Jurgis Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 Well, this inspires confidence in federal leadership during this historical crisis... I've heard he managed to recognize the elephant in the room. ::)
Jurgis Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 https://apnews.com/ae59f9850a8aea24ee4152f5dbdac4a0#:~:text=The%20Pepcid%20project%20underscores%20what%20critics%20describe%20as,projects%20that%20aren%E2%80%99t%20based%20on%20more%20rigorous%20science. - At least you won't have a heartburn. Maybe.
Liberty Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-21/masks-help-avoid-major-illness-coronavirus Cloth face masks still provide a major protective benefit: They filter out a majority of viral particles. As it turns out, that’s pretty important. Breathing in a small amount of virus may lead to no disease or a more mild infection. But inhaling a huge volume of virus particles can result in serious disease or death. That’s the argument Dr. Monica Gandhi, UC San Francisco professor of medicine and medical director of the HIV Clinic at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, is making about why — if you do become infected with the virus — masking can still protect you from more severe disease. “There is this theory that facial masking reduces the [amount of virus you get exposed to] and disease severity,” said Gandhi, who is also director for the Center for AIDS Research at UC San Francisco.
Cigarbutt Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 https://apnews.com/ae59f9850a8aea24ee4152f5dbdac4a0#:~:text=The%20Pepcid%20project%20underscores%20what%20critics%20describe%20as,projects%20that%20aren%E2%80%99t%20based%20on%20more%20rigorous%20science. - At least you won't have a heartburn. Maybe. Actually, what has been going on in "research" (even more acutely in CV-related work) lately has become a source of heartburns, headaches, SMH movement disorder etc The story behind Pepcid and related is interesting and the recent antiviral twist is indeed food for thought: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/new-york-clinical-trial-quietly-tests-heartburn-remedy-against-coronavirus Some say it's the politicizing (oups forbidden word) of science but it's also the democratization of science as a good idea taken too far (the founding fathers had thought of that somehow). IMHO, the return (real) on investments in pharma has been disappointing for a while and financial engineering as well as marketing have taken too much importance but the democratization of science and research should come with a kit explaining how to auto-assess the person's own set of very real limitations before taking action on "ideas". Anyways, instead of fighting the Fed or fighting trends, in a spirit of: "if you can't beat them, join them", i think i'll try to get some plastic surgeons involved and act as the financial promoter. After a retrospective chart review showing that face wrinkles show a clear ominous odds risk ratio for a bad outcome after contracting CV, i will make a study that will try to show that face lifts followed by a molybdenum-based skin cream will be protective against the virus. And the Nobel Prize will be within reach..
LC Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 And the Nobel Prize will be within reach. You have my vote. Now, I am not on the Nobel committee, so my vote doesn't count. Alas! you say, hopes have been dashed. But not so soon! You see, all those on the committee do, in fact, vote. And as we have already established that I too vote, it can be shown that I am therefore on the committee. So, congratulations.
DooDiligence Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 And the Nobel Prize will be within reach. You have my vote. Now, I am not on the Nobel committee, so my vote doesn't count. Alas! you say, hopes have been dashed. But not so soon! You see, all those on the committee do, in fact, vote. And as we have already established that I too vote, it can be shown that I am therefore on the committee. So, congratulations. I think therefor I am, and I do so like green eggs & ham.
Guest cherzeca Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 I have a good friend who is a world renown surgeon, who also has an underlying health condition that leaves him especially at risk to covid. he is planning to reopen his office soon in NYC, closed since march, and his protocol is simple...produce a recent covid negative test before your appointment is confirmed and you walk into the office...and of course there will be forehead scan and finger 02 test. but I am really overjoyed at this small return to normalcy. some people are made to contribute to society, their contributions are greater than yours and mine, and we are all the better for it
patience_and_focus Posted July 23, 2020 Posted July 23, 2020 https://apnews.com/ae59f9850a8aea24ee4152f5dbdac4a0#:~:text=The%20Pepcid%20project%20underscores%20what%20critics%20describe%20as,projects%20that%20aren%E2%80%99t%20based%20on%20more%20rigorous%20science. - At least you won't have a heartburn. Maybe. On the other hand a cheap generic drug has actually been shown to be effective in double blind randomized clinical trials for saving lives of the very sick Covid-19 patients (hint: its not HCQ) https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/how-a-60-year-old-drug-became-our-best-hope-for-saving-people-with-covid-19/
Liberty Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/24/new-zealand-beat-covid-19-by-trusting-leaders-and-following-advice-study
Spekulatius Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/24/new-zealand-beat-covid-19-by-trusting-leaders-and-following-advice-study NZ did very well. One overarching theme is that islands ( NZ, Australia ( technically a continent but still surrounded by water), Iceland, Japan , South Korea ( norther border is impenetrable) can do better because they have easier ways to control access. The exception are the turds from the UK of course.
Liberty Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/24/new-zealand-beat-covid-19-by-trusting-leaders-and-following-advice-study NZ did very well. One overarching theme is that islands ( NZ, Australia ( technically a continent but still surrounded by water), Iceland, Japan , South Korea ( norther border is impenetrable) can do better because they have easier ways to control access. The exception are the turds from the UK of course. I don't think most of the countries that are having trouble are having trouble because infected people are coming over the borders...
Gregmal Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/24/new-zealand-beat-covid-19-by-trusting-leaders-and-following-advice-study NZ did very well. One overarching theme is that islands ( NZ, Australia ( technically a continent but still surrounded by water), Iceland, Japan , South Korea ( norther border is impenetrable) can do better because they have easier ways to control access. The exception are the turds from the UK of course. I don't think most of the countries that are having trouble are having trouble because infected people are coming over the borders... I cant think of any other way a virus that started in China goes global...can you?
