Investor20

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.

Is there any rational person who doesn’t think Trump’s handling of Covid-19 has been deplorable? There is indeed such a group. The only group that I find more deplorable than pedophiles. Trump supporters. Apologize and delete immediately While Vinod1's reply might be a little extreme Investor 20, I note that you avoided the question. Most of the excess deaths from Covid are from NY and states around NY. But that is irrelevant. I wont call anyone a pedophile just because I disagree on an issue.

When you do a study, you are supposed to do it to work. To cite a study where an antiviral is given after the virus has spread is pretty dumb. You can take established HIV medicines and give it after the HIV virus has spread and say they dont work. https://www.thebodypro.com/article/deaths-due-to-late-hiv-diagnosis-still-a-problem Deaths Due to Late HIV Diagnosis Still a Problem

There are many more dudes. Two more dudes for example, NYU Grossman, Henry Ford https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths Researchers at NYU's Grossman School of Medicine found patients given the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine along with zinc sulphate and the antibiotic azithromycin were 44 percent less likely to die from the coronavirus. https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, It has antiviral properties, and also Zinc has antiviral properties https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300881 In vitro, chloroquine appears as a versatile bioactive agent reported to possess antiviral activity against RNA viruses as diverse as rabies virus [16], poliovirus [17], HIV [12,[18], [19], [20], hepatitis A virus [21,22], hepatitis C virus [23], influenza A and B viruses [24], [25], [26], [27], influenza A H5N1 virus [28], Chikungunya virus [29], [30], [31], Dengue virus [32,33], Zika virus [34], Lassa virus [35], Hendra and Nipah viruses [36,37], Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever virus [38] and Ebola virus [39], as well as various DNA viruses such as hepatitis B virus [40] and herpes simplex virus [41].The antiviral properties of chloroquine described in vitro have sometimes been confirmed during treatment of virus-infected patients but have not always been reproduced in clinical trials depending on the disease, the concentration of chloroquine used, the duration of treatment and the clinical team in charge of the trial. Its not just the studies. You are supposed to give antivirals early in infection. Not after the virus has spread.

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/ While I've got you here, what's your take on nuclear fusion? You a fan of tokamak reactors? I am not sure about your sarcasm. This is serious business. One can always prove by giving a medicine to wrong population and wrong dose that it doesnt work. Many doctors who use HCQ say it has to be used early and with Zinc/Azithromycin. They did exactly opposite of it. Why? Do you have explanation? Generally antivirals dont work well after the virus has spread through the body. Its not just for HCQ. Read about late diagonized HIV and see if there are medicines that get rid of HIV virus after it has spread. Saying an antiviral doesnt work after the virus has spread is dumb.

Why doesnt WHO just test what doctors on field say they think is working with Hydroxychloroquine? An example is Dr. George Fareed, Harvard educated, worked at both Harvard and UCLA before starting private practice who says: I am not only an “MD,” but a former Harvard Medical School assistant professor and UCLA School of Medicine associate professor as well and am very competent at evaluating studies. There is ample evidence now that the HCQ cocktail is effective and there is no good evidence that there are significant side effects. ........... In my attempts to keep people alive, I have had an opportunity to use many different types of treatments — remdesivir, dexamethasone, convalescent plasma replacement, etc. Yet, by far the best tool beyond supportive care with oxygen has been the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), with either azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc. This "HCQ cocktail" (that costs less than $100) has enabled me to prevent patients from being admitted to the hospital, as well as help those patients that are hospitalized. The key is giving the HCQ cocktail early, within the first five days of the disease. https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/local-doctor-pushing-proven-treatment-of-covid-into-national-debate/article_ca59497a-c539-11ea-8943-4f707d6ebc1a.html Yet this recovery trial does exactly opposite. It has high dose of HCQ on patients already on oxygen after 9 days of symptoms onset without Zinc or Azithromycin. Why?

