Investor20

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/almost-covid-transmission-happening-5-214735157.html "CNN's chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, MD, says not everything has to shut down because the majority of COVID transmission happens in just five places. While Gupta was on CNN's New Day on Dec. 3, he said, "It's really these five primary locations where 80 percent of viral transmissions are happening in our society." According to Gupta, full stay-at-home orders are likely not necessary if we target the five spots. "Much of society can still stay open and still function as long as people wear masks and things like that, it doesn't need to go into a complete lockdown," he explained." The five places listed in article are cafes, restaurants, hotels, bars and places of worship.

Richard what evidence is there regarding this statement? You and I both know that you don't care at all about the answer to this question, because the answer's obvious to everyone who's followed American pandemic news even the tiniest bit for the past 9 months. One doesn't need to provide supporting evidence to say that the sky is blue, ice is cold, and the sun rises in the east. So, I'm just going to save us both time, and not bother with an answer. I do care about the answer. The answer I found is this (3 sources): 1) https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201022/mask-use-by-americans-now-tops-90-poll-finds#1 The Harris Poll between Oct. 8 and 12. More than nine in 10 U.S. adults (93%) said they sometimes, often or always wear a mask or face covering when they leave their home and are unable to socially distance, including more than seven in 10 (72%) who said they always do so, the poll revealed. 2) From CDC, bit outdated but latest they gave on October 30th: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e4.htm?s_cid=mm6943e4_w "Reported use of face masks increased from 78% in April, to 83% in May, and reached 89% in June;" 3) Despite noisy no-mask protests, 92 percent of 2,200 Americans polled say they wear a face mask when leaving their home https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/10/poll-increasing-bipartisan-majority-americans-support-mask-wearing/ Published Oct 5th. I wear masks when I cannot socially distance or have good ventilation. The Trump supporters I know do the same. The reason is not that the belief it works, but what is there to loose unlike lockdowns.

Is it US based or international coverage? Thanks

The incubation period is 14 days. The false negative rate is extremely high in the first 4 days of infection. So it is not possible to say how many people became infected during the quarantine period. Many of those who tested positive on Day 7 were likely infected on or before Day 0. Only ~half the recruits were tested on Day 0 and Day 7. Untested and tested recruits were intermixed. So a recruit could be sharing a room with an untested roommate. But the main reason why your assertions are wrong is the lack of a control arm. This is an infectious disease with a doubling time of ~3 days in a general population. Doubling time is even worse in congregate settings like military camps. If you start with 16 infected people and no controls, you'd expect more than 500 infected marines by the end of two weeks. So these interventions stopped ~90% of the expected infections. This type of quarantine is very disruptive to the society and Dr. Bhattacharya laid out the downside of such disruption. Its very difficult for everyone to be 6 feet away from each other for example. For example, less vaccination for children is bad for their health. And many other health care activities have taken back seat because of these restrictions. The burden that these restrictions work is on the people who propose them because of the economic and health care downsides. On other hand proof required for Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin is really high. For example a peer reviewed article below gives all the early administration HCQ studies are successful. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/ Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review Another peer reviewed article written by many doctors from many well known hospitals argues about early intervention and this includes use of HCQ. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732 Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection Written by doctors from following medical schools/hospitals: a Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Tex b Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, Dallas, Tex c Baylor Jack and Jane Hamilton Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas, Tex d Cardiology Division, Regina Montis Regalis Hospital, Mondovì, Cuneo, Italy e Christ Advocate Medical Center, Chicago, Ill f Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga g Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md h Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif i Abrazo Arizona Heart Hospital, Abrazo Health System, Phoenix, Ariz j Carter Eye Center, Dallas, Tex k Cardiorenal Society of America, Phoenix, Ariz l University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, Tex m Bakersfield Heart Hospital, Bakersfield, Calif n University of Siena, Le Scotte Hospital Viale Bracci, Siena, Italy o University of Torino, Torino, Italy p Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich q Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn I earlier posted a meta analysis of 8 RCTs all of them showed improvement for Ivermectin. But all this is discounted. I posted earlier that Bangladesh has high infection rate based on seroprevalence but low death rate. They use HCQ. But that cannot be spoken about. Not a suggestion for treatment. Please consult your doctor regarding treatment. For discussion only.

