Investor20

Counterpoint: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm You are citing one instance. The numbers cited in the articles I posted are population averages. Below is a review of studies done on secondary attack rate (SAR) within a residence. "We found that SAR varies widely across countries with lowest reported rate as 4.6% and highest as 49.56%." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32726452/ This has breakup within household: Secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 developed in 64 of 392 household contacts (16.3%). The secondary attack rate to children was 4% compared with 17.1% for adults. The secondary attack rate to the contacts within the households with index patients quarantined by themselves since onset of symptoms was 0% compared with 16.9% for contacts without quarantined index patients. The secondary attack rate to contacts who were spouses of index cases was 27.8% compared with 17.3% for other adult members in the households. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa450/5821281 Many articles give about 20-30% range overall. Even with partners/spouses, its still well below 50%. Thus about 50-80% have immunity. Is there any other reason you could think of?

Personally I know two cases where a spouse did not develop infection living together with an infected person. Apparently that is pretty common. The best argument for that is many people have inherent immunity. The household secondary infection is much lower than I thought initially. Two references below: When spread occurred, children under 18 years old were the most commonly infected at 42%, followed by adult children over 18 years old at 35% and spouses or partners of the first patient at 33%, according to experts. https://www.clickondetroit.com/health/good-health/2020/08/18/what-are-odds-of-covid-19-spreading-to-someone-in-same-household-as-infected-person/ His team estimates that more than 19% of people in the same household as a COVID-19 patient, or nearly 1 in 5, can expect to develop the infection. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200430/covid-19-household-spread-how-likely Not everyone gets the infection - even spouses in same room dont many times. Cannot think of any other reason but there is substantial immunity for many.

NJ has 1793 deaths/million NY has 1687 deaths/million Texas has 280 deaths/million Florida has 361 deaths/million Are you saying NY & NJ listened to Trump and Texas & Florida did not listen to Trump? IF you go by deaths per million, the top 10 states are New Jersey, New York, Massachussetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Louisiana, District of Columbia, Michigan, Illinois, Missisippi. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Commentary. Eliminating Vitamin D Deficiency During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Call to Action https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377789/ In addition, a growing number of studies of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection find that 25(OH)D levels correlate inversely with illness severity. For example, among 212 COVID-19 patients at three South Asian hospitals, the risk of severe as opposed to mild illness was approximately eight times higher in those who were vitamin D deficient than in those who were vitamin D sufficient. Among 780 COVID-19 patients in Indonesia, 25(OH)D levels below 20 ng/mL, as compared with levels of 30 ng/mL or greater, were predictive of a 10-fold increase in mortality risk after controlling for age, sex, and comorbidity status.