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/

Is there any rational person who doesn’t think Trump’s handling of Covid-19 has been deplorable? There is indeed such a group. The only group that I find more deplorable than pedophiles. Trump supporters. Apologize and delete immediately

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-airborne/new-who-guidance-calls-for-more-evidence-on-airborne-transmission-idUSKBN24A2E5 New WHO guidance calls for more evidence on airborne transmission .................................................... How about this? https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/496483-evidence-mounts-that-outside-is-safer-when-it-comes-to-covid-19 Evidence mounts that outside is safer when it comes to COVID-19 May be WHO can ask themselves why outside is safer than indoors when it comes to Covid-19.

Interview with Dr. John Ioannidis. Excerpts below https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/06/27/up-to-300-million-people-may-be-infected-by-covid-19-stanford-guru-john-ioannidis-says/ Fatality rate by age: For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major out breaks in these facilities. On risks of lockdown: Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria. I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential problems and not only on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-19. ........................... Schools do lot more than education. Many schools insist on vaccination which prompts parents to get children vaccinated. They provide meals. Speech therapy and other early interventions. Provide facilities for sports. When 0-45 years fatalities rate is "almost zero", why dont we focus on real vulnerable? We had 40%+ deaths from Nursing homes which are most vulnerable and closed schools including elementary schools.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586 Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/25085/ Using Hydroxychloroquine and Other Drugs to Fight Pandemic An interview based on above article. The above article has more studies that I missed. Dr. Risch concluded "Early outpatient illness is very different than later hospitalized florid disease and the treatments differ. Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease. Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy."

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/506239-who-reviewing-possibility-of-airborne-transmission-of WHO said it will release a brief on the issue in the coming days. Why do they think outside is better than inside? WHO is reminding me of sloth in movie Zootopia.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa939/5867798 It is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of COVID-19 Some excerpts below. Full article accessible at above link Together with the authors, 239 scientists support this Commentary Most public health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), do not recognize airborne transmission except for aerosol-generating procedures performed in healthcare settings. Hand washing and social distancing are appropriate, but in our view, insufficient to provide protection from virus-carrying respiratory microdroplets released into the air by infected people. This problem is especially acute in indoor or enclosed environments, particularly those that are crowded and have inadequate ventilation relative to the number of occupants and extended exposure periods (as graphically depicted in Figure 1). For example, airborne transmission appears to be the only plausible explanation for several superspreading events investigated which occurred under such conditions e.g. [10], and others where recommended precautions related to direct droplet transmissions were followed. The measures that should be taken to mitigate airborne transmission risk include: 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. ..................... I saw some newsmedia saying this supports using masks, though from a search of the article, I did not find mask being mentioned even once.

That has not happened in many places. Taking California, from April 1st week till now The cases increased from 1200 to 7500. Deaths went from 70-80 to 60-70. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/

In order to figure out if rising accounts receivables is a 'good' thing, one has to look at fundamentals and assess what is happening with competitors in the industry. I agree and the chart then could be effectively compared to a host of other countries showing what happens to the death rates when the test % goes below certain thresholds. It would be easier to evaluate the excess mortality that has occurred, that is occurring and that will likely occur going forward. A 14-day moving average with a 14-day lag would even be more revealing. There is no excess mortality in US presently for past few weeks.

