Coronavirus 2020


#2603

In a real country, with real journalists, and a real government, serious questions would be asked. Ireland is not that country.


#2604

Maybe less RTA,People who would have died of natural cause dying with covid ,less people out and about so less flu going around .
Various reasons why but all those 1709 recorded deaths had covid 19


#2605

For the Hep B vaccine, thoughts in serum titres changed some time in the past 20 years… at first you had to show an initial rise, then maintain your titres above a certain level - and get a booster if the titre dropped. How often you would get rechecked depended on your previous titre level.
Then, they just said so long as you showed an initial response you were fine for life, no need to check that titres stayed up, no need for boosters.


#2606

Trump seemingly vindicated on this one.


#2607

Just to expand this a bit more, I havent been much of a Trump supporter beyond enjoying his trolling of the wokier segments of the population. Id also have been critical of some of the mixed messaging from his administration with regard to combatting the spread of the virus, although hardly that much worse than many other first world countries including our own.

However on this, his labelling of the news media as ‘fake’ appears to have been on the money.

Consider the following from the NYT

And the following from the Atlantic

Forbes

Washington Post…‘people may die’

BBC …hydroxychloroquine increases risk of death

And our own Irish Times…‘risk of death’

But today, we find that the drug does exactly what Trump said it does ie it significantly reduces risk of death.

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study?fbclid=IwAR2ZQf3i1iUcwQBZYBXBzUHV406IU0jmK_W45_npxby4LqWUzJk_jMdE0zs

In essence, it seems that the media may have been deliberately talking down a drug that could potentially have saved peoples lives simply because Trump recommended using it.


#2608

Well from the papers I have read (by no means comprehensive) washing hands and indeed face masks are both legitimate methods for impeding the spread of this virus (and others).

Trump didn’t handle this crisis well enough. He was needlessly petulant, and squandered opportunities to speak to the US nation, winning over independent and swing voters.

He ran against himself.

But events, dear boy, events - of which there will be more.


#2609

Trump is fcuked and he knows it. Biden is no FDR …God help them all


#2610

US is heading towards hamburgerlandia pedal to the max and it will end super band for ordinary folks.


Sweden does not stop as expected, France seems to get 2nd wave already?

All African countries are probably 10-100x worse but no tests no death data no idea…


#2611

It appears to be another observation study. When all factors are taken in to account it may have a zero impact. The hydroxylchloroquine group received more steroids which may have an impact on results.

Taking hydroxylchloroquine without having having covid is not smart given the potential side effects.


#2612

It seems to depend on

  • dose
  • what else is prescribed
  • duration

Seems to be effective with the steroid and antibiotic rather than zinc

Is there a doctor in the house to interpret?


#2613

Those figures for France seem totally out of whack with the WHO stats and pretty much every other website i’ve looked, that 24 hour total is way above even their peak levels (7.6K on April 1st).

WHO Europe numbers - https://who.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ead3c6475654481ca51c248d52ab9c61


#2614

Given that hydroxylchloroquine was one of the standard treatments for SARs type viral pneumonia’s for almost 20 years, the side effects were very well know and discussed in detail in the treatment manuals. and there was not a hint of a problem with it as a treatment until Trump mentioned it you can assume that all negative coverage is simply “Orange Man Bad”. Pure TDS. If Trump had never mentioned hydroxylchloroquine it would have remained one of the standard effective treatments for these types of viral pneumonia’s without the slightest hint of controversy. .

The very negative Lancet article was fraudulent. Which the Lancet has a long tradition of when medicine intersects politics. The editor, Richard Horton, has a very long history going back decades of publishing fraudulent articles for political purposes. So I automatically discount the scientific merit of all papers published in the Lancet if there is the slightest hint of a political angle. So when I first heard about the Australian paper and saw it was published in The Lancet I knew immediately it was either partially or completely fraudulent. Which it proved to be.

Remember, Richard Horton was the guy who not only facilitated the MMR Fraud in 1998 but has never really taken responsibly or apologized for what he did. Thousands of children died or suffered serious long term health problems because of Hortons politically posturing and overweening arrogance.

Wakefield went to prison, Horton should have too.

The first rule of science papers is that at least 50% are wrong. More like 80%plus in medical/bio-sciences. Usually due to faulty logic or bad math. But also due outright fraud.

The few papers with actual scientific merit are a matter of showing strong probabilities of the conclusion rather than proving anything. Always bear that in mind when reading this stuff.


#2615

#2616

The first observation is that this is a retrospective study. That is that it is a look back at their results from different regimens that they used. The problem here is that the treating physicans may have used certain regimens for sicker cases so that the groups are not comparable. Looking at their data in table 1 you can see quite a spread of data with regards to patient age with the no drug group being significantly older.
Now they did some fancy statistics to risk match each group but still the question needs to be asked as to why each patient was assigned a particular regimen.
The gold standard for clinical research is a prospective study where patients are randomally assigned beforehand to treatment arms to avoid any bias.These studies are much harder to set up and more costly to run.
I don’t know if a proper double blind prospective study on hydroochlorquinine has been done.


