Continuation The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 3

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Capsid

What's an IFA? Immunofluorescence assay? ....

Yes

[Rolfe]

Actually if you read the papers about the t value (I think it is), they reckon that about 80% of infected people don't pass it on to anyone else and it takes on average four independent introductions of the virus to get a 50% chance of an epidemic taking off, so it's perfectly possible that there were a few infections before the main outbreaks were recognised, but as nobody got involved in a superspreader event they didn't go anywhere.

It needs superspreader events to really take hold, and these aren't a given every time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Actually if you read the papers about the t value (I think it is), they reckon that about 80% of infected people don't pass it on to anyone else and it takes on average four independent introductions of the virus to get a 50% chance of an epidemic taking off, so it's perfectly possible that there were a few infections before the main outbreaks were recognised, but as nobody got involved in a superspreader event they didn't go anywhere.

It needs superspreader events to really take hold, and these aren't a given every time.

And they were all in blood donors all over the country?

What do you suppose underlies the iceberg tip?

[dudalb]

And we have a celeb makes a fool of herself:

https://variety.com/2020/film/global...ticle-comments

I presume she got her medical degree from the same university that Jenny McCarthy got hers from.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And we have a celeb makes a fool of herself:

https://variety.com/2020/film/global...ticle-comments

I presume she got her medical degree from the same university that Jenny McCarthy got hers from.

For those who haven't read it, the actress in question was Letitia Wright (who played the young genius in the Black Panther movies). Ironic that she plays such a smart person in the movie, but does something so dumb in real life.

Fortunately, it was a re-post of a video on Twitter (so she wasn't going out of her way to make the claims), plus, she is still fairly young. Maybe she might actually have time to learn.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And we have a celeb makes a fool of herself:

https://variety.com/2020/film/global...ticle-comments

I presume she got her medical degree from the same university that Jenny McCarthy got hers from.

Typical response: claiming alternative voices are being shut down.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by marting

Continuation from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=344976

Posted By:Darat

Another Ivermectin study. Small randomized clinical trial but with rather strong positive benefits.

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...rdId=rs-109670

Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial...

Abstract
Background: It appears that ivermectin can potentially act against COVID-19 infection. Today, it is an urgent need to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin. The effect of ivermectin therapy on mild to severe COVID-19 patients was investigated.

Results: Average age of the participants was 56 years (45-67) and 50% were women. The primary and secondary results showed significant changes between day zero and day five of admission (∆ 0/5) in terms of ΔALC5/0, ΔPLT5/0, ΔESR5/0, ΔCRP5/0, duration of low O2 saturation, and duration of hospitalization (CI = 95% ). Risk of mortality was also decreased significantly in the study groups.

Conclusion: Ivermectin as an adjunct reduced the rate of mortality, low O2 duration, and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID 19 patients. The improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.

You do kniw that "signifficant" does not mean "Clinically important"? It means the math looks good, that the study is probalby repeatable.

Here is waht Wiki says:

Quote:

IVERMECTIN: SARS-CoV-2

Ivermectin has antiviral effects against several distinct positive-sense single-strand RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.[84] Ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2 - 2.8 µM, making it a possible candidate for COVID-19 drug repurposing research.[85][86] The doses used in cell culture would require 10(superscript)4 (I guess that means 10,000 times?) larger doses in humans based on this data, which does not look promising as an effective treatment for COVID-19.[87][88] Such high doses of ivermectin are not covered by the current human-use approvals of the drug and could be dangerous, as the likely antiviral mechanism of action is the suppression of a host cellular process,[88] specifically the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1.[89] Moreover, cell culture experiments also showed promise for ivermectin treating Dengue, but later failed in animal models.[87]

On 10 April 2020, the FDA issued guidance to not use ivermectin intended for animals as treatment for COVID-19 in humans.[90]

A preprint published in April 2020 claimed benefits of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19, but it was a retrospective study based on questionable hospital data from Surgisphere and was withdrawn at the end of May. The preprint led to several government agencies in Latin America recommending ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment; these recommendations were later denounced by the regional WHO office.[91]

Now where did I leave those worm pills...

[marting]

I pretty much considered Ivermectin in the same category as HCQ but the data over the last months has been accumulating.

