Coronavirus

[orthopa]

After nearly 600 pages of handwashing, mask wearing, social distancing pictures, graphs, contact tracers, studies, data, etc Im absolutely floored there isnt more outrage about the mass protests in this thread.

 

The protesters seem to be wearing masks and using hand sanitizer, so not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting we continue to tolerate violent, systematic racism? Or are you just advocating for us to "let 'er rip"?

 

Let 'er rip has failed in every country that has tried it: Sweden, UK, Brazil, US (unintentionally).

 

Not sure what my point is? Were you not just arguing that the virus is a minimum 4x deadlier then the flu and that any narrative otherwise is dangerous? You have to be angry as hell these people  are playing with fire like this.

 

Secondly what does racism have to do with a pandemic? This thread has been about the pandemic and you have argued very heavily in favor of great caution and the severity of the disease.

[cwericb]

It is rather ironic that if you intend to break the law, its a great time to wear a mask.

 

Over the next couple of weeks should we expect to see a spike in Covid due to the mass protests?

Or will the warmer weather offset the effects of the large gatherings.

 

Predictions?

 

Based on your criticism of the President and how he handled the virus you must be losing your mind watching all of these mass protests. Remember when he wouldnt send masks to Canada? Seeing these mass protests with thousands huddled together must be driving you nuts!

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

 

What is has the fact that Trump attempted to steal Canadian owned masks got to do with the protests?

 

I simply posed the question: Should we expect a spike in COVID in a couple of weeks or will the warmer weather have an effect? I also note that many of the protestors were wearing masks, so might this combined with the warmer weather reduce the potential spread of the virus?

[KCLarkin]

After nearly 600 pages of handwashing, mask wearing, social distancing pictures, graphs, contact tracers, studies, data, etc Im absolutely floored there isnt more outrage about the mass protests in this thread.

 

The protesters seem to be wearing masks and using hand sanitizer, so not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting we continue to tolerate violent, systematic racism? Or are you just advocating for us to "let 'er rip"?

 

Let 'er rip has failed in every country that has tried it: Sweden, UK, Brazil, US (unintentionally).

 

Not sure what my point is? Were you not just arguing that the virus is a minimum 4x deadlier then the flu and that any narrative otherwise is dangerous? You have to be angry as hell these people  are playing with fire like this.

 

Secondly what does racism have to do with a pandemic? This thread has been about the pandemic and you have argued very heavily in favor of great caution and the severity of the disease.

 

Not going to engage in your bad faith arguments. IMO, your opinions have been definitively disproved in Milan, NY, London, Stockholm, Brazil.

 

[KCLarkin]

Why not open up everything then? We can all wear masks and use hand sanitizer just like the protesters and it would be safe!

 

I won't engage in your bad faith arguments. I never said masks and hand sanitizer make mass protests safe.

 

Ok, back to good faith argument --

 

I remember you saying that millions potentially dying of COVID is horrible.

These protests, while intended for a good cause, surely increases the chance of more people dying due to COVID.

 

So how do you weigh the balance?

 

In general, is this how the left in the US weigh things? (based on my observations)

Systematic racism > Public health > Economy and freedom

 

Let's leave the politics out for a second. What is the impact of the mass protests on the spread of Covid. From what I'm seeing, the protesters are:

- wearing masks

- outside

- making an effort to maintain distance

 

This makes the risk of spread low-to-moderate. This is different than what we saw in the Ozarks or Trinity Bellwoods (Toronto) where party-goers were making no effort to reduce spread.

 

But I am still scared this will cause a spike:

- police/military are not masked and aren't making an effort to maintain distance

- mass detentions/arrests make masks/distancing impossible

- transit to/from protests

- military transit and housing

 

This will prolong the economic and health impacts of the pandemic. This is a big problem in several U.S. states that are already failing to control the pandemic.

 

This is especially tragic because COVID will hurt people of color the most.

[cwericb]

To date total deaths in the US from COVID19 = 110,000

Total US population: 328 million

 

To date total deaths in the world = 389,000

Total world population = 7.6 billion

 

So with 4% of the world population the US accounts for nearly 30% of Covid deaths.

 

These numbers seem to speak for themselves.

