Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

COVID-19 - Part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

    These Andrew Cuomo "I'm the smartest guy in the room" campaign pontifications are painful!
    UNH Hockey: You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

    Comment


    • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

      Originally posted by e.cat View Post
      These Andrew Cuomo "I'm the smartest guy in the room" campaign pontifications are painful!
      Wow. He's out there with his state on fire...340 died just yesterday alone. He's living it. His brother has it. At least he doesn't talk about how great the ratings have been. THAT...is painful.
      Here we go 'Cats!!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by HockeyRef View Post
        Wow. He's out there with his state on fire...340 died just yesterday alone. He's living it. His brother has it. At least he doesn't talk about how great the ratings have been. THAT...is painful.
        Let's face it Ref, Cuomo has done an abysmal job with this pandemic. Dr. Birx was asked yesterday why New York is in such bad shape and she answered they were slow to act!
        UNH Hockey: You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

        Comment


        • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

          Originally posted by SteveO View Post
          My post regarding an RCT that is currently being conducted under the leadership of a colleague, Dr. Dave Boulware, is "pimping" HCQ? I don't have any axe to grind here, but apparently you do.

          If you want to falsely accuse US healthcare professionals as well as those around the globe (India, Germany, France, etc.) who are currently administering HCQ/AZ to CoV-19 patients with measured success of "pimping" that's entirely up to you. Go ahead and embarrass yourself.
          I think they're being irresponsible, yes. But only one of us is embarrassing himself. Are you going to point to controlled studies these doctors are conducting with results? Or just anecdotal reports from Hannity and Dr. Oz?

          Originally posted by SteveO View Post
          It's noteworthy that Kansas City area physicians. as well as others in several states are continuing to treat CoV-19 patients with HCQ/AZ and are showing marked improvement in the reduction of the viral load. Major medical centers including the University of Washington and Mass General have added HCQ to treatment options. Other state pharmacy boards including Texas, Louisiana, Ohio and North Carolina have approved its use under physician care by prescription only which prevents individuals from misusing the drug by self-medicating.
          Really? They are? Where's the data? What are the study parameters? I'm sure you have those links handy, especially using words like "marked improvement". Because normally we leave words like "marked improvement" to the marketing departments.

          State pharmacy boards approving a drug to be used only means nothing without data. It doesn't mean there's evidence of efficacy, only that we're in a pandemic emergency and we're desperate and making ill-informed decisions based on anecdotal data. We don't know if the drugs are effective, we don't know what the side-effects are, and I'm not sure we have anything close to informed consent.

          Originally posted by SteveO View Post
          Yesterday the FDA and The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) approved HCQ products to be distributed and prescribed by doctors through the Strategic National Stockpile to hospitalized teen and adult patients with CoV-19 as appropriate.

          HHS said Germany’s Sandoz has already given 30 million doses of HCQ to the Strategic National Stockpile, and Bayer has donated a million doses. Pfizer has announced positive data for the use HCQ/AZ in an RCT recently completed in Marseille, France (see below).
          I wouldn't bother quoting the studies out of Marseille. They're wrought with bad science, they're limited in scope, and have dubious conclusions. Regarding donations, those are politically and likely financially motivated decisions. Not evidence of anything resembling science.

          Originally posted by SteveO View Post
          I'd like to see the evidence to confirm your accusation that Dr. Didier Raoult MD. PhD. is a "fraud". Arguably, his previous small study raised some concerns on the research design side. But Dr. Raoult was officially a member of the first scientific council set up by French President Macron to advise him on the CoV-19 pandemic. He's definitely NOT a fraud.
          Wildcard already posted links showing Raoult photoshopped gels and other stains. Literally copied and pasted. It was obvious. He was even banned from publishing in the American Society of Microbiology for a year because of his fraud. There are six separate cases of questionable data in his papers that look like outright fraud.

          Originally posted by SteveO View Post
          In fact, Dr. Raoult and a collaborative team of 28 microbiologists, physicians, biostatisticians, and pharmacologists in Marseille just completed and published the largest RCT to date last week on March 27 involving 80 CoV-19 patients who were treated with HCQ/AZ. The study was conducted at the University Hospital Institute Méditerranée Infection in Marseille, France and financially supported by the French National Research Agency.
          And it's already being skewered for many of the same reasons the original study was.

          Originally posted by SteveO View Post
          The median age was 52 years (range 20 to 86) with nearly 1:1 male/female. The primary therapeutic objective was to treat patients who have moderate or severe infections at an early enough stage to avoid progression to a serious and irreversible condition. The elimination of viral carriage in the human reservoir of the virus was recognized in the study as a priority.