Here's a group that just held a presentation Dec 4. Lots of links with references. Lots of new data and links.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

Here's Dr. Paul Marik discussing treatments at different points in the disease. He has a chart starting 9 min in with the net effect of common treatments including HCQ and Remdesivir, steroids, etc. at various disease stages. Extensive discussion of Ivermectin data in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU6n...nnel=PaulMarik

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a wonderful—wear a mask—video using Disney characters and some pretty stern language.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

For those who haven't read it, the actress in question was Letitia Wright (who played the young genius in the Black Panther movies). Ironic that she plays such a smart person in the movie, but does something so dumb in real life.

Fortunately, it was a re-post of a video on Twitter (so she wasn't going out of her way to make the claims), plus, she is still fairly young. Maybe she might actually have time to learn.

She took it down after about two hourse. I got a feeling that she got a phone call from Kevin Feige about five minutes after that tweet came out...

[dudalb]

Ray Stevens is 80, but he still has it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjceaknzHQ

"I wash my hands like a racoon with OCD" ....gotta love it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Ray Stevens is 80, but he still has it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjceaknzHQ

"I wash my hands like a racoon with OCD" ....gotta love it.

Love it.

[marting]

Published Dec 3. Disappointing results.

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results.

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...ordId=33264556

World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.)

Rather interesting that the only drug fully approved by the FDA for Covid-19 is so underperforming in a fairly large RCT. It is a moneymaker though.

[marting]

A new Ivermectin preprint. Small, double blind RCT on symptomatic, mild cases to evaluate viral load and symptoms over time after a single dose of Ivermectin.

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...88440672b5ae33

Quote:

the median viral load for both genes was lower at days 4 and 7 post treatment in the ivermectin group with differences increasing from 3-fold lower at day 4 to around 18- old lower at day 7

Length of persistent symptoms, especially loss of smell, were decreased as well.

Quote:

Hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days) and cough (68 vs 97 patient-days) were less frequent in the ivermectin group.

This suggests possible prophylaxes use and is consistent with multiple observational studies.

[The Atheist]

Invermectin and dexymethasone seem to be the only two that have proven to work, so at least we have something.

I dexy has been updated on the Health Dep't site here to include it as a treatment for Covid.

[Rolfe]

What do you mean by "work"? Dexamethasone is only a steroidal anti-inflammatory which somewhat allieviates the worst of the clinical signs caused by inflammation in seriously ill patients. It does that in a lot of conditions, and what is surprising is all the fuss about it in this condition. It's like being surprised that oxygen helps.

I don't think anyone is claiming that ivermectin puts people sick with covid back on their feet again either. They're drugs that help a bit. That isn't what I mean when I say something "works" in this context.

Hopefully it will all be a bit academic in a year or so if they get the vaccine strategy right.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by marting

Published Dec 3. Disappointing results.

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results.

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...ordId=33264556

World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.)

Rather interesting that the only drug fully approved by the FDA for Covid-19 is so underperforming in a fairly large RCT. It is a moneymaker though.

Yes I suspect remdesivir will be the most profitable least effective drug ever.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What do you mean by "work"?

That they've been shown to have positive outcomes, unlike all the ones which have failed under scrutiny.

I didn't say they were a cure.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Typical response: claiming alternative voices are being shut down.

You also have the usual comic book fanboys defending her.

[dudalb]

We have already had too many "miracle cures" for Covid. Label me a skeptic on this one.

[Chris_Halkides]

OK this is just spitballing, but here is an idea has been on my mind since the spring. What might help the compounds that are already known to interfere with polymerization of RNA (of which remdesivir is one) is to add a second drug that is targeted toward the proofreading enzyme, which IIUC is nsp14, a bifunctional protein. I did a very quick search and found a manuscript that had not yet been peer-reviewed when it appeared here. The title is "Ritonavir May Inhibit Exoribonuclease Activity of Nsp14 from the SARS-CoV-2 Virus and Potentiate the Activity of Chain Terminating Drugs". Ritonavir ("Norvir") is a protease inhibitor, which makes it somewhat surprising that it would bind to Nsp14. I have not yet found evidence that this paper has been published.

A review article "Coronavirus RNA Proofreading: Molecular Basis and Therapeutic Targeting" has been recently published, but it does not mention ritonavir, except in the references. The authors wrote, "Inhibiting ExoN activity by these nucleic-acid-based approaches while simultaneously treating with conventional NAs [nucleoside analogs] could enhance the effectiveness of the NAs and accordingly reduce viral replication fidelity to attenuate disease."

[The Atheist]

US average deaths from Covid have tripled in the past 5 weeks.

And the Thanksgiving surge hasn't hit hospitals yet.

[EHocking]

This was one of four vaccines that Australia was banking on.

