mockery. Thanks for that one Bobby, I had no idea. Consider me enlightened.
Don’t forget the “dogs are pretty much equivalent to COVID tests” post which I think was a good one. I’m biased though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...rs-prescribingQuote:
Originally Posted by xuphan
DeWine influencing medical experts into this decision? Is there any definitive evidence or data to show that this drug is effective in treating COVID 19?Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/...reatment-studyQuote:
Originally Posted by xuphan
Should everyone be using this treatment? No, but I think it can help in certain cases, as it's been showed to do.
Interesting read. Thanks for sharingQuote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/12...398400512?s=20Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
To quote the pharmacist in my life, "the Henry Ford study is trash"
Listen closely to Fauchi's answer. He dismisses the study because it's not a pure scientific study controlled by randomization and a placebo.Quote:
Originally Posted by STL_XUfan
I'm a scientist - I get it. I agree we can't "take this to the bank" as an end-all-be-all answer. But just as the conclusions say, it should be viewed as a good indicator that HCQ combined with other drugs has potential. That's it. A comprehensive, randomized, and controlled test would be the next step. So the study is not trash. It answers the question it intended to: does HCQ combined with other drugs have potential for COVID treatment? It was not designed or expected to do more. To make an analogy, if your goal in a golf shot is to put the ball on the green, you can't say the shot was trash when it doesn't go in the hole.
Answers like this from Fauchi give me the red flag alert. An accurate, non-biased answer should have been "The Henry Ford Study was a non-scientific, non-controlled review. It can be used as nothing more than an indicator of potential effectiveness. There are ongoing studies that apply the control and rigor needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of HCQ and other drugs, and I can't comment on effectiveness until those studies are completed."
But then again if I had to deal with Trump on a daily basis I would be biased too! For the record, the only reason I care if a HCQ combination works is because it would save lives. If partisan bullshit results in a missed opportunity to save lives, it will be a travesty. The good news is those comprehensive studies are really in progress, but they take time. We won't have a definitive answer until late this year.
I've read about another change that seems to be adding difficulty.
The Vanity Fair article indicated we might have had a good chance with a nationally coordinated strategy like other industrialized countries, but that was abandoned for a state program...seemingly for a political reason (dem states hurting early).
Then our decades long, in-place system for reporting through the CDC hospital statistics, is canned so that some Trump donor's company can bid, and sub-contract this data collection to a 3rd party...raising the question of whether we'll get good numbers from this point on.
And now, rather than the CDC who has the system for deliveries and contacts set up, and have done it before, they are going to turn over vaccine distribution (when it comes) to the military. Who knows why.
Just seems like as a country, we could have done better.
I’ve have a question. I haven’t heard any reports on how Covid has hit third world countries. I would think they would be the hardest hit because of poor sanitation and lack of masks and social distancing. However, I haven’t heard any news stories or charitable requests to help these regions.
Are they being hit hard? I pulled up a map from the NY times and it shows 161 deaths for Haiti and 10 for Jamaica. Is this due to a lack of confirming Covid deaths or lack of Covid in these areas?
Check out this site for the data: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by Leghorn
If you’ve followed this thread you see a lot of the “challenges” with testing, test accuracy, how cases are counted, and how deaths are counted. How those countries test and count may be very different than we do in the US. I can’t say for sure though, and can only speculate as to why they look to be doing better.
Here is a study released last week that should give you pause to say we will all mostly be fine if we don’t die. Cardiac damage in over 70% of people recovered from the infection. It’s not well understood how long this lasts and if it is truly permanent but it is strong enough data for me to say more cases is not a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by xavierj
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/car..._oi_200057.pdf
I totally agree. This isn’t the flu. There are long term health effects we don’t truly know or understand yet about this virus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Another example why people don't want to listen to politicians lecture them again and again.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/dc-ma...aign=dwtwitter
Quote:
Lawmakers who attended the funeral of late Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) in Atlanta earlier this week are exempt from Washington, D.C.’s, self-quarantine restrictions, according to District Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office.
Quote:
Members of Congress are also exempt from Bowser’s recent edict mandating D.C. residents wear masks both in public indoor spaces and even outside if they “are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time[.]” Those who neglect to cover up expose themselves to the possibility of fines up to $1,000 per violation.
That's definitely concerning. As stated we obviously don't know exactly how long the cardiac effects will persist, but 78% is a significant number. I was expecting it to be a study of severe cases, however it looks like only 33% of the cases required hospitalization. I continue to wonder if I had COVID back in February. I was extremely sick for about week (no cough though) and then since have developed an arrhythmia that has finally almost resolved itself. I keep meaning to get an antibody test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
My wife and I have all but made the decision to keep our kids out of school for the fall until we know more about this illness and how to treat it. We are lucky in that keeping the kids home is a pretty easy option for us since my wife does not work outside of the home and we have ample space to support school from home.
A professor of epidemiology at Yale advocates for the use the hydroxychloriquine.
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeati...pinion-1519535Quote:
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.
I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
True but keep in mind not completely an unexpected cardiovascular consequence from this study because covid is a viral infection after all. However, immediate percentages were concerning.Quote:
Originally Posted by xuphan
There will always be some who will experience an exaggerated immune system response that inflames and weakens the heart muscle from many common viral illnesses. That goes for the common cold and flu.
Quote:
While novel coronavirus cases have spiked across several parts of Europe, including Spain, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, Sweden—where a countrywide lockdown was never issued—continues to report a downward trend in new cases and new deaths.
As of Sunday, the latest death rate in Sweden (deaths per 100,000 people) was reported to be 56.40. The figure is lower than that reported in the U.K. (69.60), Spain (60.88) and Italy (58.16), according to the latest report Sunday by Johns Hopkins University.
Quote:
Sweden's latest case-fatality ratio (portion of deaths compared to total cases) was reported to be 7.1 percent. The figure is more than half the percentage reported in the U.K. (15.1 percent), half that of Italy and Belgium (each reporting 14.2 percent) and nearly half that of France (13.4 percent), according to Johns Hopkins University.
Quote:
New cases in Sweden's Scandinavian neighbors (Denmark, Norway and Finland) have increased by as much as around three times the percentage drop in new cases seen in Sweden in the past two weeks, according to the WHO.
https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-covi...ckdown-1522306
Sweden, being a Nordic country with similar climate and density as it's neighbors, would I think be more appropriately compared to it's Nordic neighbors.
So, if you click another link on that site, you get this:
Quote:
According to Worldometer, a statistical site, Finland, Denmark and Norway combined have had a total of 1,182 deaths as a result of COVID-19. Sweden? More than 5,300, which most attribute to Sweden's decision not to shut down the economy while the other three countries did.
https://www.newsweek.com/why-swedens...pinion-1514486Quote:
But it's worse than that. Adjusted for population, Swedes have died seven times more often from coronavirus than Finns, Danes and Norwegians.
So, you did better than densely populated Great Britain. But look at how many lives you might have saved if you did what your Nordic neighbors did.