As a learning exercise, i did look in some details (fundamental) at the study mentioned above and briefly at the others (more pattern recognition). There is little hope for an individual impact here but this is offered to the world. BTW, as an individual (adult and ability to consent), you are free to ingest whatever you desire and can combine it or use alternative intake routes. i just worry about the impact at the population level. The study is based on some basic biologic rationale and there is a certain body of literature supporting some of the foundations. The study reaches minimal criteria for publication in a secondary peer-reviewed journal. The negatives -the study is retrospective and observational (weak evidence to start with) -one of the main inclusion criteria was the presence of vitamin D levels previously documented which is a huge methodological problem -they had to exclude a large number of cases based on that aspect -their conclusion is based on a statistical correction of confounders which then becomes a super weak argument, given such an obvious selection bias initial condition -there is no documentation or discussion as to why (intent or indication) and when (unstandardized) vitamin D levels were measured (this has huge implications for validity) -statistical techniques to correct for confounding variables are used but, in addition to the factor mentioned above, there is a whole constellation of factors in this study that suggest a very high risk of significant residual confounding -the COVID-19 positive group came from a group of lower socio-economic status which is very difficult to control for -the study does not identify risk factors that are coherent in nature and that have been largely recognized elsewhere (suggesting manifest methodological flaws in this study) -the basic underlying finding is the following: COVID+ COVID- p value Mean vitamin D(ng/mL; 95%CI) 19.00(18.41-19.59) 20.55(20.32-20.78) 0.026 Proportion with low vitamin D level 89.90% 84.91% p<0.001 which depicts the classic risk of translating "statistically" significant findings into causality discussions and relevant clinical findings --- What is concerning (IMO) is the language used. The study has very weak methodology and setup while inflating statistical findings of very questionable value. There is a conflation of analytical conclusions that suggest that the authors were on a mission. In itself (on a scale of 0 to 100), the study has about a 0.1 to 0.01 value in defining the role of vitamin D as a "risk factor" and the study, in itself, would not add significant value in the context of a meta-analytical framework. --- This knowledge avenue is slightly better than the hydroxychloroquine alley or the bleach dead end and while it's mentioned that considerations such as affordability and benign profile should be given, it's a mental framework that can lead astray. i understand (and agree with) the relative lack of interest at the institutional level. Resources are limited and it's important to keep rational mental pathways separate from emotion centers. ---o---o--- i would suggest that people who rationally explain things (even if politely, constructively etc) can be deeply hated if one is wired a certain way. Note: the post has been edited for spelling errors (there may be one or two left but i have to go; i accompany my father-in-law (who bears very real and significant risk factors) for a test at the hospital). One of the criticisms of HCQ+Zinc by Zelenko or NYU Grossman or this study of Vitamin D is that they are not RCT. Please Cigarbutt, show me the RCT that showed reduced mortality with Remedisivir. After all NIAID and WHO had resources to help out a private pharmaceutical company set to make billions but has no resources left to study Vitamin D or HCQ+Zinc which are almost free. https://time.com/5865491/remdesivir-covid-study/ Gilead’s analysis is the next-best thing to a randomized placebo-controlled trial, and the company’s scientists acknowledge that more studies are needed to confirm the reduction in mortality. https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/11/inside-the-nihs-controversial-decision-to-stop-its-big-remdesivir-study/ The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has described to STAT in new detail how it made its fateful decision: to start giving remdesivir to patients who had been assigned to receive a placebo in the study, essentially limiting researchers’ ability to collect more data about whether the drug saves lives — something the study, called ACTT-1, suggests but does not prove. In the trial, 8% of the participants given remdesivir died, compared with 11.6% of the placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant. https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid-19/remdesivir-clinical-trials Remedisivir is not only expensive, it needs to be given by IV in hospital. But see how many studies by government agencies in above link. Simple trial by NIAID. A second study by NIAID. A third study by WHO. A study by France. Another by China. But this drug cannot be used for poor by its very nature of being an IV drug. And after all this help out from tax payer money, Gilead says on their website "a difference that was not statistically significant" for mortality for their RCT study. You think in return, Gilead will study Vitamin D, HCQ +ZINC, ventilation? Any chance? No their executives will make lots of money from their stock options https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/after-gilead-reveals-remdesivir-pricing-analyst-sees-significant-revenue-upside-2020-07-02 After Gilead Reveals Remdesivir Pricing, Analyst Sees Significant Revenue Upside If both govt agencies and private companies work only on profitable projects, who is going to do the non-profitable research? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/us-government-awards-novavax-1point6-billion-for-coronavirus-vaccine.html Novavax soars after U.S. government awards firm $1.6 billion for coronavirus vaccine development https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/politics/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine.html Pfizer Gets $1.95 Billion to Produce Coronavirus Vaccine by Year’s End For a vaccine that may or may not suceed. This whole argument that there is no money for Vitamin D, HCQ+Zinc, airborne transmission studies but there are billions and billions for private profitable research? Also, in a subsequent post I gave a link to a medium.com article with several studies claiming Vitamin D improves severity and mortality. Its not just one study that you commented on that studied Vitamin D deficiency for Covid. There are even more actually not covered in medium.com article. I will try to summarize in coming days.