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. And Spekulatius, there is unusually high number of unasymptomatic in this study (46/51) may be because they are young and healthy. Isnt it that asymptomatic transmit less? "The viral load at diagnosis, estimated on the basis of the qPCR cycle threshold, was on average approximately 4 times as high in the 5 symptomatic participants as in the 46 participants who were asymptomatic"

That's the magic of cumulative data. It can only go up! According to your logic, the measles vaccine doesn't work, since every year the cumulative number of measles infections goes up. -- 0.9% tested positive on Day 0 and only 0.6% tested positive on Day 14. Seems like effective infection control, but given the 14 day incubation period, you'd need a longer study to be sure. Actually it is a 4 week study 2 weeks of home quarantine zero day: test and remove positives Enforce supervised quarantine procedures seventh day: test and remove positives Enforce supervised quarantine procedures Test on 14 day which still gave 0.6% positives. The result as given by authors "At the time of enrollment, after 2 weeks of home quarantine, approximately 1% of study participants had positive qPCR results, and approximately 2% subsequently became infected during the 2-week supervised quarantine period."

You are mis-representing the data. Here are quotes from the study: "A total of 1848 recruits volunteered to participate in the study; within 2 days after arrival on campus, 16 (0.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2" Then they removed them and supposedly starting with recruits with no Covid "An additional 35 participants (1.9%) tested positive on day 7 or on day 14." "Therefore, 35 participants who had had negative qPCR results within the first 2 days after arrival at the campus became positive during the supervised quarantine. " KCLarkin, it went up or down?

Under these conditions, only 2% became infected? And this is your “evidence” that these measures don’t work? People dont live together at home? Eat together at home? Here even indoors they practiced distancing. They practiced cleaning bathrooms and dining areas after each use. They used masks indoor or outside while not eating or sleeping. They tested them weekly already after a two weeks of quarantine at home and tested them before the study. Whats the difference between a family at home and recruits sharing a room to sleep? And of course one could consider if there is no downside. But as I posted earlier, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya listed the downside besides economics but on public health of these measures.

Richard what evidence is there regarding this statement? There are two studies published in November. One is well publicized Danish mask randomized study. The second one less publicized is below: https://www.aier.org/article/even-a-military-enforced-quarantine-cant-stop-the-virus-study-reveals/ Even a Military-Enforced Quarantine Can’t Stop the Virus, Study Reveals "We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infections among U.S. Marine Corps recruits who underwent a 2-week quarantine at home followed by a second supervised 2-week quarantine at a closed college campus that involved mask wearing, social distancing, and daily temperature and symptom monitoring. Study volunteers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of quantitative polymeras e-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay of nares swab specimens obtained between the time of arrival and the second day of supervised quarantine and on days 7 and 14. " An more...see below* "Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine." That is 2% became infected in 2 weeks after all of the above. Do you call that a success? *All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening. Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