 

[Jurgis]

Who cares about the protests, the real action is in Las Vegas casinos:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2020/06/04/las-vegas-reopening-casinos-downtown-open-coronavirus-measures/3133863001/

 

If you gamble with your life, gamble for money homies!

[Spekulatius]

While I think there is a risk that the protests contribute to spread of COVID-19, there are mitigating factors:

1) a lot of protestors tried some measures of social distancing  and wore masks

2) The protests were outside, which reduces risk substantially (of course we do not know what emote stores do before and after)

3) Most protesters as well as front line police are younger. Not only are the less likely to get sick, they are lesser likely to spread COVID asymptomatic ( the latter is my own conclusion).

 

We likely erred on restricting outdoors activities too much. I don’t think there is much reason to close beaches or parks, assuming the people going there behave reasonable. It is likely even opening schools is lower risk than thought, based on observations from countries in Europe which have reopened schools recently.

 

High risk areas are badly ventilated high density indoor spaces like bars, some restaurants, offices, churches, sport venues night clubs, and business that require close customer contacts like nail salons, hairdressers etc.

[Read the Footnotes]

While I think there is a risk that the protests contribute to spread of COVID-19, there are mitigating factors:

1) a lot of protestors tried some measures of social distancing  and wore masks

2) The protests were outside, which reduces risk substantially (of course we do not know what emote stores do before and after)

3) Most protesters as well as front line police are younger. Not only are the less likely to get sick, they are lesser likely to spread COVID asymptomatic ( the latter is my own conclusion).

 

We likely erred on restricting outdoors activities too much. I don’t think there is much reason to close beaches or parks, assuming the people going there behave reasonable. It is likely even opening schools is lower risk than thought, based on observations from countries in Europe which have reopened schools recently.

 

High risk areas are badly ventilated high density indoor spaces like bars, some restaurants, offices, churches, sport venues night clubs, and business that require close customer contacts like nail salons, hairdressers etc.

There was at one point a belief that the sickest were shedding the most virus, but now there have been study results indicating that viral shedding is highest when pre-symptomatic, if that is true, you may be a little too optimistic

Another issue is that shouting has been estimated to shed 1000x as much virus as simply breathing. Think of the indoor choir practice example that is often cited. I saw many examples of a someone without a face covering screaming right in someone else face from less than three feet.. I hope they weren't infected because that's got to be extremely high risk.

[cwericb]

This whole Covid situation is a learning process and while the demonstrations are unfortunate coming at this time, if nothing else it should be a learning experience and provide more knowledge about the spread of the disease. It is just a darn good thing this isn't happening later in the year when we can probably expect another wave.

[Spekulatius]

While I think there is a risk that the protests contribute to spread of COVID-19, there are mitigating factors:

1) a lot of protestors tried some measures of social distancing  and wore masks

2) The protests were outside, which reduces risk substantially (of course we do not know what emote stores do before and after)

3) Most protesters as well as front line police are younger. Not only are the less likely to get sick, they are lesser likely to spread COVID asymptomatic ( the latter is my own conclusion).

 

We likely erred on restricting outdoors activities too much. I don’t think there is much reason to close beaches or parks, assuming the people going there behave reasonable. It is likely even opening schools is lower risk than thought, based on observations from countries in Europe which have reopened schools recently.

 

High risk areas are badly ventilated high density indoor spaces like bars, some restaurants, offices, churches, sport venues night clubs, and business that require close customer contacts like nail salons, hairdressers etc.

There was at one point a belief that the sickest were shedding the most virus, but now there have been study results indicating that viral shedding is highest when pre-symptomatic, if that is true, you may be a little too optimistic

Another issue is that shouting has been estimated to shed 1000x as much virus as simply breathing. Think of the indoor choir practice example that is often cited. I saw many examples of a someone without a face covering screaming right in someone else face from less than three feet.. I hope they weren't infected because that's got to be extremely high risk.

 

Yes, the highest  Viral shedding is asymptomatic shortly before shortly symptoms. My Thinking based on what I can stitch together though is that people they never show symptoms will never show high viral shedding at any time. Which makes sense if you think about it they people who never show symptoms likely als ways keep the virus in check with their immune system.