          57.5% of the patients had at least one chronic condition known to be a risk factor for the severe form of CoV-19 with hypertension, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease being the most frequent. The mean Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (a method used to copy and amplify specific DNA samples for detailed analysis) CT value was 23.4. A PCR CT value < 34 means the patient has tested positive for CoV-19.
          No, it means that test did not detect enough of the markers to be considered positive. It doesn't mean the patient is negative or positive or that they weren't going to be shedding the virus through other means. More on this in a second.

          Also, if the study was to look at preventing the progression of the disease to severe, it seems fairly odd to remove people who died or progressed to the ICU from the study's results.

          Originally posted by SteveO View Post
          A rapid fall of nasopharyngeal viral load tested by PCR was noted, with 83% negative at Day 7, and 93% at Day 8. The number of patients presumably contagious (with a PCR CT value <34) steadily decreased overtime and reached zero on Day 12.
          Hey, that's great! I'm hoping you can explain this then:

          From the Lancet, a journal with some actual credibility.

          You'll note that throat swab PCR tests come back negative after a mean of 16.7 days after first symptom onset. Also worth noting the French study doesn't discuss time from first onset of symptoms (they even included four people who were asymptomatic!) to negative tests. In the Lancet study, the fecal tests come back positive an average of 10+ days after the throat swabs are negative. Just because the PCR tests from one sampling method came back negative doesn't mean the patients had an outcome different than the natural progression of the disease.

          It would have also been more helpful if the French study had discussed the sensitivity of the testing methods and whether false positives and negatives could influence the results. But, alas, they didn't.

          Another great article I read by Derek Lowe asked why a simple cutoff of Ct <34 was used instead of tracking actual patient tracking in the larger study. Of those that were still positive on subsequent days, did they get worse? Slightly better? Much better? We just don't know because they don't include the full data for each patient, just aggregated.

          The article also questions the methodology. Of the 80 that we’re <34 Ct on Day 0, on Day 1 only 70 tested positive? That would mean the treatment worked overnight on ten? Presumably the professor would claim they were from the 49, but we don’t know because he didn’t think it important to include that data. I’m skeptical at best. The article goes on to question why we aren’t seeing individual patient data for PCR counts instead of aggregated data which really doesn’t tell us anything. Why not look at whether viral loads were actually decreased at a quicker rate than the control group?

          There was also some interesting discussion of their testing methods on PubPeer (link)

          1/2 - Cont'd
          Last edited by dxmnkd316; 04-01-2020, 12:10 PM.
          Code:
          As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
          College Hockey 6       College Football 0
          BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
          Originally posted by SanTropez
          May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
          Originally posted by bigblue_dl
          I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
          Originally posted by Kepler
          When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
          He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

          Comment


          • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

            Cont'd (2/2)

            Originally posted by SteveO View Post
            The team concluded that the rapid negativation of viral cultures from patients’ respiratory samples under treatment with HCQ/AZ showed the efficacy of the HCQ/AZ dyad. Moreover, the rapid decrease in the viral RNA load also suggests the effectiveness of the treatment in the early impairment of contagiousness.
            Even The Simpsons gets what you and the French team don't. Without randomized, blind control data you can claim anything helps with a small enough study.

            Most telling, 85% of his study patients didn’t even have a fever. Doesn’t that strike you as an astonishing figure given that 90-95% or more of hospitalized patients have a fever? He somehow picked the most severe patients when they didn’t even have a fever? That’s... remarkable!! Crazier still, four people in his follow-up were asymptotic entirety. Doesn’t that kind of make you wonder how or why they’re even being studied? Then he excluded from the results the patients who transferred to the ICU or died?

            You might claim (actually, I think you did above) that this was meant to show that this helps protect people from getting worse. Without a control, you can't claim that either way.

            Originally posted by SteveO View Post
            And finally, my favorite. I'm glad you included this because it goes along with your flamboyant language and lack of understanding. It sure looks pretty, but it doesn't really say what you think it does.

            First, why would they use a quadratic regression in this graph and an exponential regression in the other graph they've published? I mean, this is kind of crazy. That’s the kind of thing a moron who doesn’t understand stats does. As one of the articles about this study said, “makes for great R-squared numbers!” The average idiot who uses Excel, me and apparently you, just click through the regressions without any reasoning behind why you'd use one or the other, until you find a great R2 number. That's not how science works. You state a theory, test the theory, if it comes back right, great! If it doesn't, you conduct more experiments with another hypothesis and either reject or accept it. You don't hunt for numbers that fit your conclusion. That's not how the scientific method works. He might as well have sharpied that trend line in and wrote "Alabama!"