He says it has an impact, and he's also aware of your zinc claims: Dr Fauci:I think it really relates to the importance of vitamin D in host defense against infection. There’s no doubt that if you are vitamin D deficient, you might have a poor outcome or a greater chance of getting into trouble with an infection. Most people in the developed world are not vitamin D deficient, so adding additional vitamin D may not actually have a substantial clinical effect. That doesn’t lessen the importance of a normal level of vitamin D. In some of the developing countries, there have been studies with tuberculosis and other diseases. Those who are vitamin deficient, including vitamin D and vitamin A, they do worse. Dr Bauchner:Both you and I are strong believers in a randomized clinical trial. Dr Fauci:And, unfortunately, there’s a paucity of that. This is what I am talking about. I am not sure if I care he is aware of it. He is given 5.9 billion dollar budget. Not to subsidize pharma companies on profitable projects. It is given to study these and let the people know what to do about it. I dont agree Vitamin D deficiency is low in US. https://www.cantonmercy.org/healthchat/42-percent-of-americans-are-vitamin-d-deficient/ 42% Percent of Americans Are Vitamin D Deficient. Are You Among Them? There are many studies looking at Vitamin D deficiency geographically and death rate in that area. Below is one example. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200702/More-evidence-on-vitamin-D-deficiency-and-death-rates-from-COVID-19.aspx Physicians at the Complete Med Care clinic in Dallas, Texas, have conducted a study showing that the prevalence of severe vitamin D deficiency is strongly correlated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality rate in European countries. Vitamin D deficiency also correlates to race in Covid deaths. For example below study said "An estimated 40% of American adults may be vitamin D deficient. For African-Americans, that number may be nearly double at 76% according to a new study by The Cooper Institute." https://www.cooperinstitute.org/2019/09/24/african-americans-at-greatest-risk-of-vitamin-d-deficiency Some of the above studies such as the Indonesia study said, "When adjusted for confounds — i.e., age, sex, and comorbidity — those with vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency were still 7.63 and 10.12 times more likely to die, respectively. " 10 times the chance of death with Vitamin D deficiency is claimed in above study. 42% of Americans and 76% blacks have Vitamin D deficiency. Yet not one study from 5.9 billion dollar budget to look at it.

Vitamin D as an Independent Risk Factor for COVID-19 Death https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/lack-of-vitamin-d-as-an-independent-risk-factor-for-covid-19-death-82365d0520fa Several studies were covered: Indonesian study: When adjusted for confounds — i.e., age, sex, and comorbidity — those with vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency were still 7.63 and 10.12 times more likely to die, respectively. Phillipines study: For each standard deviation increase in serum 25(OH)D, the odds of having a mild clinical outcome rather than a severe outcome were approximately 7.94 times,” the author wrote. UK study: They found that only 19% (8/42) of patients admitted to ICU had normal vitamin D levels, and this number is 39.1% (36/92) in those with non-ICU level severity. ........................ Fauci department has 5.9 billion dollars budget. How about they commission a study on Vitamin D and Covid? Yet we have to look at Israeli, UK, Phillipines, Indonesia studies for Vitamin D association with Covid-19.

It is not just about HCQ. It is about Airborne transmission and ventilation. It is about Vitamin D and its deficiency. Dr. Fauci and WHO talk about Remedsivir and vaccines that would be very expensive. But why not leave those to pharmaceutical companies which can make a lot of profit in billions of dollars. Why not WHO and Dr. Fauci focus on Airborne transmission, Vitamin D or studying HCQ+Zinc? There is no profit in these. If government agencies and WHO doesnt do research on these, who will? Below is about Vitamin D article recently from Israel. Why did we have to wait for Israel to do a study on this? Why didn't Dr. Fauci or WHO? https://www.jpost.com/health-science/vitamin-d-deficiency-could-make-you-more-prone-to-covid-19-new-study-636350 “The main finding of our study was the significant association of low plasma vitamin D level with the likelihood of COVID-19 infection among patients who were tested for COVID-19, even after adjustment for age, gender, socioeconomic status and chronic, mental and physical disorders,” said Dr. Eugene Merzon, head of Leumit’s Department of Managed Care and its leading researcher