i think this is misinformation and perhaps disinformation. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deaths-are-counted1/ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-and-reporting.htm Given the evolving evidence (balancing reasons that could lead to over- and under- reporting) and excess mortality inputs, at this point, some underestimation of reported deaths is likely. Disinformation from a public health source? Here's the excess mortality graph provided by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm Saw a peak in early April that has since subsided. For the last week, it has fallen below the trend line. Agree that there's probably an undercount, but there's also a general acceptance that deaths from cold and other influenza-like illnesses are undercounted as well. Plus, how do we separate that from the increase in deaths that we've seen as a result of lockdown (people delaying treatments and not going to the hospital when they should, deferment of elective procedures, overdoses, suicides, etc) How do we understand the true lethality of this virus when there's this level of ambiguity? Btw, it doesn't look like it's just Toronto either - seems like the standard practice is to list all deaths for which the deceased tested positive as a COVID death. Here's Illinois's Department of Public Health explaining how they count: "Technically, if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID-19 at the same time - it's still listed as a COVID death," Dr. Ezike answered. "Everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that was the cause of death, but they had COVID at the time." https://www.wandtv.com/news/why-and-how-covid-19-deaths-are-tracked-in-illinois/article_2085ddaa-93e8-11ea-b1c2-7fd058d907cf.html Florida and Texas never had excess deaths more than once a while Flu season. Its NY, NJ and surrounding states that contributed to much of the excess deaths. The CDC excess mortality "dashboard" adds weight to the hypothesis that the overall reported COVID-19 mortality number is somewhat correlated to the excess mortality and while the excess mortality has been relatively uneven, most states appear to report significant excess mortality. If this excess mortality is an "adequate" price to pay or if it is felt that lockdowns actually worsened the overall excess mortality (?) are different questions. But the excess mortality is what it is. There is noise and there are mitigating factors but, just like in investing, uncertainty is the name of the game and decisions have to be made. The following is interesting as it gives some perspective on the amount of underreporting that may be occurring (the data stops in early May). Since then, many states have been reporting excess influenza deaths with an unusual pattern, suggesting that some influenza-related deaths were in fact misclassified COVID-19 deaths. They suggest that the under-reporting may lie between about 2 and 20%. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090324v4.full.pdf Follow-up: The graph is not as ominous as it looks because it is a summation of heterogeneous data (some good and some bad) but it feels like a company increasing leverage while entering the zone of insolvency. It could work out OK but there may be collateral damage. They should also have percent dead in that plot.

Some of you always demanded randomized controlled studies for HCQ, irrespective of how many studies showed positive results for HCQ. So let me present the RCT for cloth masks https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. Below is cited by CDC in their guidelines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. Ok, first, the study isn't saying what you think it's saying: "this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks." (common sense would probably bet against the null hypothesis here) There's a big difference between a healthcare worker in a hospital and John Doe on the street, and if you can get a medical-grade mask instead of a cloth mask, you should use that. No question. The goal is to reduce R0 below one, so masks could be only very partially effective (and I think they're more than that) and yet make a huge difference (especially if both/more nodes wear them, as they compound), as Taleb pointed out in one of his pieces on masks. Second, it's one piece of evidence. There's also overwhelming evidence that they work in practice for regular people who aren't in hospitals or highly risky areas, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the studies catch up with over months and years, but we don't exactly have time to wait around. So a study like this shifted my priors a little bit, but not much, and in the meantime, let's use our brains and look at what works in practice based on a mechanistic understanding of what is going on. What the studies are saying is its very possible to get infected with the cloth masks and spread the infection. That is to use them as a "last resort" without diluting other aspects such as ventilation and distancing. Unforunately, unlike in S. Korea or Japan, ventilation is not highlighted in western countries. And I dont think from my interaction most people understand that the mask is simply "a last resort" but they should really act as if they dont have a cloth mask. For example, taking S. Korean guidelines (most S. Koreans actually use N95 mask which are much better than cloth mask) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/south-korea-office-coronavirus-covid19-work-enviroment/ 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. From above clearly, the more important aspects are Ventilation and Distancing than masks. Masks are last resort, but as per S. Korean guidelines one should preferably "refrain from meeting in person" if ventilation and distancing is not possible even if you have N95 mask.