i'm open to such views and even sympathetic to some aspects. For example, the 'costs' related to school closure (contributing to ignorance) are significant and i've pushed and rooted for maintenance and re-openings especially for younger cohorts. In my area, which is a typical example of collective individual massive failure, schools have contributed to the spread and there has been a 'price' to pay but it is true that younger children don't contribute to the spread in a major way and school 'cases' have been typically fed and nurtured from the community to the school and not the other way around. BTW 'isolation' of the vulnerable, frail and old is not a 'new' phenomenon with Covid. It's just that people talk more about it these days. If there's something that has become clear IMO, it's the fact that mortality and hospitalizations in a big way have occurred after rampant and persistent community spread and wishes to protect those at-risk have systemically failed to a large degree. In my area, January is typically a difficult month for healthcare in general, including hospitals and i just adjusted expectations taking into account evolving trends and January looks bad. i would offer the opinion that, for my area, there has been a massive failure of cost-effective collaboration and cooperation. This has been compensated partly (for the direct, indirect effects) by public entities going into debt but people, at large, again are wasting another crisis. i realize there is a critical mass and that critical mass is composed of ignorants (this is an interesting challenge) and of stupids (..). i was listening to a Sweden MD a few days ago and she explained that vaccine hesitancy and outright hostility is on the rise in Europe in correlation to how countries failed to control a relatively simple virus and she included her own country. People, in general, are losing confidence in a self-fulfilling way. Disinformation and misinformation are root causes. To show a degree of openness, here's a modified text from Mr. Bhattacharya: Lockdowns, of course, are not all that prevents the global economy from thriving now. People the world over have also changed their behaviour out of fear of the virus, with less trade and — therefore — less wealth spread. But mandatory lockdowns have costs. That they are not the only source of economic pain is not a reason to ignore their impact. Ending "lockdown" is the objective and the best way to achieve that is through sensible and cost effective collaboration and cooperation. The reason why my area is doing so poorly overall is not because of variable levels of 'lockdowns'. My regional hospital just set up a large tent outside and winter is coming. Regarding Dr. Bhattacharya, he has a unique background of both being a doctor but also an economist. His profile says "Dr. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Dr. Bhattacharya’s peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. He holds an MD and PhD in economics from Stanford University." He writes regarding lockdowns along with Harvard & Oxford epidemiologists: "Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed." https://gbdeclaration.org/ The above should matter when considering a lockdown. Taking Australia, a big island with small population with marathon lockdowns as basis of how to control virus and saying why dont everyone just do it as if there is no down side is just inexplicable.

The debate on easing or extending lockdown restrictions in the wake of Covid-19 is a matter of “lives versus lives”, and not of “lives versus livelihoods” as it is currently being framed, Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, tells Govindraj Ethiraj, journalist and founder of Boom, a fact-checking initiative https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/coronavirus-is-a-matter-of-lives-versus-lives-says-jay-bhattacharya-120050201025_1.html May 2020

This is a myth. Kids, especially older kids (10+), do spread the disease. I personally know a 10 year old kid who got it and passed it onto at least three other kids and at least one parent. This is an area with very low transmission, so it was easy to trace the spread. There is ample literature that shows older kids spread the disease at similar rates to adults. This doesn't mean you shouldn't reopen schools. KCLarkin, if you want to discuss who is a child, we can do that. But its difficult to differentiate Dr. Jay Bhattacharya position almost 6 months back to present day Fauci position. Why it took six months for Fauci to come to same conculsion, I will let you speculate. Jay Bhattacharya almost since Iceland study in May: "“The main finding from that literature is that kids do not pass the disease on to adults at any appreciable rate,” Bhattacharya “The risk that kids pose to adults is very very small, even if they’re positive.”" Fauci since last week: ""If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all."

From participating in an open economy (the part of it that is open). Rate of spread high -> greater total number of infected -> more likely I get it too Rate of spread lower ->. fewer total number of infected -> lower chance I get it too Imperfect system? No Dr. Fauci quoted in last one week about school re-opening: ""If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all." Would you have known that they actually didnt know (apparently) when they advocated school closing how children transmit to adults? This is what I am talking about. Using Remdesivir that WHO is not supporting. Having schools closed for a long time and then give statements like above. Why would it give people confidence to follow them? Dr. Flip Flop: A timeline of Fauci's school reopening positions https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/dr-flip-flop-a-timeline-of-faucis

Bangladesh a very crowded country unlike Australia Bangladesh recommends controversial drugs for Covid-19 treatment https://tbsnews.net/coronavirus-chronicle/covid-19-bangladesh/bangladesh-recommends-controversial-drugs-covid-19 45pc of Dhaka people have COVID-19 antibody https://www.newagebd.net/article/118779/45pc-of-dhaka-people-have-covid-19-antibody https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Bangladesh is 122nd in deaths per million with 41 deaths per million.