That's not really how we're supposed to do medicine and drugs. There's a reason why we bother with all those pesky drug trials and have prescriptions and stuff. These are not sugar pills. Drugs also have side effects and can be dangerous. I have yet to hear of a dream catcher side effect. That's why promoting wrong drugs is dangerous and irresponsible. People will seek those drugs. Doctors are supposed to be the gatekeepers but in many cases they just fold. That's how people were able to get huge amounts of oxy and kill themselves. Oh right and just cause the promotion comes from a buffoon doesn't make it any less harmless. After the disinfect yourself with bleach press conference there was a remarkable number of people that actually drank bleach. BLEACH! And there is a process. You need a prescription. But HCQ is still not a banned substance. So there's that. Many prescriptions are off label. And surgeries etc are not FDA approved. The doctors practice them. So for example for my mother we went to hospitals. The doctors would say they did a particular type of surgery and had so many patients and certain percent success. Different doctors had different protocols and approaches. Thats how a patient decides, by talking to the doctors. This notion that if FDA doesnt approve, doctors cannot do it is nonsense. https://www.drugwatch.com/health/off-label-drug-use/ "Consequently, it’s legal and common for doctors to prescribe drugs for uses other than what is listed on the label, commonly known as off-label. One fifth of all prescriptions are off-label."

The question is does HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin when given very early on onset of symptoms works for Covid or Not? Can you show me an RCT done to answer this question? This is what that doctor was talking about. The only way to answer if she is correct or not is by doing a study or accept her experience as correct. The only two studies I know of this combination that I posted little bit earlier show encouraging results. Can you show me an RCT for Remedisivir that improves mortality? HCQ is almost free. Remedisivir is very expensive and takes IV in hospital. They're not gonna do an RCT for everything that some right wing guy comes up with. There have been a lot of trials on HCQ. The US FDA determined it doesn't work. The UK CDC determined it doesn't work, the French CDC determined it doesn't work, the German CDC determined it doesn't work, the EU CDC determined it doesn't work. The only people still hawking HCQ are right wingers in US and Brazil. Also known as the bunch that fucked up the pandemic response. From the beginning, the theory of many doctors has been HCQ opens a channel and allows Zinc to enter the cell which acts as antiviral. RCT for something two retrospective studies (Zelenko & NYU Grossman) showed very encouraging data. NYU grossman showed 44% reduction in deaths with 20$ medicine. Yes RCT has been done with Remedesivir. Can you show me the data to show Remedisivir reduces mortality in a RCT? You are the guys who talk about medicine costs. Here we have a 20$ medicine that can be administered at home vs Remedisivr which is expensive and can be only be administered in a hospital. Below examples of two other doctors saying HCQ + Zinc works. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/la-doctor-seeing-success-with-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19/ar-BB12cfG5 LA doctor seeing success with hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication. https://kyma.com/news/2020/07/24/local-doctor-sees-success-treating-covid-19-patients-with-hcq-cocktail/ "Hydroxychloroquine along with zinc and either azithromycin or doxycycline and it's based upon now many studies from colleagues around the world. It's shown to be an effective treatment and that’s what we need," said Dr. George Fareed, physician. Dr. George Fareed is Harvard educated and worked at Harvard Medical School as a associate professor. There are many more examples. To disregard two retrospective studies, one of which showed 44% reduction in mortality, multiple doctors who are treating hundreds of patients and studying without Zinc, which these doctors say is actual active ingredient is mind bogglingly stupid.