 

At least that’s a plausible explanation why the largely asymptomatic kids never seem to create much transmission to more susceptible adults in schools. If transmission from kids to adults in a school setting were common , it would already have shown up as infection clusters in Denmark and Germany, but so far that it not the case.

 

The stuff they doesn’t happen is often as insightful than the stuff they is happening. When we think for example about the much commented upon spring break parties in Florida a while - well we never heard much about infection clusters that could be traced back to these events. It’s also a fact that Florida did much better than many expected in this epidemic.

The likely factors that helped were that the spring break parties occurred mostly outdoors and involved mostly younger folks.

 

Invert this and put a bunch of older folks in a badly ventilated (I assume) confined place, which we call assisted living or nursing home and we very much know what happens.

 

All the above is not a sure fact, more of a hypothesis, but it  matches the observations so far. If we know about the do’s and the Don’ts we can open up the economy smartly with reasonably low risk.

[vinod1]

WSJ article by Peggy Noonan

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-some-things-americans-can-agree-11591313189?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

 

As to the president, this week he altered his position in the political landscape. Something broke. He is no longer the force he was and no longer lucky. In some new and indelible way his essential nature was revealed.

 

It got out that faced with protests around the White House, he hid. Or perhaps let the Secret Service, which might have struggled with realistic threat assessment, talk him into going into the White House bunker. (Mr. Trump later said he was simply “inspecting” it.) He tweeted that he was protected by the “most vicious dogs” and “ominous weapons.”

 

On Monday, he spoke in the Rose Garden. “I will fight to protect you,” he said. “I am your president of law and order.” This was unsubtle, and seemed more aimed at protecting his political prospects than your safety and property.

 

Then, upset that people might be getting the impression he was a physical coward, he set out to prove he is brave. Protected by a phalanx of police, Secret Service, sharpshooters and what looked like a Praetorian Guard with shields, he marched to St John’s, the church of the presidents. Aides said it was a Churchill moment. And it was just like Churchill during the blitz, if Churchill secretly loved rubble. Upon arrival with his friends, the people who work for him, he brandished a Bible like—who in history?—the devil?

 

In all this he gave up the game and explicitly patronized his own followers. It was as if he was saying: I’m going to show you how stupid I know you are. I’ll give you crude and gross imagery and you’ll love it because you’re crude and gross people.

 

And some would love it. But not all. Not most, I think.

[SHDL]

WSJ article by Peggy Noonan

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-some-things-americans-can-agree-11591313189?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

 

So I just had this crazy thought in the shower after reading this: What if the real reason stocks were going up despite all the seemingly bad news is that they all improve the chances of Trump being replaced by someone better suited for the job? That is a bull case I can actually buy.

[Jurgis]

WSJ article by Peggy Noonan

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-some-things-americans-can-agree-11591313189?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

 

So I just had this crazy thought in the shower after reading this: What if the real reason stocks were going up despite all the seemingly bad news is that they all improve the chances of Trump being replaced by someone better suited for the job? That is a bull case I can actually buy.

 

Throughout 2019 and beginning of 2020 majority of money managers polled by Barron's expected Trump to win and considered his expected win to be bullish. I doubt (m)any of them changed their minds on Trump.

[SHDL]

I know, but I think that was mostly because they had a Democrat (and possibly an extreme progressive) in mind as the alternative. My guess is that after last year’s “trade war” and this year’s botched response to the virus, those guys would really love to get a Republican president other than Trump — which might not be a pipe dream given how quickly sentiment seems to be turning against him among Republicans.

[Read the Footnotes]

I think at this point the majority of stock market investors and business people would like anyone other than Trump and that what they might like the most is someone who just goes in their basement and leaves them and the markets alone. Trump may talk about small government, but he is consistently meddling in markets for his own benefit.