            I'll also add this:
            https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2...19-infections/. The article does a fantastic job detailing the bad science, questionable ethics, and conflicts of interest Professor Raoult's paper was riddled with.

            The other thing I question is whether the drugs are just messing with the test. Did the patients actually get better? What were their outcomes? Or was it just that the natural progression was their PCR counts crossed the 34 threshold.

            Post all of the cute graphs, numbers, and intelligent sounding jargon you want, it doesn’t show what you think it does. People get better over time spontaneously without intervention. We don’t have any data. The guy is a bad scientist at best or a fraud at worst. Even reading through the paper you should have been immediately skeptical. That you weren’t makes me wonder why.
            Code:
            As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
            College Hockey 6       College Football 0
            BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
            Originally posted by SanTropez
            May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
            Originally posted by bigblue_dl
            I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
            Originally posted by Kepler
            When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
            He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

            Comment


            • Originally posted by e.cat View Post
              Let's face it Ref, Cuomo has done an abysmal job with this pandemic. Dr. Birx was asked yesterday why New York is in such bad shape and she answered they were slow to act!
              Do tell...and that's pretty rich "slow to act" hahaha that's a good one. And churches were going to be full on Easter...
              Here we go 'Cats!!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HockeyRef View Post
                Do tell...and that's pretty rich "slow to act" hahaha that's a good one. And churches were going to be full on Easter...
                Her words Ref. Not mine
                UNH Hockey: You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

                Comment


                • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                  She said NY not the Governor. My interpretation is that they could have acted sooner if they had data. They didn't know they had a problem until they had a problem. Unlike, say FL.
                  I will not be out cheered in my own building.

                  Comment


                  • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                    Originally posted by HockeyRef View Post
                    Do tell...and that's pretty rich "slow to act" hahaha that's a good one. And churches were going to be full on Easter...
                    I don't profess to be an expert in epidemics, but NYFD sent a bus with 14 COVID patients to Albany Medical Center under the cover of darkness last night (really).
                    This was the same day after the chief of AMC proclaimed no knowledge of that very same rumor.

                    Being a novice, I could be completely wrong, but this strikes me as Item #1 in the "What Not To Do in the Event of a Pandemic Handbook"....that being ship your infected to another region that is currently only mildly hit by the outbreak.

                    I understand the NYC hospitals need relief, which is supposed to be ready -- in all of the hospitals they built at Javits, Naval Yard, Central Park, etc. I haven't seen any reports that they're actually using the emergency facilities ?? Exporting the germ 2 1/2 hours away seems nuts to me.
                    ""Ralph is the Chuck Norris of this board. Ralph doesnt sleep he just waits." - fishcore12

                    Comment


                    • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                      Originally posted by Darius View Post
                      She said NY not the Governor. My interpretation is that they could have acted sooner if they had data. They didn't know they had a problem until they had a problem. Unlike, say FL.
                      Exactly. Even Fauci in the very early going did not profess deep concern about COVID. I have no doubt this was largely due to the Chinese Communist regime lying to the world about the dumpster fire they were unleashing on the globe....lest we or dare I say, the mainstream media, "forget".
                      ""Ralph is the Chuck Norris of this board. Ralph doesnt sleep he just waits." - fishcore12

                      Comment


                      • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                        Originally posted by Wicked Slappaahs View Post
                        I don't profess to be an expert in epidemics, but NYFD sent a bus with 14 COVID patients to Albany Medical Center under the cover of darkness last night (really).
                        This was the same day after the chief of AMC proclaimed no knowledge of that very same rumor.

                        Being a novice, I could be completely wrong, but this strikes me as Item #1 in the "What Not To Do in the Event of a Pandemic Handbook"....that being ship your infected to another region that is currently only mildly hit by the outbreak.