#2617

It gets better than that. Turns out there have been no proper double blind studies for effectiveness of Influenza vaccinations in older population. Given much lowered immune response rate for older people to vaccines most like a placebo for most people.

So as SARs Cov 2 only has high(ish) probability of becoming serious in amount over 60’s any vaccine very likely to be ineffective. Add to that the very high side effect rate with the SARs 1 vaccines there any SARs Cov2 vaccine will just cause an elevated mortality rate in the general population and have no positive effect on vulnerable cohort.


#2618

What’s this then?


#2619

Exactly what I was talking about…

"The study requires 222 healthy volunteers 18-60 years old. "

Read the actual literature survey papers and the relevant sections of the standard textbooks on the subject. Since regular influenza A vaccine trails started in the 1950’s there has not be one single statistically robust and meaningful trial of the actual efficacy of these vaccines for old people. The reason why the cut off point for trial is 60 is because thats when the roll off of the immune system response rate starts getting steep. Basically low risk single dose vaccines which have a very positive effects in younger people have much lower response in old people. Higher risk vaccine types have a better response in older people but still only a fraction of younger people. Plus the risk of adverse response goes up significantly with age in older people.

What little partial literature exists shows only very mild to neutral effect for Influenza vaccines in people over 60. And given the very serious problems that existing with the various SARs 1 vaccines when trialed for both under 60’s and over 60’s the adverse effects greatly outweigh any potential health benefits.

As SARs CoV2 is only a serious health risk for those who score high on the CURB-65 scale, those at risk from serious viral pneumonia, and these people are maybe 5% of the general population ( 90% plus over 60) who vaccines dont really work for maybe some other health protection protocol should be tried. One that does not involve making 10% of the working population permanently unemployed.


#2620

Vast majority of Covid deaths occurred in April and s with tallies well with excess deaths on RIP for that period.
Could it be that the underlying death rate not due to Covid has fallen substantially due to improvements in peoples hygiene. I seem to have heard majority of reason life expectancy is higher than 200 years ago is due to hygiene and sanitation. We are washing our hands better and more often and not sneezing and coughing on one another as much. Non Covid but none the less infectious diseases must have taken a hit. I suspect food standards to be


#2621

Sorry hit reply on previous post while still writing and editing it.

Vast majority of Covid deaths occurred in April and the numbers talliy well with excess deaths on RIP for that period.
Could it be that the underlying death rate not due to Covid has fallen substantially due to improvements in peoples hygiene. I seem to have heard majority of reason life expectancy is higher than 200 years ago is due to hygiene and sanitation. We are washing our hands better and more often and not sneezing and coughing on one another as much. Non Covid but none the less infectious diseases must have taken a hit. I suspect food preparation is being done to higher standards. Just putting it out there as food for thought.


#2622

OK I think you are referring to the Cochrane report on the flu vaccine. I think these concerns are addressed here.


"While most doctors in the US and globally agree with the CDC recommendation to vaccinate people at the population level, a Cochrane review casts doubt as to whether the vaccine has any efficacy against influenza.82

Opponents of vaccination against influenza have recently used arguments based on a Cochrane’s meta-analysis of immunization trials which concluded that flu vaccines offer no benefit.83 Presentation of these results in the media serve to mobilize the anti-vaccine constituency and invigorate resolve to refuse other vaccinations. The European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI) refutes the Cochrane findings, stating that any doubt regarding the benefits of influenza vaccination is dangerous from both a scientific and ethical point of view. Specifically, the ESWI points out that the Cochrane Review failed to distinguish between seasons with high, mild or no circulation of an influenza virus, a factor which would dramatically influence any final effectiveness estimate.84

The current media discussion is based on a dramatic misinterpretation of 2 scientific notions: efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. Effectiveness studies measure the level of protection offered by the influenza vaccine against influenza-like-illnesses. However, it is common scientific knowledge that influenza vaccines offer no protection against viruses other than the circulating influenza viruses.

Efficacy is more specific to influenza virus, however efficacy studies require thorough laboratory investigation. When the data are risk-stratified, a rigorous analysis yields substantial evidence in favor of the influenza vaccine to reduce the risk of influenza infection and influenza-related disease and death in the elderly.[84]"(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5861798/#cit0084),85

Often in medicine we don’t have gold standard evidence. If we were to wait for Cocherane level of evidence we’d do nothing. I am a physican over 60 and have the flu vaccine every year because I believe on balance the potential benefit outweigh any risks
That’s why Trump’s involvement was so unhelpful. Scientific evidence arrives slowly and needs to be evualated in a slow deliberate unemotional manner.