 

In the following post I tried to argue that it is a Trump concocted myth that the Market went up because he won. I also have tried to argue that the market will likely appreciate his loss. As he continues to melt down, that just becomes more and more likely. Biden is modeling the behavior that the market wants. Stay in the basement. Plus the more Biden can win from Trump without needing the wacky left, the more he can pursue a centrist agenda. As more Republicans abandon Trump, that possibility becomes more likely that we get a version of Biden that stays in his basement, is free to pursue a relatively centrist agenda and focuses on reuniting and calming the nation.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/how-much-will-the-stock-market-fall-if-elizabeth-wins/msg383763/#msg383763

[Sharad]

I think many people are looking at rates of infection and morbidity rates, which won't give us the true picture of the impact to the global economy and to the stock market, which is (crudely) for which many of us are looking for answers.

 

My take:

 

The virus likely has a much lower morbidity rate than the 2% in Wuhan, but the cases were never identified and reported correctly, and they sent people home or people avoided leaving home to deal with it themselves (h/t muscleman for some insight as well). Anyone at the beginning of the crisis that died of pneumonia like symptoms probably was ruled as a death from other sources. Regardless the morbidity rate at the beginning was skewed by the hospital cases, similar to the morbidity rates for people hospitalized for the flu in the US (8-12%, per CDC).

 

This spiked up morbidity rate clearly spooked the world, and the unknown nature of this virus is enough to scare everyone, so everyone freaked..but the market remained sanguine for two reasons...one, the Fed is in the midst of a massive asset buying spree, the repo markets are wide open, and liquidity has pushed markets into a blow-off top since Powell declared, for all intents and purposes, that the Fed has the markets' back during his Fed press conference in September. China also clamped down hard on the virus, trying to contain it, and, through surprising transparency, shared a lot of data with counterparts in the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, where the first full mapping of the virus' RNA was completed within a few days of receiving the virus sample itself.

 

While the markets drank the Fed Kool Aid, the tanker and dry bulk markets showed a different story. Rates plummeted, even in the face of IMO 2020 standards for tankers, which basically docked a large percentage of "dirty" tankers, to be upgraded with scrubbers that would reduce sulfur (?) emissions during their travels with petroleum products in a bid for global trade. This should have been the perfect recipe for a massive breakout from a 12 year bear market for rates, and the stocks soared from September to January in anticipation of it. Coronavirus clamped that down. China wasn't receiving their deliveries. The country shut down, stockpiles have built up, and demand for petroleum products declined 25% plus.

 

The market factored all these things in, and banked on a huge stimulus in China to keep the party going. South Korea dented those prospects, but Iran, and especially Italy, broke the whole thesis down. The moment a bunch of villages near Milan became a prime cluster outside China, all bets of containment were off. In the meantime, we have seen the market reach the apex of a massive blow-off top after a nearly 11 year bull market from the March 6, 2009 bottom. The last 4-5 years have resulted in P/E valuations doubling (or more) for the biggest companies in the S&P 500 (https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/pe-ratio), the massive move to index investing (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/passive-investing-now-controls-nearly-half-the-us-stock-market.html), and the retail investor returning to the market over the last couple of years (see the increased interest in Bitcoin, Tesla, r/wsb, etc.).

 

We were likely due for a large market decline when Powell pulled the plug on asset purchses (he declared mid Q2 2020, so let's say April), and that would have likely pushed us down 20%, like the Fed pivot of 2018. Once you factor in the coronavirus, how much further could we fall? Not only should we see the "p" of the p/e ratio fall, but we will also see the "e" fall too (see MSFT today).

 

Bottom line: IMHO, this is only the beginning. I was holding out hope, but that Italian outbreak changed it all. The Greek fashion designer who contracted it during her time at Milan Fashion Week means that cases will likely pop up everywhere, especially larger markets.

 

Anyways, I think people shouldn't be evaluating this from the morbidity rates, etc (I am guilty of doing this when we were transfixed by what was happening in China, and far from everywhere else). They should evaluate the destruction of capital flows and trade, and how much wealth that destroys. The destruction of wealth could mean a steeper decline. But the banks are better capitalized, so the upswing should be equally dramatic, whenever that will be. This is going to get much more ugly (consider if the Olympics are cancelled), and I think S&P 2,500 could be in the cards...but I could also see a massive upswing in the summer, when coordinated global stimulus pushes things higher, faster. We shouldn't be comparing this crisis to SARS or any other modern pandemic threat. This should be compared to the 1918 influenza outbreak and the subsequent 1919-1921 market crash and depression.