Liberty Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/07/frequent-fast-and-cheap-is-better-than-sensitive.html A number of firms have developed cheap, paper-strip tests for coronavirus that report results at-home in about 15 minutes but they have yet to be approved for use by the FDA because the FDA appears to be demanding that all tests reach accuracy levels similar to the PCR test. This is another deadly FDA mistake. [...] The PCR tests can discover virus at significantly lower concentration levels than the cheap tests but that extra sensitivity doesn’t matter much in practice. Why not? First, at the lowest levels that the PCR test can detect, the person tested probably isn’t infectious. The cheap is better at telling you whether you are infectious than whether you are infected but that’s what we want to know open schools and workplaces. Second, the virus grows so quickly that the time period in which the PCR tests outperforms the cheap test is as little as a day or two. Third, the PCR tests are taking days or even a week or more to report which means the results are significantly outdated and less actionable by the time they are reported. The fundamental issue is this: if a test is cheap and fast we shouldn’t compare it head to head against the PCR test. Instead, we should compare test regimes. A strip test could cost $5 which means you can do one per day for the same price as a PCR test (say $35). Thus, the right comparison is seven cheap tests with one PCR test.
Liberty Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 I don't think most of the countries that are having trouble are having trouble because infected people are coming over the borders... I cant think of any other way a virus that started in China goes global...can you? Way to totally miss the context. The countries that are doing badly are doing badly because they didn't do the steps to control the virus, and those that do well do so because they did. There's variance and some places were less lucky or had worse demographics/density/etc than others, but generally, the virus was within the borders of all these islands and if they hadn't done the steps, they'd be doing just as bad as anyone else. In the early phases the virus spread by travel, but once it's everywhere and travel has been mostly shut down for months, what matters is the local response, not blocking new infections from outside. Or in other words, it's been many months now that the source of new infections is local, not international.
Spekulatius Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 I don't think most of the countries that are having trouble are having trouble because infected people are coming over the borders... I cant think of any other way a virus that started in China goes global...can you? Way to totally miss the context. The countries that are doing badly are doing badly because they didn't do the steps to control the virus, and those that do well do so because they did. There's variance and some places were less lucky or had worse demographics/density/etc than others, but generally, the virus was within the borders of all these islands and if they hadn't done the steps, they'd be doing just as bad as anyone else. In the early phases the virus spread by travel, but once it's everywhere and travel has been mostly shut down for months, what matters is the local response, not blocking new infections from outside. Or in other words, it's been many months now that the source of new infections is local, not international. I agree on this , local response matters more later. Being isolated ( relatively speaking) gives a country a better fighting chance to isolate early outbreaks and prevent subsequent reinfections. All this doesn’t really matter if your local response let the virus run rampant - the UK is a great example of this.
Liberty Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 I agree on this , local response matters more later. Being isolated ( relatively speaking) gives a country a better fighting chance to isolate early outbreaks and prevent subsequent reinfections. All this doesn’t really matter if your local response let the virus run rampant - the UK is a great example of this. A lot of the countries that did best were actually much closer to 'ground zero' and had way more travel from China before travel got shut down than the countries that did less well, islands or not.
orthopa Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 Australia is back to pre shut down levels of infection.
Dalal.Holdings Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 2016: 'We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning'.
Cigarbutt Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 Australia is back to pre shut down levels of infection. From your previous posts concerning this topic, i assume you mean the "shut down" in Australia hasn't worked or just delayed the progression of the disease at the population level. Is that it? For reference, here are some data points: 1- Average daily new Covid-19 deaths per million last 28 days last 7 days USA 2.1 2.6 Australia 0.0 0.1 2- The daily positive rate, given as a rolling 7-day average USA: 8.7% Australia: 0.5% i guess it depends through which lens you're looking at this. Recently, i came across a parallel being made between wildfire risk management and pandemics. There were allusions to primary, secondary and tertiary prevention strategies.
orthopa Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 Australia is back to pre shut down levels of infection. From your previous posts concerning this topic, i assume you mean the "shut down" in Australia hasn't worked or just delayed the progression of the disease at the population level. Is that it? For reference, here are some data points: 1- Average daily new Covid-19 deaths per million last 28 days last 7 days USA 2.1 2.6 Australia 0.0 0.1 2- The daily positive rate, given as a rolling 7-day average USA: 8.7% Australia: 0.5% i guess it depends through which lens you're looking at this. Recently, i came across a parallel being made between wildfire risk management and pandemics. There were allusions to primary, secondary and tertiary prevention strategies. Not so much a statement, just an observation.
orthopa Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/study-identifies-six-different-types-of-covid-19/ar-BB179KSE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
KCLarkin Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 How not to science: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns I gave Ioannidis the benefit of the doubt on this forum. But it is pretty clear he is doing junk science. He had a political opinion (lockdowns are bad and IFR lower than experts estimates). Fair enough. But then he pushed shoddy research to justify these opinions. Classic confirmation bias. What a disgrace to Stanford.
patience_and_focus Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/study-identifies-six-different-types-of-covid-19/ar-BB179KSE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout If this study is independently "replicated" by other researchers, this is very valuable information not just for clinicians on the front lines but also for patients themselves. For example, imagine a person in his/her 40's or 50's has Covid-19 like symptoms, doesn't have too many co-morbidity issues like heart disease. Given the testing mess, they also don't have the results (its taking average of 5 days or more again in many hot-spots). If the telemedicine clinic they call for advice is not useful they can at least have some idea of whether they should be driving to the nearest emergency room by matching this list and overlap with their symptoms. It may save lives.
Liberty Posted July 24, 2020 Posted July 24, 2020 https://cspinet.org/news/nearly-3500-public-health-experts-signal-support-fauci-20200722
Recommended Posts