From the very beginning , government officials haven't led by example and this has undermined their own efforts. The CDC makes recommendations, people don't see the government leaders following them. Monkey see, monkey do. It is not enough for CDC or Fauci to say I told you - you follow. To convince people to loose their job, shut their business, keep their children off the school, they need to provide much more information. The HCQ is used in many countries outside US and countries that are using are having less CFR, not more. For example a very crowded country like Bangladesh uses HCQ, their seroprevalence shows very high infection, but if you check their death rate, its very low. While Remdesivir which is used in US, WHO says "Health officials reviewing Gilead Science Inc’s remdesivir against COVID-19 should consider all evidence, including a trial in which the medicine failed, before giving it the green light, the top WHO scientist said on Friday." https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-remdesivir-who-idINKBN279055 Remdesivir is a medicine that can be only given late because it requires 5 days of IV infusion and costs 3000$ + hospitalization costs. I think they need to provide more studies, data, etc to convince people rather than just saying and asking people to be obedient.

Protein folding is very important in drug development. However, what is important is how these protein structures interact with other proteins or molecules. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0078-4 For example, if we can find a molecule that binds specifically to a protein, it can change how the protein functions and could be a potential medicine. I am not sure if being able to predict protein folding itself can do that job. As I understand Alphafold worked by using database of known protein structures to predict the protein structures. But is there a data base for the algorithms to learn from different molecules binding to the protein? An important part of protein research is protein misfolding that is supposed to be cause of cataract and many degenerative diseases. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/protein-misfolding-and-degenerative-diseases-14434929/ Please read about levinthals paradox. Essentially if you take a protein of a chain with 100 amino acids that tries different ways it can fold randomly, till it reaches the most stable configuration, that would take millions of years. But proteins fold within seconds. So the idea is they fold not by randomly trying different structures but they fold in an order...a pathway...to reach a structure. Thus this may not be the most thermodynamically stable structure, but the structure it has reached through a path of folding steps. However, if they dont fold properly, then these misfolded proteins stick to each other and precipitate. Once misfolded, they neither know how to go back or go forward..its like getting lost without a map. For example when you boil egg, the proteins in there are precipitating. They are misfolded proteins stuck to each other. But if you put it in a cup of water, they are not going to dissolve back. This is unlike the sugar that might be precipitated from boiling water. But you put the sugar in more water, it will dissolve rightaway. You could try putting a boiled egg in a big tank of water for very long time and it wont go back into water. I am not sure this DeepMind will help solve the protein interaction problem. Definitely very interesting, but it did require a database of already solved protein structures and can it be extrapolated to how proteins bind to other molecules or other proteins?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/30/fauci-flip-flops-on-in-person-learning-after-ignoring-data-on-low-covid-spread-in-schools/ Fauci Flip Flops On In-Person Learning After Ignoring Data On Low COVID Spread In Schools "If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not really very big at all, not like one would have suspected,” he added (Dr. Fauci). But others have noted this long time back. This is Dr. Bhattacharya regarding re-opening schools https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2020-08-20/state-calls-parents-doctors-as-witnesses-in-school-reopen-challenges-second-day-of-hearings August 20, 2020 “The main finding from that literature is that kids do not pass the disease on to adults at any appreciable rate,” Bhattacharya “The risk that kids pose to adults is very very small, even if they’re positive.” "There, Dr. Bhattacharya cited a study done in Iceland, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. " This Iceland study is from May. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/icelandic-study-we-have-not-found-a-single-instance-of-a-child-infecting-parents/ Icelandic Study: ‘We Have Not Found a Single Instance of a Child Infecting Parents.’ May 11, 2020