 

 

If you are looking for investments, consider NYSE:NVO (their products are probably the least sensitive to the virus) and Nasdaq:GRVY (Gravity Co Ltd, as South Korean gaming company: SK gaming culture is amongst the most profitable in the world and what the hell else are they going to do there now?).

 

Sorry for the long response. I was hoping it would help people see the broader picture of the market's moves ahead of the coronavirus, and the moves within the "guts" of the economy at the same time.

 

 

I wish I had listened to myself.  :-\

[John Hjorth]

<Lots of stuff omitted here, to avoid dense quoting, John>

 

I wish I had listened to myself.  :-\

 

Please do not come down too hard on yourself, Sharad,

 

Personally, I'm happy just to see you around here on CoBF again.

[John Hjorth]

While I think there is a risk that the protests contribute to spread of COVID-19, there are mitigating factors:

1) a lot of protestors tried some measures of social distancing  and wore masks

2) The protests were outside, which reduces risk substantially (of course we do not know what emote stores do before and after)

3) Most protesters as well as front line police are younger. Not only are the less likely to get sick, they are lesser likely to spread COVID asymptomatic ( the latter is my own conclusion).

 

We likely erred on restricting outdoors activities too much. I don’t think there is much reason to close beaches or parks, assuming the people going there behave reasonable. It is likely even opening schools is lower risk than thought, based on observations from countries in Europe which have reopened schools recently.

 

High risk areas are badly ventilated high density indoor spaces like bars, some restaurants, offices, churches, sport venues night clubs, and business that require close customer contacts like nail salons, hairdressers etc.

There was at one point a belief that the sickest were shedding the most virus, but now there have been study results indicating that viral shedding is highest when pre-symptomatic, if that is true, you may be a little too optimistic

Another issue is that shouting has been estimated to shed 1000x as much virus as simply breathing. Think of the indoor choir practice example that is often cited. I saw many examples of a someone without a face covering screaming right in someone else face from less than three feet.. I hope they weren't infected because that's got to be extremely high risk.

 

Yes, the highest  Viral shedding is asymptomatic shortly before shortly symptoms. My Thinking based on what I can stitch together though is that people they never show symptoms will never show high viral shedding at any time. Which makes sense if you think about it they people who never show symptoms likely als ways keep the virus in check with their immune system.

 

At least that’s a plausible explanation why the largely asymptomatic kids never seem to create much transmission to more susceptible adults in schools. If transmission from kids to adults in a school setting were common , it would already have shown up as infection clusters in Denmark and Germany, but so far that it not the case.

 

The stuff they doesn’t happen is often as insightful than the stuff they is happening. When we think for example about the much commented upon spring break parties in Florida a while - well we never heard much about infection clusters that could be traced back to these events. It’s also a fact that Florida did much better than many expected in this epidemic.

The likely factors that helped were that the spring break parties occurred mostly outdoors and involved mostly younger folks.

 

Invert this and put a bunch of older folks in a badly ventilated (I assume) confined place, which we call assisted living or nursing home and we very much know what happens.

 

All the above is not a sure fact, more of a hypothesis, but it  matches the observations so far. If we know about the do’s and the Don’ts we can open up the economy smartly with reasonably low risk.

 

This is razor sharp analysis & considerations in a chaos of data, Spekulatius,

 

Thank you. Somehow, I speculate, that the Danish Health Authority already had [loosely] figured that out here. At least the reopening here started with the youth now about four weeks ago, and the national numbers I'm studying every day does not appear to be affected by this action, now since about four weeks ago.

[Investor20]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52937153

Coronavirus: Malaria drug hydroxychloroquine 'does not save lives'

 

Above is from Recovery trial.

 

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.

 

..........

So when a study showed HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin might be effective, which is what other doctors such as Dr. Zelenko in NY and Dr. Cardillo in LA also say, why do a study without Zinc and say it does not work?

 

The NYU Grossman study is HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin vs HCQ+Azithromycin.  Their study showed Zinc is needed for its efficacy.

 

Why not just do a double blinded randomized study of exactly same dose regimen of HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin as done by NYU Grossman and check if its working?