The question is does HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin when given very early on onset of symptoms works for Covid or Not? Can you show me an RCT done to answer this question? This is what that doctor was talking about. The only way to answer if she is correct or not is by doing a study or accept her experience as correct. The only two studies I know of this combination that I posted little bit earlier show encouraging results. Can you show me an RCT for Remedisivir that improves mortality? HCQ is almost free. Remedisivir is very expensive and takes IV in hospital.

Wow that's quite the non-sequitur. It's not even wrong, it's just, nothing at all. Do you often just plug something you have on the mind into an unrelated discussion like that? Might want to have that checked out. Pretty sure everyone who's not bonkers doesn't think that demon sperm infecting you in your sleep is crazy and that this "doctor" doesn't sound very sane and qualified to give medical advice on critical drug research. "Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches. She alleges alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments, and that scientists are cooking up a vaccine to prevent people from being religious." If you don't think it's INSANE for the president of the US to be simultaneously promoting this "doctor" while attacking Fauci, you probably have had too much love with demons in your dreams.. Well, if it's not effective, and can have dangerous side effects for some people, why would people take it? And claiming something is a cure for a disease for which there is currently no cure is EXTREMELY dangerous, as it'll modify people's behavior and perception of risk and more people will get sick and die and infect others than otherwise, causing more suffering and economic damage than would be the case if people were, y'know, more rational about it. Otherwise, why not go to the pharmacy and just pick stuff at random and take it and tell others to take it too, while at it? It's all FDA-approved, right? Is that the standard? Did anyone actually test the HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin at doses that these doctors say it works with following criteria: 1) Has to be given immediately after getting sick as soon as symptoms are onset. 2) HCQ works better with Zinc. 3) So, it needs to be studied in a primary care physician stage, not at a hospital stage because it is too late. There is not one RCT done with this combination with above criteria. The only study that is published with these criteria is by Dr. Zelenko. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0025/v1 They had 4 hospitalizations and 1 death of 141 symptomatic patients at their clinic. Their control is really not a control in terms of an RCT but a comparative number with no patient information. But 1 death of 141 symptomatic patients is low. A retrospective study was done by NYU Grossman which I posted several times already. In that study adding Zinc to HCQ+Azithromycin reduced the deaths by 44%. https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths I dont know any other studies with HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin. Above two studies showed very encouraging data. Many studies had HCQ only without Zinc, but even these when given very early it did work such as in Henry Ford study or several Indian studies where it was used as prophylaxis. Unfortunately too many studies published with HCQ have many defective protocols such as recruiting patients online without PCR confirmation (how do you know they are not Flu patients?), dosing as late as 9th day, dosing patients having already low Oxygen, etc. An example is the following NEJM study which was highly publicized. However, reading it https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 Most volunteers were not tested by PCR: Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests; however, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, In appendix they had "Lab-confirmed Diagnosis 11 (2.7%)" for HCQ arm. Too low a age: "The median age was 40 years". When almost everyone in placebo also gets better how do you show a difference? Result: Two hospitalizations were reported (one in each group). No arrhythmias or deaths occurred. This is of total 800+ volunteers. Recently I posted a study in India where they tested over 100,000 people with PCR testing with HCQ as a prophylaxis on weekly dosing in that the number of volunteers testing positive goes down with weeks of administration. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/vadodara-administration-drive-hcq-helping-in-containing-covid-19-cases-say-docs-as-analysis-begins-6486049/ Would you depend on 100,000 volunteers study with PCR testing or a 400 in each arm study where only one in each arm got hospitalized with zero deaths with only 2% getting a PCR test?