Investor20, i will engage here based on your question but have decided to avoid, to the extent possible, clogging this potentially great investment board with unnecessary and irrelevant posts. As you seem to know, my area has done VERY poorly handling the coronavirus episode but it’s not surprising given the chronic, well known (at least in certain circles) and deeply entrenched institutional weaknesses. However, I have been surprised by the extent of the underwhelming response in the US and I’ve spent time engaging in various online platforms dealing with the virus on America soil and i’m starting to understand better. The ivermectin comment was related specifically to Australia. See their NPS website for general recommendations and specific and evolving guidelines for ivermectin. When all is said and done about Covid-19, it will be realized that several aspects that have been applied shouldn’t have and several aspects that haven’t been applied should have. Ivermectin is interesting and a case could be built that institutions did not move fast enough for specific issues. The point for Australia is that, in their specific case, policy design and application rendered the use of ivermectin (or hydroxychloroquine, zinc, vitamin D, melatonin, famotidine, aspirin, herbs etc) essentially a non-material aspect. And now, vaccines are coming and Australia’s plan is also likely to score high on sustainability, given residual path to herd immunity. Your post assumes a certain level of allocation between the “costs” of the “lockdowns” and the economic costs directly related to the virus spread itself. You seem to assume that most costs are related to the “lockdowns” without really detailing the counterfactual used to analyze. You may be interested to know that institutions in Australia thought about this as the pandemic evolved. See pages 17-26 and 27-41 of the following document for the data, analysis and thought process. Australia is a nice example (there are others) showing that it is possible to collaborate and to cooperate in order to both minimize costs and minimize health outcomes without the need to rely on unproven treatments to save the day and without the irrational fear of permanent “control”. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Go-for-zero-how-Australia-can-get-to-zero-COVID-19-cases-Grattan-Report.pdf Anyways, at this point, in areas that used various forms of let-it-rip ‘strategies’ and various of other forms of race to reach herd immunity, with vaccines coming, ivermectin and related should continue to be looked into but are unlikely to represent significant breakthroughs. Soon, Covid-19 will be, going forward, basically a non-event and what will remain are memories of unnecessary excess mortality, an extra 9.7T debt in the US (government and corporates, as of last November 26th) and a global debt situation that looks like this: All this during an era when records are being broken, in stock markets but also in the length of lines at food banks, in developed countries and in the venerable USA. Did you read and analyze the recent study using 500 times the recommended daily amount of vitamin D in Covid patients? And I doubt ivermectin will make a difference but you can carry on. PS Did you see the latest data released by CDC vs hospitalizations?; soon they will be right in showing a promising downward trend but that may be old news. See attached. Whether lockdowns hurt the economy is not my "opinion". I gave UN report stating 130 million people will go hungry. How many Randomized clinical studies - let alone observational studies are needed for a treatment to be proven? How many Randomized studies are there for Masks and Lockdowns that they work? Hope vaccines work like they say they do but still there is time for everyone to get them. Early treatment is not just to reduce mortality. It also reduces hospitalization and potentially (which some doctors claim) long term symptoms. Look at Trump who got his first treatment within 24 hrs of positive test. Within 10 days he is campaigning. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2020-who-and-unicef-warn-of-a-decline-in-vaccinations-during-covid-19 "The World Health Organization and UNICEF warned today of an alarming decline in the number of children receiving life-saving vaccines around the world. This is due to disruptions in the delivery and uptake of immunization services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic." Australia records worst economic slump as pandemic ends golden run https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-economy-gdp/australia-records-worst-economic-slump-as-pandemic-ends-golden-run-idUSKBN25T0I8 Australia in first recession for nearly 30 years https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53994318 Australia is also unique country. Its an island with huge land and citiies far from each other. We know distancing is an important part of Covid. Even within NYC poorer areas had more Covid possibly because of smaller housing and crowding than richer areas. According to Demographia’s list, out of the 1,040 cities surveyed, Melbourne’s population density of an estimated 1,500 people/ km2 is ranked 955th. https://www.spacer.com.au/blog/population-density-how-does-australia-compare-to-the-rest-of-the-world Please consult your doctor for any treatment. Not suggesting any treatment. For discussion only