The Australian government has terminated its $1 billion deal with the University of Queensland (UQ) and global biotech company CSL's potential COVID-19 vaccine because trial participants returning false-positive HIV test results could have undermined public confidence.

Federal Health Department Secretary, Professor Brendon Murphy, said the vaccine would have been "promising", but the government could not risk Australians rejecting the jab out of HIV-fears - despite the false positives - and therefore it was scrapped.

Australia will now increase its production and purchase of the AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines.

I wasn’t aware that a portion of HIV protein was used as a clamp for this vaccine.
Even if these false positives did not occur during testing, I think as soon as some lay person found out that the vaccine “ was made out of HIV” their chances of getting people to take the vaccine would have been severely hampered.

Doomed from the outset as far as public perception goes.
You’d wonder why they didn’t think this would be an issue before they invested in this development.
Maybe they should have stuck to using dead babies like everybody else did.

[arthwollipot]

Today marks Australia's first 7-day period with no community transmission since 29 February. 100% of our cases are returning overseas travellers in hotel quarantine.

It is possible to eradicate this virus.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Today marks Australia's first 7-day period with no community transmission since 29 February. 100% of our cases are returning overseas travellers in hotel quarantine.

It is possible to eradicate this virus.

Despite Hunt saying this, I don’t think it’s true. I follow the count daily, and I don’t recall seeing a community transmission for at least 2 weeks.

Your larger point, of course, is correct.

[TellyKNeasuss]

A small victory? A rechargeable handheld UV device has been shown to be very highly effective at disinfecting surfaces.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301187698.html

[TellyKNeasuss]

Over a quarter of a million covid cases are apparently descended from a conference in Boston in February:

Quote:

The study, published in the journal Science by lead author Jacob Lemieux of Massachusetts General Hospital, found that the event is responsible for roughly 1.6 percent of all U.S. cases since the onset of the pandemic.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...00-coronavirus

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Over a quarter of a million covid cases are apparently descended from a conference in Boston in February:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...00-coronavirus

Wow!

[Bob001]

Apparently severe covid reactions are related to five specific genes. I wonder if people could be pretested for those genes so if they contract covid they could be treated aggressively earlier.

Quote:

LONDON (Reuters) - Five key genes are linked with the most severe form of COVID-19, scientists said on Friday, in research that also pointed to several existing drugs that could be repurposed to treat people who risk getting critically ill with the pandemic disease.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/five-key-...161436410.html

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Apparently severe covid reactions are related to five specific genes. I wonder if people could be pretested for those genes so if they contract covid they could be treated aggressively earlier.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/five-key-...161436410.html

That's risk of severe disease, not vaccine reaction.

I see the problem, you said "reactions" when you meant disease.

[sphenisc]

Looks like 1% of the world population will have had Covid 19 by Christmas.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Apparently severe covid reactions are related to five specific genes. I wonder if people could be pretested for those genes so if they contract covid they could be treated aggressively earlier.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/five-key-...161436410.html

Still needs a lot of work. I read that earlier and see that they're still not sure of where the genetics fits in, and it's more in the order of correlation than causation at the moment.

[mike81]

This talks about the methods used to test for Coronavirus. It talks about running more cycles and how that leads to false positives. I know some of you so called smart people think that is a conspiracy theory though.

https://www.wired.com/story/i-tested...hat-that-mean/

"But across millions of tests, that means many people who are told they tested positive may in fact not have had the virus. Matthew Binnicker, a professor at the Mayo Clinic who studies the diagnosis and management of viral diseases, says this means we should not test everyone, but only people who are symptomatic or in high-risk groups."

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by mike81

This talks about the methods used to test for Coronavirus.

I'm surprised it's even a subject. PCR testing works and is thoroughly reliable.

It just takes time.

The problem goes back to allowing the disease to spread. If you keep it under control, it's pretty straightforward.

[mike81]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'm surprised it's even a subject. PCR testing works and is thoroughly reliable.

It just takes time.

The problem goes back to allowing the disease to spread. If you keep it under control, it's pretty straightforward.

It's not PCR test that are the problem. It's the fact that more cycles than normal are being used. This leads to more false positives. This leads to higher case numbers. Which is why we may have so many supposedly "asymptomatic" people . They probably never even had it.

[marting]

Originally Posted by mike81

It's not PCR test that are the problem. It's the fact that more cycles than normal are being used. This leads to more false positives. This leads to higher case numbers. Which is why we may have so many supposedly "asymptomatic" people . They probably never even had it.

A corollary is that if a high percentage of case counts are indeed, false positives, then the IFR of Covid-19 is also higher in proportion as fewer are actually infected.