It could be stronger immune systems due to living in squalor. You mean they have more cross immunity to other coronaviruses? Not necessarily cross immunity to viruses. Just a stronger immune system and a better response. If you're living in squalor you'll generally have a much better immune system and better immune response than some fat guy that drives everywhere and washes regularly. It's also a big part of the reason why there are less people with allergies in developing countries. Allergies are over reaction of immune system. Your evidence says poorer people have less immunity. Covid-19 is much more prevalent in lower income groups in US, which is shown in NYC. But that is usually explained because of crowding in smaller housing. But that is not the case in India. Slums with high crowding have lower Covid-19. Yes allergies are an over reaction of the immune system. But you're looking this in an over-simplified way. Like in any fight/battle the level of strength is not all that matters. Tactics matter a great deal as well. So the guy who grew up a (relatively) rich life in America who's mom was always there with Purell go clean the germs may have a strong immune system because he is healthy and not malnourished etc... But the Indian who grew up in squalor playing in dirt and shit with not a bar of soap in sight has an immune system that is better equipped to deal with threats because it has been exposed to so many pathogens. That's why the rich guy's immune system goes like Holy Shit! A nut, Red Alert, DEFCON 1! and the poor guy's immune system goes like, oh a nut, that looks yummy. To put this another way the rich guy's immune system is like a white guy that attends private school, goes to the gym 3 times a week to pump lift weights for 2 hours, drinks protein shakes. The poor guy's immune system is like a dirt-under-fingernails street fighter from the bad side of Jakarta. Christopher over there looks pretty impressive. But which one of the two do you want backing you in a dark alley fight? @rb I respect your opinion about squalor-induced immunity (...) because of your overall strong analytical skills but i will keep this 'evidence' at the anecdotal level (of questionable validity). @Investor20 There is a recent report from Mumbai that points to evidence going against your strong belief that ventilation should be a primary consideration: https://www.firstpost.com/health/covid-19-antibodies-found-in-57-of-mumbai-slum-residents-in-limited-serosurvey-by-niti-aayog-bmc-tifr-8651091.html When the facts change... So why such a low mortality in slums? There are many competing theories but age may be a determining factor. This is still relatively ill defined as there are many risk factors but some work shows that age (exponential rise in relative risk with age) is the primary determining factor in most cases. See page 8, figure 3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2521-4_reference.pdf What about the age profile in slums? https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Age-Classification-of-Slum-Population_tbl1_262123665 The 1967 James Bond movie You Only Live Twice is a great movie (anecdotal opinion) but, in this case, it's the 1993 spoof version You Only Live Once that wins the evidence prize. It is not just that the mortality is less in the slums. It is the degree with which it is less. "Of a population as big as a million people, Dharavi has recorded 253 deaths." (1) (253/570,000)*100 = 0.04%. This is more than two fold less than what is generally quoted as 0.1% fatality rate for flu. I usually look at both PCR tests and deaths. It is this deaths number that made me believe that the infection rate is low. Can just younger age explain such a low infection fatality rate? If so, it raises a question, why everyone has to be locked down when younger people have two fold less than flu IFR. Isnt it possible to take care of elderly and let the virus come to herd immunity within the younger population? (1) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-29/herd-immunity-seems-to-be-developing-in-mumbai-s-poorest-areas

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/vadodara-administration-drive-hcq-helping-in-containing-covid-19-cases-say-docs-as-analysis-begins-6486049/ "Until Wednesday, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) has administered the drug to 3.42 lakh persons, including health workers and other frontline staff. Each of these persons has or will have completed the entire course of the drug — 400mg twice a day for the first dose and 400 mg per week for a minimum of three weeks" "We have the numbers and not one person has complained of complications. The only side effect reported is mild gastritis, which is common with administering heavy medicines and can be effectively handled.” "Of this, the administration has analysed a sample of over 1 lakh residents, who were mostly close contacts of positive persons and the effect of HCQ in containing the transmission of the virus. According to the analysis, of the 48,873 close contacts of positive patients who took one dose of HCQ, 102 turned Covid-19 positive and 12 succumbed to the infection whereas 48 of the 17,776 close contacts of positive patients who took two doses of HCQ turned positive and only one died. The study also states that of the 33,563 close contacts of patients who took three HCQ doses, 43 tested positive and one died." 1 Lakh = 100,000. That is they gave 340,000 people prophylactically. Noted no complications other than minor. First dose : (102/48873)*100 = 0.2% of contacts got infected Third dose: (43/33563)*100 = 0.13% of contacts got infected. The number of contacts who are infected after HCQ dosing is really low.