I'm not so sure that their lockdown is entirely responsible for their low case count. Australia is in summer right now and it's becoming increasingly clear that this virus is highly seasonal. We didn't hit zero in the US during summer. The numbers actually went UP as we entered summer coincident with lifting restrictions. This is interesting. Seasonal and other factors specific to the Australia region played a role, especially for the Victoria region later in the spread but, by far, evidence overall points to a very large and dominant positive response to effective policy. There is a lot to learn from Australia. Using the CFR as a tool (like any ratio used in financial statements analysis, it is important to analyze both the num. and the denom. to get to the underlying meaning) and comparing to the US (and Canada), on the surface and on a first-level basis, the declining CFR points to an improving survival picture (as claimed). Australia, on the other hand, shows a rising CFR trend. On a second-level basis though, when, last September, the Australia curve crossed the US one, it was a signal or a leading indicator in the direction of their stated goal: reaching zero case. The Canada curve is also shown. If one subtracts the results from my province, the curve remains the same shape as before but gets lower than the US for the entire period. The officials in my province sometimes suggest that 'we' have done relatively well but, at times, they have difficulty finding a region or country doing worse. Anyways, data is coming out for the Australia "flu" season and if it would be fair game to discuss the economic costs of measures that could be allocated to more than spontaneous and compliant reactions from citizens, but it looks like behavior modifications and restrictions had a massive effect (down) on seasonal flu numbers this year. Australia has produced very strong numbers overall (cases, percent positive rates, hospit., deaths etc) and ivermectin continues to receive proportional attention but, even if proven to be effective, alone or in combination, it would not have made a material difference in the aggregate. In his book Sapiens, Mr. Yuval Noah Harari, when explaining how humans came to dominate the earth, suggests that a main contributor to the course of events was the ability to cooperate in extremely flexible ways with countless numbers of strangers. Cigarbutt, for Ivermectin: Efficacy: "100% of the 8 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 72% in the effect measured using a random effects meta-analysis" from above meta-analysis Safety profile: Used for Mass administration in other endemics Mass treatment with ivermectin: an underutilized public health strategy https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/editorial30804html/en/ Cost: Less than 20$ https://www.goodrx.com/ivermectin Do you want even more efficacious, safer and cheaper drug? What level of efficacy, safety and cost is acceptable to you? The lockdowns on other hand are very crushing - I personally know two small business people who face bankruptcy. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/world/europe/geneva-coronavirus-reopening.html A Mile-Long Line for Free Food in Geneva, One of World’s Richest Cities U.N. Report Says Pandemic Could Push Up To 132 Million People Into Hunger https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/13/890398347/u-n-report-says-pandemic-could-push-132-million-people-into-hunger Only for discussion. Please consult your doctor for any treatment. Not a suggestion for any treatment

https://ivmmeta.com/ "Ivermectin is effective for COVID-19: meta analysis of 21 studies" They claim: "100% of the 8 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 72% in the effect measured using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.28 [0.13-0.59]. " They provided the citations for these 8 Randomized controlled trials on Ivermectin ( see Figure 7) and one could go and check the veracity of statements from the citations. The studies are from various countries such as Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, Egypt...etc.. It is a drug among other things used: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404214753.htm Mass drug administration reduces scabies cases by 90% in Solomon Islands' communities Largest study of its kind provides important evidence for global strategy on scabies control Old people in nursing homes is one population Scabies outbreaks are known...same population that is Covid vulnerable. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1712713 Mass Administration of Ivermectin in Areas Where Loa loa Is Endemic What data does NIH need when they make this recommendation: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapeutic-management/ For discussion only. Please consult your doctor regarding treatment options. Not suggesting any treatment