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52937153

Coronavirus: Malaria drug hydroxychloroquine 'does not save lives'

 

Above is from Recovery trial.

 

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.

 

..........

So when a study showed HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin might be effective, which is what other doctors such as Dr. Zelenko in NY and Dr. Cardillo in LA also say, why do a study without Zinc and say it does not work?

 

The NYU Grossman study is HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin vs HCQ+Azithromycin.  Their study showed Zinc is needed for its efficacy.

 

Why not just do a double blinded randomized study of exactly same dose regimen of HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin as done by NYU Grossman and check if its working?

Additional data is always welcome. The Lancet has made some corrections and it seems like the WHO decided to put lower weight on the specific new piece of 'evidence' so that more studies are on the way. FWIW, from my perspective, it's unlikely that hydroxychloroquine will come to anything even with supplements of various sorts. It's still possible and that's why venture capital-type ventures exist in normal times. But are we in normal times? Resources are limited.

A healthy way to invest may include an attempt to kill the thesis from various angles. In science, it may also be healthy to come up with an idea and to devise an experiment whose goal is to try to disprove the idea. A large problem with a lot of publications (it's become more obvious with CV but this has been a growing problem especially in some sect-like branches of research) is that individuals start with an idea in which they have a strong belief and then try (from conscious to unconscious) to find corroborating evidence. It doesn't tend to be constructive.

 

[Investor20]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52937153

Coronavirus: Malaria drug hydroxychloroquine 'does not save lives'

 

Above is from Recovery trial.

 

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.

 

..........

So when a study showed HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin might be effective, which is what other doctors such as Dr. Zelenko in NY and Dr. Cardillo in LA also say, why do a study without Zinc and say it does not work?

 

The NYU Grossman study is HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin vs HCQ+Azithromycin.  Their study showed Zinc is needed for its efficacy.

 

Why not just do a double blinded randomized study of exactly same dose regimen of HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin as done by NYU Grossman and check if its working?

Additional data is always welcome. The Lancet has made some corrections and it seems like the WHO decided to put lower weight on the specific new piece of 'evidence' so that more studies are on the way. FWIW, from my perspective, it's unlikely that hydroxychloroquine will come to anything even with supplements of various sorts. It's still possible and that's why venture capital-type ventures exist in normal times. But are we in normal times? Resources are limited.

A healthy way to invest may include an attempt to kill the thesis from various angles. In science, it may also be healthy to come up with an idea and to devise an experiment whose goal is to try to disprove the idea. A large problem with a lot of publications (it's become more obvious with CV but this has been a growing problem especially in some sect-like branches of research) is that individuals start with an idea in which they have a strong belief and then try (from conscious to unconscious) to find corroborating evidence. It doesn't tend to be constructive.

 

I agree with you.  The NYU grossman study and other doctors experience tells us that it is HCQ with Zinc that might work but not HCQ alone.

 

Its time to move on to HCQ+Zinc. 

 

But I see WHO in solidarity study still persisting with HCQ alone.

[Investor20]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52937153

Coronavirus: Malaria drug hydroxychloroquine 'does not save lives'

 

Above is from Recovery trial.

 

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.

 

..........

So when a study showed HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin might be effective, which is what other doctors such as Dr. Zelenko in NY and Dr. Cardillo in LA also say, why do a study without Zinc and say it does not work?

 

The NYU Grossman study is HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin vs HCQ+Azithromycin.  Their study showed Zinc is needed for its efficacy.

 

Why not just do a double blinded randomized study of exactly same dose regimen of HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin as done by NYU Grossman and check if its working?

Additional data is always welcome. The Lancet has made some corrections and it seems like the WHO decided to put lower weight on the specific new piece of 'evidence' so that more studies are on the way. FWIW, from my perspective, it's unlikely that hydroxychloroquine will come to anything even with supplements of various sorts. It's still possible and that's why venture capital-type ventures exist in normal times. But are we in normal times? Resources are limited.