If a doctor treated 350 of 350 patients successfully that is a good data point. A normal person when they go to a doctor, they would be interested in how many cases the doctor treated and how many were successful.

It could be stronger immune systems due to living in squalor. You mean they have more cross immunity to other coronaviruses? Not necessarily cross immunity to viruses. Just a stronger immune system and a better response. If you're living in squalor you'll generally have a much better immune system and better immune response than some fat guy that drives everywhere and washes regularly. It's also a big part of the reason why there are less people with allergies in developing countries. Allergies are over reaction of immune system. Your evidence says poorer people have less immunity. Covid-19 is much more prevalent in lower income groups in US, which is shown in NYC. But that is usually explained because of crowding in smaller housing. But that is not the case in India. Slums with high crowding have lower Covid-19.

It could be stronger immune systems due to living in squalor. Could be they're just not getting tested nearly as much because of much worse access to healthcare? Unlikely because low testing cannot hide high deaths.

It could be stronger immune systems due to living in squalor. You mean they have more cross immunity to other coronaviruses?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/15-high-rises-2-slums-on-list-of-31-containment-zones/articleshow/77188071.cms Kolkata: 15 high-rises, two slums on list of 31 containment .. The above website wont let me cut and paste. Few points: High-rises seen 108% increase while slums seen 60% jump in Mumbai. In Delhi most cases are from apartments (Not slums!) Why would slums with crowding (that is lacking distancing), lacking continuous water supply (Washing hands), poor people probably lacking good masks would be doing better than high rise apartments? Is it Ventilation?

Is it indoor or outdoor? The photo looks indoor though it says backyard barbecue.

I agree with rb. Furthermore, Investor20 posted a link to an empirical study, where antibodies appeared to fade away within about a few months. The head of the Swedish Health Authority, Mr. Tegnell, yesterday publicly expressed concerns & second thoughts about the Swedish pandemic strategy, btw. [Ref. the Swedish situation has been touched recently in this topic.] Personally, I'm very happy today, that my ticket in the ovarial lottery turned out to be Danish. - - - o 0 o - - - In short : Don't challenge your own fate by trying to mess around with this sucker. [Also, I think that this is what Greg all the time has been expressing in his posts.] Dont overlook cellular immunity which is the better way to look at immunity. Just looking at antibodies gives an incomplete picture and if not all the great majority of people should have long term immunity regardless of IgM, IgG antibody counts. Most of the folks here probably don't know what cellular immunity is, which is why I didn't even bother to mention it. :) Several research articles recently found considerable cross-immunity from other Coronaviruses, upto 50%. Some examples below: ""Our team also tested uninfected healthy individuals and found SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in more than 50 percent of them. This could be due to cross-reactive immunity obtained from exposure to other coronaviruses, such as those causing the common cold, or presently unknown animal coronaviruses." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716101536.htm Another article on this: Taken together, five studies report evidence of pre-existing T cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 in a significant fraction of people from diverse geographical locations. For example "Finally, a study of individuals in Singapore, by Le Bert et al.4, reported T cell responses to nucleocapsid protein nsp7 or nsp13 in 50% of subjects with no historyof SARS, COVID-19, or contact with patients with SARS or COVID-19. " https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0389-z This to me gives a good reason why cases stop going up well below what we think is a herd immunity. If there is already a 50% cross-immunity from other Coronaviruses, then we wont need more than 20-25% seroprevalence of antibodies to achieve herd immunity. For example, recently in Delhi, India they got 25% seroprevalence. The cases in Delhi were going down for past one month.