Trump was treated early with Antibodies, Remdesivir and bunch of other medicines. The problem is both Antibodies or Remdesivir are IV infused and cannot be given at home. Remdesivir requires five days of IV infusion. Its impossible to treat 150,000 patients (lets say 10,000 high risk patients) every day and treat them with these IV medicines. Dr. Mcculough talked about the oral medicines to treat early at home so that patients can be quarantined and need not go to hospitals. For example Japan looked at Avigan an oral antiviral: Even as Japan has allowed off-label use for the drug against COVID-19, Fujifilm have been careful not to trumpet the effects of their drug. https://time.com/5814045/ebola-drug-coronavirus-favipiravir/ Fujifilm seeks approval for Avigan as COVID-19 treatment in Japan https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-fujifilm-avigan/fujifilm-seeks-approval-for-avigan-as-covid-19-treatment-in-japan-idUSKBN2741BB China with Chloroquine: However, it has recommended the use of a similar malaria drug called chloroquine. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3098021/coronavirus-conflicting-treatment-message-china-rejects-trump Saudi Arabia with HCQ: The Effect of Early Hydroxychloroquine-based Therapy in COVID-19 Patients in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.09.20184143v1 Ivermectin has been tried in Bangladesh, Iran & Egypt: https://www.trialsitenews.com/dhaka-medical-college-shares-results-of-randomized-controlled-trial-ivermectin-doxycycline-benefits-patients-with-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/ Dhaka Medical College Shares Results of Randomized Controlled Trial: Ivermectin & Doxycycline Benefits Patients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-109670/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v1 Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic "A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial (RCCT) study design ....." You need to be careful because some of these ivermectin studies were done in places where Hydroxychloroquine is part of standard of care and hence HCQ is there in both arms. So what is US is doing? For Patients with COVID-19 Who Are Not Hospitalized or Who Are Hospitalized With Moderate Disease but Do Not Require Supplemental Oxygen Recommendations: The Panel does not recommend any specific antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 in these patients. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapeutic-management/ Trump got early treatment. But that treatment by IV infusion wont be available for 99% of the world because there are only so many hospital beds. Not suggesting any treatment. Please consult your doctor or doctors. Only for discussion

Short answer: The person may be right. Longer answer: This opinion shows the challenge when there are 'competing' schools of thought. When this issue becomes driven by 'us vs them', constructive discussions become difficult and often deviate from basic data, reasoning, weight of evidence etc. The opinion also shows the challenge related to balancing personal and collective responsibility. For various reasons, i've been involved in self-regulatory ventures which included to limit or terminate certain activities or even careers. A basic principle involved to respect alternative ways to think but the burden of proof should lie on the person voicing unusual or contrary opinions. So far, the evidence for the use of hydroxychloroquine at any stage of CV remains unconvincing and a lot of what the emerging school of thought is doing is to focus on the container, not the content. When assessing specific cases, the following type of comment sometimes appeared: [the] "doctor tells me they treated hundreds of patients and all of them are doing well". This was typically a massive red flag. "doctor tells me they treated hundreds of patients and all of them are doing well". This was typically a massive red flag." Many if not most patients go to a doctor and ask how the previous patients with similar situation did under their care. "So far, the evidence for the use of hydroxychloroquine at any stage of CV remains unconvincing and a lot of what the emerging school of thought is doing is to focus on the container, not the content" People have been talking over each other but talking about different treatments in different diseases. First of all, Dr. Fareed was not talking about using Hydroxychloroquine alone. From his testimony "We have always used a triple HCQ cocktail: HCQ (3200 mg over 5 days), azithromycin or doxycycline and especially zinc, which is often left out in the studies" They try to treat early. Many studies are done in hospital (see below for example): "The cocktail is best given early within the first 5 to 7 days while the patient is in the flu stage ( I have had success treating even as late as 14 days when patients have been sent home untreated from the ER). The timing of the drug is when the virus is in the period of maximal replication in the upper respiratory tract" He testified using in high risk patients. "I use it especially in high risk individuals (over 60 or with co-morbidities and anyone with moderate to severe flu symptoms)---the healthy do not need the treatment. I used this regimen to successfully treat 31 elderly nursing home residents in an outbreak in June and 29 recovered fully" Now he added another agent "I am routinely now combining Ivermectin in a quadruple HCQ/IVM cocktail with excellent results since Ivermectin is safe and has a different anti-covid action." If you see few days back article by NIH (Nov 24) Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t benefit hospitalized COVID-19 patients https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/hydroxychloroquine-doesnt-benefit-hospitalized-covid-19-patients This randomized study is in hospitalized patients, doesnt mention zinc, and not ivermectin. But the whole point of the treatment Dr. Fareed is talking about is to reduce hospitalization. "The results are consistently good, often dramatic, with improvement within 48 hours·I have seen very few hospitalizations, and only a few deaths in patients that were sick to begin with and received the medication late while hospitalized." That is after treating: "over two thousand four hundred were COVID-19 positive and we treated successfully many hundreds of the high risk and symptomatic ones" So when people say Hydroxychloroquine doesnt work....are they talking about using it early, in high risk patients with cocktail that includes zinc, azithromycin or doxycylin, and now ivermectin? Otherwise they are talking about different patient population and different medicines and different disease, IMO. Not recommending any treatment. Only for discussion.