i think this is misinformation and perhaps disinformation. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deaths-are-counted1/ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-and-reporting.htm Given the evolving evidence (balancing reasons that could lead to over- and under- reporting) and excess mortality inputs, at this point, some underestimation of reported deaths is likely. Disinformation from a public health source? Here's the excess mortality graph provided by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm Saw a peak in early April that has since subsided. For the last week, it has fallen below the trend line. Agree that there's probably an undercount, but there's also a general acceptance that deaths from cold and other influenza-like illnesses are undercounted as well. Plus, how do we separate that from the increase in deaths that we've seen as a result of lockdown (people delaying treatments and not going to the hospital when they should, deferment of elective procedures, overdoses, suicides, etc) How do we understand the true lethality of this virus when there's this level of ambiguity? Btw, it doesn't look like it's just Toronto either - seems like the standard practice is to list all deaths for which the deceased tested positive as a COVID death. Here's Illinois's Department of Public Health explaining how they count: "Technically, if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID-19 at the same time - it's still listed as a COVID death," Dr. Ezike answered. "Everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that was the cause of death, but they had COVID at the time." https://www.wandtv.com/news/why-and-how-covid-19-deaths-are-tracked-in-illinois/article_2085ddaa-93e8-11ea-b1c2-7fd058d907cf.html Florida and Texas never had excess deaths more than once a while Flu season. Its NY, NJ and surrounding states that contributed to much of the excess deaths.

Some of you always demanded randomized controlled studies for HCQ, irrespective of how many studies showed positive results for HCQ. So let me present the RCT for cloth masks https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. Below is cited by CDC in their guidelines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.

Disclosure: i just erased a sarcastic comment and reformulated this post. i also have an interest (an interest to understand the interest) in conspiracy theories. i think the phenomenon may have played a role in the recent relative virus performance in the US. -How do you deal with commitment and confirmation bias? Its not a theory. It is a simple question of asking for a randomized controlled clinical trial that studied HCQ (with Zinc) that studied in proper patient population, that is a population with early infection or prophylaxis. This after I gave four retrospective studies showing big mortality death decreases of 40-80%, adding Zinc giving better results and administering early giving better results and a large decrease in infections with a prophylactic study from India. For example, the Beth Israel study had 6800 patients with HZ ratio of 0.53 (1 being no effect) of mortality with Hydroxychloroquine. This is not a theory. Humble opinion: There has been growing evidence (weighted appraisal and odds point of view) that hydroxychloroquine is 1- unlikely (alone or in combination) to cause a significant improvement in CV contexts (treatment and prevention), 2- likely to cause significant side effects in a small number of cases, especially when used in combination and 3- focus on the CV group will cause difficult supply or even shortage in the patient population that benefits from it. Isn't it reasonable then for researchers to face a higher burden of proof when looking for funding? Recently, Hertz tried to issue shares post chapter 11 filing and the burden of proof was so high that the SEC caused the process to derail. The unacknowledged goal was to protect the investor against his or her biases. Do you think there is anything else going on with the WHO and other government organizations? But you wont cite any study with the requirements. HCQ preferably with Zinc. Early in infection or prophylaxis. Doses about what is used in NYU grossman study. I gave 5 studies before in this thread. Here is one more from South Korea. There is no control arm but according to the authors patients in long term care centers with lot of infections usually end up with lot of infections. But here with HCQ 400 mg for fourteen days Researchers from Samsung Medical Center in Seoul and Pusan National University Hospital in Busan said they have completed post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on 184 patients and 21 care workers at a long-term care hospital (LTCH) in Busan where they were exposed to COVID-19 after massive infections were reported there. At the end of 14 days of quarantine, follow-up PCR tests on the study participants were all negative, indicating that those who received PEP did not develop COVID-19.

Disclosure: i just erased a sarcastic comment and reformulated this post. i also have an interest (an interest to understand the interest) in conspiracy theories. i think the phenomenon may have played a role in the recent relative virus performance in the US. -How do you deal with commitment and confirmation bias? Its not a theory. It is a simple question of asking for a randomized controlled clinical trial that studied HCQ (with Zinc) that studied in proper patient population, that is a population with early infection or prophylaxis. This after I gave four retrospective studies showing big mortality death decreases of 40-80%, adding Zinc giving better results and administering early giving better results and a large decrease in infections with a prophylactic study from India. For example, the Beth Israel study had 6800 patients with HZ ratio of 0.53 (1 being no effect) of mortality with Hydroxychloroquine. This is not a theory.