It is good advice. But given that in most office buildings in North America you cannot open windows that's not really that applicable. Cover my ass here: I don't know what's the window situation in those low rise campuses in silicon valley. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa939/5867798 Check at the end of third page of this article several mitigation strategies including HEPA filters and UV lights in the aircirculation systems. Installing UV light is fairly cheap. From above linked article: Provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes. Supplement general ventilation with airborne infection controls such as local exhaust, high efficiency air filtration, and germicidal ultraviolet lights. Avoid overcrowding, particularly in public transport and public buildings.

South Korean Guidelines on how to conduct in-person meetings. Note how the masks are applicable with relation to ventilation & distancing: Follow these guidelines when conducting in-person meetings: Inform attendees that they should refrain from attending the meeting if they traveled abroad in the last 14 days or have shown symptoms such as fever, respiratory distress (sore throat, coughing, difficulty breathing, headache, muscle pain, fatigue). The meeting host should check for respiratory abnormalities or fever and make sure those with symptoms don’t attend. Refrain from physical contact, such as shaking hands, before or after the meeting. Make sure hand sanitizer is readily available in the conference room so attendees can use it frequently. Provide a well-ventilated, spacious area for the meeting and be sure to ventilate before the meeting. Take a break every hour to ventilate the space by opening doors and windows. Maintain a distance of two meters between every attendee (minimum one meter). If this cannot be met, refrain from meeting in person. If the meeting is still necessary, ensure every attendee wears a mask, even when speaking. Masks are up to personal discretion if ventilation and distancing can be followed. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/south-korea-office-coronavirus-covid19-work-enviroment/

Meanwhile, the guy the should actually have had running things without constant second guessing and contradicting from the beginning seems like a really good guy: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/07/13/world/europe/13reuters-health-coronavirus-germany-schools.html German Study Shows Low Coronavirus Infection Rate in Schools "Children may even act as a brake on infection," Berner told a news conference, saying infections in schools had not led to an outbreak, while the spread of the virus within households was also less dynamic than previously thought. 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.’ ......................... For many children in the world, schools provide meals, vaccination, a safe place (some homes with drug addicts are not safe), early intervention such as speech therapy. One should balance these against the available eviddence of children getting sick and how much they transmit it to adults. Above are two data points.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852v1 The mortality rate is high of about 25%. The number of days since symptom onset 9 days before medicine administration On oxygen or ventilation at baseline: 67% Many doctors who use Hydroxychloroquine say 1) It works better with Zinc, and optionally Azithromycin. 2) Works when given early but not when given later when symptoms of pneumonia have started. For example Dr. Harvey Risch from Yale says: I think that there has been confusion about treating the cold versus treating the pneumonia. These medications don’t seem to work so well for treating the pneumonia. As early as possible is crucial, within the first five to six days of symptoms. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/25085/ I think you are on the wrong forum trying to push for HCQ+/- other agents. You are wasting everyone's and your time here. I would suggest you either talk to like minded physicians and start a trial with your design in mind and/or fund them personally with your money for this. Another option is to do a go-fund-me site to raise money for such a trial or create a social network group of like-minded people with money to pool resources for this. It is not unheard of because there are many patient and specific drug advocacy groups around that do this kind of thing in other disease areas. Also, there will be enough physicians in this country (and participants as well) that believe in this HCQ+other agent treatment and will be willing to participate/help. In-fact you can start by contacting the docs you keep citing (given the papers you keep posting). Just to be clear, I am not being sarcastic. If you so strongly believe in this, have some skin in the game by putting your own money into it. Just like we all do when investing. Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, Azithromycin are generics and widely available. There is no profit here. Thats why WHO or government agencies are the one that should test these. Leave vaccines, remedesivir, etc to private companies. There is enough profit that private investors will fund them for these medicines with patents.