How accurate is the diagnostic test for COVID-19? The PCR test for COVID-19 works by detecting genetic material from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 cannot be confused with the genetic material from other viruses, so the COVID-19 diagnostic test is highly specific. This means it almost never gives a false positive. If you are tested for COVID-19, and the test comes back positive, you can be very sure that you are infected with this virus. The new antigen test for COVID-19 is also very specific and rarely gives a false positive. Unfortunately, neither test is equally sensitive. If the specimen collection is not done perfectly, or if you are in an early stage of infection or already partially recovered, your nasal-swab sample might not contain enough viral material to come back positive. There are many stories about patients who tested negative soon after their symptoms began, only to test positive on a test done later. It is clear that the PCR test is more accurate at detecting early-stage infections, and there are early indications that the antigen test may be better at identifying patients who are already recovering. https://medical.mit.edu/faqs/faq-testing-covid-19

Senate hearing testimony by Dr. George Fareed, a Harvard MD with honors and more profile given below: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Fareed-2020-11-19.pdf Since early March both in my Brawley clinic and Dr. Brian Tyson’s The All Valley Urgent Care Clinic in El Centro (where I also work), over 25,000 fearful people were screened, over two thousand four hundred were COVID-19 positive and we treated successfully many hundreds of the high risk and symptomatic ones. And this doctor has excellent credentials: http://www.ivcommunityfoundation.org/media/managed/npd2019/NPD_2019_Program.pdf PHILANTHROPIST OF THE YEAR Dr. George Fareed Dr. George Fareed graduated with honors from Harvard Medical School in 1970 and has been practicing medicine for 49 years. He spent the first 20 years after graduation researching and teaching at Harvard and UCLA. He was Assistant Professor at HMS from 1973-1976. He was Associate Professor at UCLA from 1976-1996. He received the Soma Weiss Award for his DNA research. He founded International Genetic Engineering, Inc. in 1980 and Advanced Antigens, Inc. in 1991, the same year he opened his medical practice in Brawley, CA. And, he was the US Davis Cup tennis team physician for 20 years and worked at 38 team matches and the US Olympics in Sydney in 2000. In the memorable 1995 Davis Cup final against Russia in Moscow, he helped Pete Sampras bounce back from grueling leg cramps. He has been recognized for his many accomplishments including the 2004.......... ........ You can read his full profile in the link...but my point is: Whenever I went to doctor for my family one question I always had was how many they treated and what was the result and the doctors credentials. If a doctor tells me they treated hundreds of patients and all of them are doing well, that usually works for me to take that treatment. Why should not be taken seriously for Covid and ignore these doctors?

Not to mention several politicians who got caught breaking their own rules to have Thanksgiving gatherings. I don't blame the public for becoming increasingly jaded by political leadership. People seem to relish in the discovered hypocrisy so that they can feel righteous in their own opposition, although that's pretty childish. But from what I can tell people don't get too bothered when they feel the rules are just and in place to serve the greater good. I watch Fox News (not exclusively of course) and they're obsessed with Gavin Newsom's lunch, but the liberals channels don't really care at all to the same extent. Eric hope you and your family have a quick and complete recovery.