                        I understand the NYC hospitals need relief, which is supposed to be ready -- in all of the hospitals they built at Javits, Naval Yard, Central Park, etc. I haven't seen any reports that they're actually using the emergency facilities ?? Exporting the germ 2 1/2 hours away seems nuts to me.
                        It's called a patient transfer, happens all day, every day. These hospitals help each other out all of the time, it's what they do. From the Albany hospital, "We were acting with the support of hospital associations and when they called, we did what we always do – accept the transfer patients," he said. "The act of accepting transfers aligns with our mission to care for any patient, regardless of their condition." It's not like they dropped them at the curb and let them run amok within the community. https://www.timesunion.com/news/arti...9-15171318.php
                        Last edited by LTsatch; 04-01-2020, 01:51 PM.
                        YALE HOCKEY
                        2013 National Champions

                        Comment


                        • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                          I have enjoyed reading this thread over the last couple of weeks. American politics is like professional wrestling (WWE). It is all fake. It is all scripted. The fans support one wrestler over another, just like the majority of Americans support one political party over another. We are on Team Democrats or Team Republicans. In professional wrestling all of the wrestlers are on the same team. They are all working together so they all make as much money as possible. American politicians are really on the same team. They play the role of Republican or the role of Democrat while really working together so they all make as much money as possible. In front of the cameras they play adversaries, but when there are no cameras they are having beers together. We, American citizens, are all fools. The politicians are laughing at us. Just like being a fan of professional wrestling is a waste of time. Spending too much time following American politics is also foolish and a waste of time!

                          Double your friends by becoming apolitical !!!
                          Last edited by Ray Dorn; 04-01-2020, 02:39 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                            Originally posted by Ray Dorn View Post
                            I have enjoyed reading this thread over the last couple of weeks. American politics is like professional wrestling (WWE). It is all fake. It is all scripted. The fans support one wrestler over another, just like the majority of Americans support one political party over another. We are on Team Democrats or Team Republicans. In professional wrestling all of the wrestlers are on the same team. They are all working together so they all make as much money as possible. American politicians are really all on the same team. They play the role of Republican or the role of Democrat while really working together so they all make as much money as possible. In front of the cameras they play adversaries, but when there are no cameras they are having beers together. We, American citizens, are all fools. The politicians are laughing at us. Just like being a fan of professional wrestling is a waste of time. Spending too much time following American politics is also foolish and a waste of time!

                            Double your friends by becoming apolitical!!!
                            Love this!

                            So you're saying that it is possible to believe that China could have been more forthcoming AND the Federal government could have acted prudently sooner? What a concept.
                            I will not be out cheered in my own building.

                            Comment


                            • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                              Originally posted by LTsatch View Post
                              Bad link
                              Fixed. Thanks.

                              https://ourworldindata.org/covid-testing

                              Comment


                              • Re: COVID-19 - Part 2

                                Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
                                Cont'd (2/2)



                                Even The Simpsons gets what you and the French team don't. Without randomized, blind control data you can claim anything helps with a small enough study.

                                Most telling, 85% of his study patients didn’t even have a fever. Doesn’t that strike you as an astonishing figure given that 90-95% or more of hospitalized patients have a fever? He somehow picked the most severe patients when they didn’t even have a fever? That’s... remarkable!! Crazier still, four people in his follow-up were asymptotic entirety. Doesn’t that kind of make you wonder how or why they’re even being studied? Then he excluded from the results the patients who transferred to the ICU or died?

                                You might claim (actually, I think you did above) that this was meant to show that this helps protect people from getting worse. Without a control, you can't claim that either way.



                                And finally, my favorite. I'm glad you included this because it goes along with your flamboyant language and lack of understanding. It sure looks pretty, but it doesn't really say what you think it does.

                                First, why would they use a quadratic regression in this graph and an exponential regression in the other graph they've published? I mean, this is kind of crazy. That’s the kind of thing a moron who doesn’t understand stats does. As one of the articles about this study said, “makes for great R-squared numbers!” The average idiot who uses Excel, me and apparently you, just click through the regressions without any reasoning behind why you'd use one or the other, until you find a great R2 number. That's not how science works. You state a theory, test the theory, if it comes back right, great! If it doesn't, you conduct more experiments with another hypothesis and either reject or accept it. You don't hunt for numbers that fit your conclusion. That's not how the scientific method works. He might as well have sharpied that trend line in and wrote "Alabama!"

                                I'll also add this:
                                https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2...19-infections/. The article does a fantastic job detailing the bad science, questionable ethics, and conflicts of interest Professor Raoult's paper was riddled with.

                                The other thing I question is whether the drugs are just messing with the test. Did the patients actually get better? What were their outcomes? Or was it just that the natural progression was their PCR counts crossed the 34 threshold.

                                Post all of the cute graphs, numbers, and intelligent sounding jargon you want, it doesn’t show what you think it does. People get better over time spontaneously without intervention. We don’t have any data. The guy is a bad scientist at best or a fraud at worst. Even reading through the paper you should have been immediately skeptical. That you weren’t makes me wonder why.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X