A healthy way to invest may include an attempt to kill the thesis from various angles. In science, it may also be healthy to come up with an idea and to devise an experiment whose goal is to try to disprove the idea. A large problem with a lot of publications (it's become more obvious with CV but this has been a growing problem especially in some sect-like branches of research) is that individuals start with an idea in which they have a strong belief and then try (from conscious to unconscious) to find corroborating evidence. It doesn't tend to be constructive.

 

I wanted to post as separate post as it is a different argument.

 

Remedesivir is very expensive.  HCQ is cheap. 

 

Shouldn't governments and WHO leave Remedesivir where profit can be made to pharmaceutical companies and focus on HCQ which is cheap and no profit can be made?

[mattee2264]

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/pubs-restaurants-safely-reopen-oxford-scientist-says-a4447841.html

 

Interesting minority opinion from an Oxford progressor called Sunetra Gupta. Her basic argument is that there is way more immunity out there than people think (not just in the form of antibodies but also innate immunity either due to genetics or because of exposure to similar viruses) and the virus has been around for some time and is on the way out and the fatality rate is less than 0.1% and probably closer to 0.01% and therefore we can probably accelerate the exit from lockdown.

 

[Spekulatius]

I wanted to post as separate post as it is a different argument.

 

Remedesivir is very expensive.  HCQ is cheap. 

 

Shouldn't governments and WHO leave Remedesivir where profit can be made to pharmaceutical companies and focus on HCQ which is cheap and no profit can be made?

 

Yes, and that is why the WHO should Continue to perform a study (or at least finish it) even when the odds are long Remdesevir  is not just expensive, but also a drug that needs to be Intravenously in 5 or ten rounds applied, which makes it unlikely a game changer even if it works. HCQ is cheap and even if it is only modestly effective might have a significant value especially for the many poorer countries, which are really the main focus of the WHO anyways.

 

[Cigarbutt]

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/pubs-restaurants-safely-reopen-oxford-scientist-says-a4447841.html

Interesting minority opinion from an Oxford progressor called Sunetra Gupta. Her basic argument is that there is way more immunity out there than people think (not just in the form of antibodies but also innate immunity either due to genetics or because of exposure to similar viruses) and the virus has been around for some time and is on the way out and the fatality rate is less than 0.1% and probably closer to 0.01% and therefore we can probably accelerate the exit from lockdown.

The spread of CV is multi-factorial and still only partly figured out but one of the most unsettling aspects has been that the virus seems to have a life of its own (natural forces can be overriding).

Take the following from Norway (this is not to support Sweden or anybody specific, it is to try to get closer to the best solution, given the evolving circumstances):

https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/c9e459cd7cc24991810a0d28d7803bd0/notat-om-risiko-og-respons-2020-05-05.pdf

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/norway-health-chief-lockdown-was-not-needed-to-tame-covid

If you want to prevent wrist tendinitis from excessive google translate use, the second link is a reasonable summary.

 

A fascinating aspect may be that the concept of herd immunity has been mishandled when discussed. It appears that a large part of the population, even if significantly exposed, will not develop the disease or will not be sick if they seroconvert. For that reason, the "true" level of herd immunity may be much lower than the typical 60-70% mentioned at large, if you consider the susceptible subpopulation as the relevant group. There are areas with partial lockdowns where the community spread has been controlled with antibody levels in less than 10% of the population.

 

In terms of likelihood, a second (or more) wave is likely but the genetic drift of the virus is unlikely to be detrimental (but the risk is not zero). This will make it difficult to obtain an effective vaccine and preparation of the host (medical and economic) for the future makes sense.

 

From the healthcare standpoint, the virus and associated measures have resulted in a huge (and still mostly unrecognized) cost: delayed and or forgone care (stroke, heart disease, cancer screening and treatments, vaccination etc). Alcohol and cigarette tax increased in proportion to the federal response and history shows that some trends are hard to reverse. The cynic in me says that the 30-50% of US care that is waste or detrimental will not be missed but, in reality, the net loss to health has been very significant.

 

From an economic standpoint, many poor and uncoordinated decisions have been taken and a lower level of measures (gross amount) has been linked to higher mortality numbers but, in terms of sunk costs and their significance, a second wave or any source of economic malaise would occur in a period very heavily mortgaged with future liabilities. Maybe the answer lies in partial lock-downs and better management of spread control.