Generally, it's thought that more cases are missed than are detected. To the extent that's true, IFR estimates are reduced. But that said, empirically, the specificity appears to be quite high as new cases correlates with later hospitalizations and deaths. And false positives are becoming less of an issue as the percentage of tests returning positives are increasing along with the inevitable results.

[mike81]

Originally Posted by marting

A corollary is that if a high percentage of case counts are indeed, false positives, then the IFR of Covid-19 is also higher in proportion as fewer are actually infected.

The CDC also says that something like 10 times more people have had it than the numbers show.

Look, some of us have been saying for months and months now that the way they are doing the test is ridiculous. I have a friend who is a professor that teaches about things like this and he told me way back when this started that they were running too many cycles with the test. He explained how this would cause false positives. This isn't some conspiracy theory like some of you claim. The numbers they report every day are very misleading.

Just what percentage of hospitals are supposedly overrun? How many of the people who died were never even tested? You do know that the CDC says that they are counting people who were never tested right? How many people were just days away from dying from cancer or some other disease? If lockdowns work so well, how come New York and California did so terrible with having some of the strictest rules around?

How about these stories about people who are dying and still think it is a hoax? You know those stories with very little evidence to confirm them or even evidence that proves it did not happen? I guess everyone needs to feel special and get their taste of fame.

How about these vaccine cards that are supposedly just reminder cards to get the second shot? I guess since they are just reminder cards then we can throw them away after we get our second shot? Unless of course they're not just a reminder card and are really a passport to be able to be free in society. I guess some of you are okay with having even less privacy than we have now and being more controlled by the government. All over a virus that has a very high survivability rate. Not that most people even know what the infection fatality rate is. They assume it's much higher than it is.

Some of us are also sick of the moving goal post. At first it was flatten the curve. We did that. Then it was wear a mask until we get a vaccine and get something like 60% of people vaccinated. Now that percentage keeps going up. Fact is that there are some who just do not want this to end. The reporters and politicians have become celebrities and do not want to let go of the power. After all, what will they report on once Trump is out of office and the Coronavirus is not a big deal anymore? We wouldn't want Cuomo to not be able to go on TV everyday and act like a dictator now would we?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by mike81

The CDC also says that something like 10 times more people have had it than the numbers show.

That's been a consistent statement from all science-based analysis since at least April.

I'd go along with it - a lot of people wouldn't even know they have anything, so never get tested. It also fits with the expected IFR of about 0.3.

[marting]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's been a consistent statement from all science-based analysis since at least April.

I'd go along with it - a lot of people wouldn't even know they have anything, so never get tested. It also fits with the expected IFR of about 0.3.

Might have been true in April in the USA and it might be true Worldwide but it obviously isn't true in the USA currently.

Current USA Cases: 16.3M. 10x would be 163M. Population is 330M. That would be 49% of the USA population is/was infected. We would be seeing significant effects from herd immunity were that the case given all the NPIs in place.

The USA as a whole is currently at .09% cumulative deaths. New Jersey, 8.8M people, has had a cumulative death that went over .2% Currently, NJ case counts are ramping up strongly and deaths, which lag about 3 weeks after diagnosis, are ramping too. About doubling every two weeks. CFR has been down to about 1.5-2% from 12% back in April/May. Probably a combo of more testing and better. treatment. In the early days (through May!) you couldn't get tested even if you were symptomatic. Even now guidance is to only get tested if symptomatic or known exposure for >15min in close proximity. So there's going to be a lot of misses. But not 10X.

[mike81]

Originally Posted by marting

Might have been true in April in the USA and it might be true Worldwide but it obviously isn't true in the USA currently.

Current USA Cases: 16.3M. 10x would be 163M. Population is 330M. That would be 49% of the USA population is/was infected. We would be seeing significant effects from herd immunity were that the case given all the NPIs in place.

The USA as a whole is currently at .09% cumulative deaths. New Jersey, 8.8M people, has had a cumulative death that went over .2% Currently, NJ case counts are ramping up strongly and deaths, which lag about 3 weeks after diagnosis, are ramping too. About doubling every two weeks. CFR has been down to about 1.5-2% from 12% back in April/May. Probably a combo of more testing and better. treatment. In the early days (through May!) you couldn't get tested even if you were symptomatic. Even now guidance is to only get tested if symptomatic or known exposure for >15min in close proximity. So there's going to be a lot of misses. But not 10X.

The CDC disagrees. You have some info that they do not?